Healthcare Bill

[7starmantis]

While the bill is unpopular, if you poll people individuals on the entitlements themselves, they are almost all popular and most enjoy big double digit leads. If those stay, repealing the rest will only increase the deficit (e.g, if you repeal the mandates and taxes). Let me give you an example. It hasn't even been two days, and already Republicans don't want to repeal the entitlements:

(Start at 4:30)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-Lm623M-g[/YOUTUBE]

If already they are backing off on what 'starting over' means, I don't see much hope when people actually see the benefits, do you?

well, I'm not sure that an individual republican sound bite from CNN is the bugle call for the republican party. I also am not convinced it will be the republican party doing the changes. I'm just as pissed at a lot of repubs as I am with dems. My fury isn't partisan here! lol

Although the wording from the interviewer was hilarious. If anything though, I think this shows not a backing from repeals, but a proof of sorts that even repubs agreed with some of the things in the bill. I dont find any of those things stated as being terrible, its the specific issues that the repubs disagreed with that are in danger of being repealed.

Now you're just making stuff up. I know for a fact that the work at TDI has not been "debunked" and you can't just dismiss the fact that we spend 50% more on health care and see less than no benefit just because you want to.

And people don't come to America for the health care system. They come to America for a procedure because our health care technology is the best. I said that already.

But it's pretty obvious from your posts that you exist to be obstructionist and are pretty dependent on your minority view. You've offered no evidence that your views are correct even in the slightest, yet you keep spouting them as fact. You're also at a minimum, borderline hostile to anyone who disagrees with you. Keep drinking the Kool-aid and keep pretending that we have better health care outcomes than other developed countries. We don't. That is indisputable, recorded fact.

Wow. Well, attacking me personally while providing no sources isn't solving much. I'm sorry if you think I'm being hostile, I dont feel hostile one bit. I'm pretty straightforward and frank when I talk, see no need to candy coat things. Thats not hostility, just my unwillingness to use tact.

I agree with you about the technology. Thats my point. You have to define the terms "healthcare system" and "outcomes" and such to really have a serious discussion about this. However, you really should offer sources for your claims especially when saying others aren't offering sources. Also, calling my view minority might hold weight in this thread, but polling suggests otherwise. Not to mention 84% of Americans love their healthcare. I mean we can do this all day. Why not just post your sources for your "indisputable recorded facts" and be done with me?

Actually a better idea would probably just agree to disagree and be done with the argument altogether.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

well, I'm not sure that an individual republican sound bite from CNN is the bugle call for the republican party. I also am not convinced it will be the republican party doing the changes. I'm just as pissed at a lot of repubs as I am with dems. My fury isn't partisan here! lol

Although the wording from the interviewer was hilarious. If anything though, I think this shows not a backing from repeals, but a proof of sorts that even repubs agreed with some of the things in the bill. I dont find any of those things stated as being terrible, its the specific issues that the repubs disagreed with that are in danger of being repealed.



Wow. Well, attacking me personally while providing no sources isn't solving much. I'm sorry if you think I'm being hostile, I dont feel hostile one bit. I'm pretty straightforward and frank when I talk, see no need to candy coat things. Thats not hostility, just my unwillingness to use tact.

I agree with you about the technology. Thats my point. You have to define the terms "healthcare system" and "outcomes" and such to really have a serious discussion about this. However, you really should offer sources for your claims especially when saying others aren't offering sources. Also, calling my view minority might hold weight in this thread, but polling suggests otherwise. Not to mention 84% of Americans love their healthcare. I mean we can do this all day. Why not just post your sources for your "indisputable recorded facts" and be done with me?

Actually a better idea would probably just agree to disagree and be done with the argument altogether.

Very well, I accept your terms of a cease fire, but I did provide sources. Check above. You'll find them very graphy!

In the future, don't just say my sources are BS (I have good reason to believe they're not). Demonstrate that they aren't. Link to something or at least mention where you got your information so I can check for myself. I'm not against listening to the other side, but you need to give me more to work with than just your say so.

Here is the stuff I was talking about.

Health care spending and LE:

http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226...070f970c-800wi

Additionally, look at the US trend of health care expedature and GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:He...ts_USA_GDP.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:In...as_%25_GDP.png

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,33..._1_1_1,00.html

The second link is to the excel file the wikipedia graphs are from.

How does this represent a system that is solvent let alone the best in the world? Unless you want to make the argument that all other nations have health care costs that are rising this rapidly. Our system is quantifiably terrible in comparison.

 

[Lokhtar]

Although the wording from the interviewer was hilarious. If anything though, I think this shows not a backing from repeals, but a proof of sorts that even repubs agreed with some of the things in the bill. I dont find any of those things stated as being terrible, its the specific issues that the repubs disagreed with that are in danger of being repealed.

Right, so what do you think will be repealed?

 

[7starmantis]

Here is the stuff I was talking about.

Health care spending and LE:

http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi

Additionally, look at the US trend of health care expedature and GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Health_costs_USA_GDP.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_33929_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html

The second link is to the excel file the wikipedia graphs are from.

How does this represent a system that is solvent let alone the best in the world? Unless you want to make the argument that all other nations have health care costs that are rising this rapidly. Our system is quantifiably terrible in comparison.

See this is my point, we need to define our terms to discuss. I see your coming from a monetary point about the system. Thats fine and I agree with you there, completely. You seem to be arguing against the idea that no changes need to be made. I've never said anything close. We need massive changes, I just dont think this bill 1.) makes those changes 2.) is consistent with the constitution and 3.) is supported by the American people.

The idea that we pay more means our system sucks is just not logical. Sure there are problems that need to be addressed, but to say our healthcare system is piss poor is just not true.

Although your extensive sources list (wiki and all) probably needs some attention.

It gets rid of some of the terrible deals (and that prick Nelson is going to vote against reconciliation - way to redeem yourself man), adds the popular student loan reform, closes the donut hole, etc. - all of which seem fairly popular.

Are you serious? "Fairly popular"? Not even close. In fact thats why some were stuck on this bill, the votes (even in the democratic party) were not there to pass them alone.

 

[7starmantis]

Very well, I accept your terms of a cease fire, but I did provide sources. Check above. You'll find them very graphy!

In the future, don't just say my sources are BS (I have good reason to believe they're not). Demonstrate that they aren't. Link to something or at least mention where you got your information so I can check for myself. I'm not against listening to the other side, but you need to give me more to work with than just your say so.

I can agree with that, I mostly haven't been offering sources because I'm lazy. I did so in the begining on these threads and then they all got merged, 176485 more came out, and I just got tired of repeating myself!

Right, so what do you think will be repealed?

Meh, I'm not saying anything will actually get repealed, but I think a lot of the mandate issues will be challenged and addressed in later elections. I think the taxes will certainly be addressed as well. I think if anything this strong arm maneuver has pissed people off and now the pendulum is swinging back, if you will. I think we are going to see some massive campaigns on conservative ideals. I think smaller government will be very popular, cutting taxes, individual liberties, etc. I also think states rights will get a big bump out of all of this. I hope this is the change Obama was hoping for.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

See this is my point, we need to define our terms to discuss. I see your coming from a monetary point about the system. Thats fine and I agree with you there, completely. You seem to be arguing against the idea that no changes need to be made. I've never said anything close. We need massive changes, I just dont think this bill 1.) makes those changes 2.) is consistent with the constitution and 3.) is supported by the American people.

The idea that we pay more means our system sucks is just not logical. Sure there are problems that need to be addressed, but to say our healthcare system is piss poor is just not true.

Although your extensive sources list (wiki and all) probably needs some attention.

Wiki is often a good collection of data. I linked to the excel file that the wiki source cited. Don't worry, I'm not trying to pass off wikipedia as fact just on my say so! The source they cited is accurate though, wiki just already went through the trouble of posting the graph.

As for the the health care system, what I am saying is that we can demonstrate that it's worse than most other developed countries, yet we spend tons of money. We have to be able to find a more productive use for that cash.

Our system is pretty terrible when compared to other developed countries. It's pretty good when compared to no system at all!

Our system does need some pretty profound fixes. I'm also not a stalwart champion of the bill. I would have very much liked to see insurance across state lines, more emphasis on HSAs and tort reform couldn't hurt.



"The idea that we pay more means our system sucks is just not logical. Sure there are problems that need to be addressed, but to say our healthcare system is piss poor is just not true."

That's cause you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I say our system sucks because we pay more and realize no benefit. If we payed more and got more, I'd be fine with it, cause that's a good trade. What are we getting for all that extra money? I don't think it's that unreasonable to find you're paying more than the guy next to you, but only getting the same (or worse) product.

I also apologize for my aggressive tone. In truth, we're probably not that far off, but it's easy to get heated discussing something you care about. In a perfect world, I'd like a single payer system, but the truth of the matter is that you can't just uproot 16% of the US economy and expect everything to be hunky-dory. Other options are needed.

 

[Lokhtar]

Meh, I'm not saying anything will actually get repealed, but I think a lot of the mandate issues will be challenged and addressed in later elections. I think the taxes will certainly be addressed as well.

That's not a net negative for policy changes for the democrats. The policy is to provide healthcare entitlements. If that stays, they win on policy, if taxes get repealed and entitlements stay, all you have is a bigger deficit.

If mandate goes away, and entitlements stay, the Progressive Caucus of the democratic party will be jumping with glee. Howard Dean was hoping as much. It will lead to a strong public option and/or single payer for all because insurance companies won't be able to stay in business without massive hikes in premiums and government will have to step in. The biggest lobbyist for the individual mandate was the insurance companies for that reason - they are still lobbying to make the fine higher for not buying insurance. If healthy young people don't buy insurance, and they still have to cover all the sick old people - insurance companies will be screwed royally. Welcome to Single Payer.

So you don't quite realize how many liberals are hoping for a repeal of the mandate from a policy PoV. I'm not going to discuss political situation, as losing or gaining seats by either party is irrelevant to this healthcare legislation which is already passed (well the Senate one has) unless it results in changes to the entitlements that this bill provides - something that I don't see happening.

 

[7starmantis]

Our system is pretty terrible when compared to other developed countries. It's pretty good when compared to no system at all!

I say our system sucks because we pay more and realize no benefit. If we payed more and got more, I'd be fine with it, cause that's a good trade. What are we getting for all that extra money? I don't think it's that unreasonable to find you're paying more than the guy next to you, but only getting the same (or worse) product.

I also apologize for my aggressive tone. In truth, we're probably not that far off, but it's easy to get heated discussing something you care about. In a perfect world, I'd like a single payer system, but the truth of the matter is that you can't just uproot 16% of the US economy and expect everything to be hunky-dory. Other options are needed.

Well, your just not correct about receiving nothing. Just off the top of my head, look at cancer survival rates among different countries. That would qualify as something in my mind.

No apology needed, things do get heated and thats ok. We obviously have strong feelings which I think is a good thing.

That's not a net negative for policy changes for the democrats. The policy is to provide healthcare entitlements. If that stays, they win on policy, if taxes get repealed and entitlements stay, all you have is a bigger deficit.

No no, I agree with you completely. I just dont think the entitlements have to stay "entitlements". What I mean is that a true restructuring of the insurance system (ie getting away from employment, etc) will help to do away with the needed entitlement programs. If another party candidate has enough success to be elected and change things like mandates, I dont see it unreasonable that some of the entitlements could be changed as well. We dont need a mandate to purchase insurance if we address some of the real issues with insurance the debacle. Does that make sense? I'm trying to run out the door and type at the same time!

I'm sure when I get back I wont even be able to find the responses to this let alone reply!!

 

[startswithb]

Anyone interested in the argument that Obama's executive order on abortion violates the separation of powers? Article 1.

 

[Lokhtar]

No no, I agree with you completely. I just dont think the entitlements have to stay "entitlements". What I mean is that a true restructuring of the insurance system (ie getting away from employment, etc) will help to do away with the needed entitlement programs. If another party candidate has enough success to be elected and change things like mandates, I dont see it unreasonable that some of the entitlements could be changed as well. We dont need a mandate to purchase insurance if we address some of the real issues with insurance the debacle. Does that make sense? I'm trying to run out the door and type at the same time!

I'm sure when I get back I wont even be able to find the responses to this let alone reply!!

I see what you're saying, but it's like changing medicare. Changing something people are unhappy with is one thing, but changing massively something that people like - and I bet most people will like not being denied coverage or staying in parent's plans until 26 - will be very difficult. The momentum required to change something that based on a purely philosophical world view of what government should or should not do is pretty unheard of in politics.

Anyone interested in the argument that Obama's executive order on abortion violates the separation of powers? Article 1.

It might, if it did anything. In effect, what it says is that 'My administration supports the current law.'

 

[Lokhtar]

Update: It's official. The President has just signed the Senate healthcare bill into law. The 90 day clock to first benefits begins today.

And there is a very unlikely, but a legitimately small chance, that the public option could reappear. There seem to be 50 votes in the Senate for it, and the House did pass it last year with 220 votes. Since now with reconcilliation you only need 51 votes (or 50 + Biden) - it was removed because there weren't 60 votes for it due to Lieberman. It's risky because it means the House would have to vote on it again, but the Progressive Caucus is clamoring for its inclusion while Reid, Obama and Pelosi think it's too risky and they're not sure if they have the votes.

 

[7starmantis]

I see what you're saying, but it's like changing medicare. Changing something people are unhappy with is one thing, but changing massively something that people like - and I bet most people will like not being denied coverage or staying in parent's plans until 26 - will be very difficult. The momentum required to change something that based on a purely philosophical world view of what government should or should not do is pretty unheard of in politics.

I dont see it that way at all. Your using the example of two things that I dont think necessarily need to be changed. although I wouldn't cry to see the 26 year old deal changed. There are plenty of other issues that can and will be addressed, not the least of which is the constitutional issues already being addressed.

 

[7starmantis]

Update: It's official. The President has just signed the Senate healthcare bill into law. The 90 day clock to first benefits begins today.

Would also be interested to hear why you think we will see benefits in the 90 day period.

 

[Untraditional]

Soooo.... how many of you are going to withdraw now that we're doomed to poverty?

 

[Lokhtar]

Would also be interested to hear why you think we will see benefits in the 90 day period.

Because the law mandates that insurers from that point on won't be able to deny children born with pre-existing conditions and people under 26 can still stay on parents plan. Insurance companies who don't allow this would be in violation of the law.

Also, the law calls for insurance high risk exchange pools to be set up in 90 days with $5 billion in Federal funding for those with pre-existing conditions to buy health insurance.


So all those will happen as mandated by law.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Well, your just not correct about receiving nothing. Just off the top of my head, look at cancer survival rates among different countries. That would qualify as something in my mind.

No apology needed, things do get heated and thats ok. We obviously have strong feelings which I think is a good thing.

That is definitely a fair point. One our medical technology advantages is that we do very well with the rarer cancers as we have access to more meds.

The trade off is that we get much worse infant mortality for instance. We get some things, but we lose other things so I called it a wash. I suppose if you tallied it all up you'd get a swing in the less or more direction, but not nearly in congruence with the amount of cash we're throwing around. So, you are correct, we may not be getting nothing, but we're getting a statistical nothing. Our return on investment is terrible when compared to the average. The question is, what do we do about it?

Imagine how much our LE would go up if we put some of that to combating infant mortality!

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

Lokthar, I'm happy that someone who actually read the bill seems happy with a lot of the provisions. I hate the tout, "if only you KNEW, if only! If only you KNEW what they hid in the bill, OoOoOhhh if only!! 2000 pages is far too many to responsibly reform 1/6 of our economy, way too many! It's TWICE as long as Harry Potter 5, TWICE!!!"

 

[morning]

Would also be interested to hear why you think we will see benefits in the 90 day period.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/16/health.care.immediate/index.html

It will be very, very amusing to see the Republicans campaigning on taking a child's newfound health insurance away.

 

[casualremark]

Point #1: That is quite a statement to make. This bill is quite lucrative for private insurance, it forces extra people into their service and offers money to individuals to purchase said required insurance. The only way private insurance is going away is if additional legislation is drafted to do so and that is impossible in this political climate (which is unlikely to change that dramatically). However, for reasons I can't understand people keep stating it as if saying it will make it true.

Short-term revenue isn't the only part of a solvency equation. The bill will require insurance companies to accept exponentially-higher risk people, omit lifetime caps, provide a ridiculous level of benefits, the likelihood of those 'benefits' to cause harm and increase expenses further should not be ignored. Not to mention the whole 'front loading funding' and backloading expenses (if they're even included at all!)' debacle.

Moreover, what I don't understand is how people can say individuals will have the ability to purchase a private health insurance policy when that policy will only be available through a public (read: government) exchange. ???!!! Oh, sorry Ms. Smith, we can't sell you that widget here at our Private Individual Store, go check Uncle Sam's Store around the corner, they have some packaged as "Private" over there. I mean seriously, regulations are one thing, but Am I missing something?? Exchanges...Cooperatives...no RED flags for anyone else here?! Not to mention that pesky issue of the Constitution. This says it better than I could:

“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” Cuccinelli said. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”
The Virginia attorney general added: “Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the US Constitution’s commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...11-states-poised-to-challenge-healthcare-bill

Point #2: The problem is, you're not the only one taking a risk when you don't buy insurance. If you fall and get taken to the ER, you get billed. If you don't have insurance and can't pay, the hospital has to make up the money they lost treating you somewhere. They do that by charging people who actually pay for their medical care more. In essence, by choosing not to get health insurance you are statistically screwing me, as someone who buys insurance.[/QUOTE]
That's rather my point. The natural consequenses do not apply to my anti-societal behavior as a result of socialism. Kind of ironic, ain't it?

While you yourself might not have any health care expenses you can't pay, if you average out all Americans who choose not to buy insurance some of them will charge up a tab, that I'm going to be stuck paying.

Let's take a closer look at that diction: "While you yourself might not..." "...if you average out all Americans..." "I'm going to be stuck paying..."
Philosophy differences, indeed! As well, I do note a hint of inconsistency in your taking issue with being stuck paying for someone else's expenses.

It this respect, it mirrors the idea of requiring auto-insurance for all drivers and nobody argues about that.

1) Logic FAIL
2) See that quote I pasted above about regulating interstate commerce vs. regulating being alive? Yeah that.

There are only two ways I can think of to prevent this, either allow hospitals to refuse all service to those who cannot afford to pay, or force everyone to get insurance. Take your pick.

I have an idea: abandon the idea of health care as a right to be secured by the federal government for its residents. Ouch. Yeah, I said it. Bring it on, future docs...
Ahh, but alas, such discussion is not likely to be very fruitful in today's culture & climate.

 

[Bernoull]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/16/health.care.immediate/index.html

It will be very, very amusing to see the Republicans campaigning on taking a child's newfound health insurance away.

Somehow they can do and sleep at night, they fought tooth and nail against SCHIP - health insurance for children.

The GOP has no

All they care about are cutting taxes for rich people, tea-baggin corporate scrota, waging wars and ramming us with their misguided, intolerant theocratic/social agenda...thumbdown

Healthcare is NOT a GOP priority. They have NO VIABLE PLAN, all they have offered is baseless lies, fear-mongering, obstructionism etc etc. Rather than solving national issues, there only concern is midterm electioneering, so much for GOP leadership...

 

[Drad18]

Yup, it's funny though. I've just been reading this thread, and some of the posts are so hilarious in their ignorance (on both sides). I just have no clue where they get their information from!


You should see the first benefits in 90 days. First ones will apply to many in this forum (ability to stay on your parents health plan until your 27th birthday).

I agree SDN needs more people like you to stop this unnecessary panic!


Let this be a learning example hopefully to research before speaking and you know who you are.


You are very accurate. Did you already correct this?

the age you will be covered under your parents health plan due to the amended bill will be until age 26 not until your 27.

 

[Lokhtar]

I agree SDN needs more people like you to stop this unnecessary panic!


Let this be a learning example hopefully to research before speaking and you know who you are.


You are very accurate however correct me if I am wrong: the age you will be covered under your parents health plan due to the amended bill will be until age 26 not until your 27.

You are correct, it was changed from an earlier version:

"A group health plan and a health
insurance issuer offering group or individual health insur-
ance coverage that provides dependent coverage of children
shall continue to make such coverage available for an adult
child (who is not married) until the child turns 26 years
of age.

Source: SEC. 2714. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

Lokthar, I'm happy that someone who actually read the bill seems happy with a lot of the provisions. I hate the tout, "if only you KNEW, if only! If only you KNEW what they hid in the bill, OoOoOhhh if only!! 2000 pages is far too many to responsibly reform 1/6 of our economy, way too many! It's TWICE as long as Harry Potter 5, TWICE!!!"

Yea, as always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The bill is too big and slamming it on a desk was just a political prop. There is no way you could do what it does without being really huge. On the other hand, there are some provisions in there which you read and you just laugh because it;s clear it was only put it in there to get a specific vote. That just makes it like every other legislation.

Of course, on a random note, if I handed it in a school and I had a 2000 page requirement, I'd fail. It's 1000 pages at best, and the rest is extra spacing and empty spaces - standard undergraduate tricks.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Update: It's official. The President has just signed the Senate healthcare bill into law. The 90 day clock to first benefits begins today.

And there is a very unlikely, but a legitimately small chance, that the public option could reappear. There seem to be 50 votes in the Senate for it, and the House did pass it last year with 220 votes. Since now with reconcilliation you only need 51 votes (or 50 + Biden) - it was removed because there weren't 60 votes for it due to Lieberman. It's risky because it means the House would have to vote on it again, but the Progressive Caucus is clamoring for its inclusion while Reid, Obama and Pelosi think it's too risky and they're not sure if they have the votes.

Wow ... if they end up including this.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Short-term revenue isn't the only part of a solvency equation. The bill will require insurance companies to accept exponentially-higher risk people, omit lifetime caps, provide a ridiculous level of benefits, the likelihood of those 'benefits' to cause harm and increase expenses further should not be ignored. Not to mention the whole 'front loading funding' and backloading expenses (if they're even included at all!)' debacle.

It's not short term revenue if it's consistent. It's not like people will be dropping their policies. Actuaries will recalculate risk and assign premiums as appropriate. However, that is besides the point. It is still premature to call the death of private insurance, precisely because the situation is complicated. I'd also object to the level of benefits being called "ridiculous".

Moreover, what I don't understand is how people can say individuals will have the ability to purchase a private health insurance policy when that policy will only be available through a public (read: government) exchange. ???!!! Oh, sorry Ms. Smith, we can't sell you that widget here at our Private Individual Store, go check Uncle Sam's Store around the corner, they have some packaged as "Private" over there. I mean seriously, regulations are one thing, but Am I missing something?? Exchanges...Cooperatives...no RED flags for anyone else here?! Not to mention that pesky issue of the Constitution. This says it better than I could:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...11-states-poised-to-challenge-healthcare-bill

You are not forced to buy insurance through these Cooperatives. It may however, provide a cheaper alternative. If you're arguing that this will become the future, that's too much of a slippery slope argument right now.

Point #2: The problem is, you're not the only one taking a risk when you don't buy insurance. If you fall and get taken to the ER, you get billed. If you don't have insurance and can't pay, the hospital has to make up the money they lost treating you somewhere. They do that by charging people who actually pay for their medical care more. In essence, by choosing not to get health insurance you are statistically screwing me, as someone who buys insurance.

That's rather my point. The natural consequenses do not apply to my anti-societal behavior as a result of socialism. Kind of ironic, ain't it?[/QUOTE]

Not really, my point is you can currently behave anti-socially and be rewarded for it. I mentioned this as a problem, so we're in agreement.

Let's take a closer look at that diction: "While you yourself might not..." "...if you average out all Americans..." "I'm going to be stuck paying..."
Philosophy differences, indeed! As well, I do note a hint of inconsistency in your taking issue with being stuck paying for someone else's expenses.

It has nothing to do with philosophy, I'm talking about math, nothing more. I'm impressed with your ability to drum up motives from nothing, however. Statistically, people who don't buy insurance will end up using health care they can't afford to pay. This cost is passed to other consumers.

2) See that quote I pasted above about regulating interstate commerce vs. regulating being alive? Yeah that.

What I am discussing is about regulating commerce. If you don't buy insurance that raises the cost of mine. That is commerce. The same thing is true if you don't buy auto insurance.

I have an idea: abandon the idea of health care as a right to be secured by the federal government for its residents. Ouch. Yeah, I said it. Bring it on, future docs...
Ahh, but alas, such discussion is not likely to be very fruitful in today's culture & climate.

That is a perfectly legitimate claim. I think it's a little hard, but to each their own. The problem is, before this legislation, health care was a de facto right. You had a right to health care in this country, but only in a bad way. You couldn't get a script for a statin, but when you had your heart attack, you would get your $30,000 heart surgery. All I'm saying here is that if we are going to subsidize the health care of the poor (which we were), we should at least do it in a way that makes good use of our money. Treat them before they become really sick and expensive, whereas right now we wait until they are.

So, I think you're left with only two options that make sense to defend. One, give people health care to reduce the number of $30,000 surgeries (ex.) we have to preform and possibly save money or make it perfectly legal for hospitals to refuse any service to someone who cannot pay for it. Both arguments are defensible.

 

[Lokhtar]

Wow ... if they end up including this.

They won't, it's too risky. Obama, Pelosi and Reid all oppose putting it in for that reason. The progressive bloc wants it though.

If you're against it, I wouldn't worry too much. It has an extremely low chance of getting through.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Wow ... if they end up including this.

I'm not comfortable with that. It might be a good idea in the long run, but I'm positive that less than 50% of America supports a public option and this is something I would not want to ram down people's throats.

 

[casualremark]

Somehow they can do and sleep at night, they fought tooth and nail against SCHIP - health insurance for children.

The GOP has no

All they care about are cutting taxes for rich people, tea-baggin corporate scrota, waging wars and ramming us with their misguided, intolerant theocratic/social agenda...thumbdown

Healthcare is NOT a GOP priority. They have NO VIABLE PLAN, all they have offered is baseless lies, fear-mongering, obstructionism etc etc. Rather than solving national issues, there only concern is midterm electioneering, so much for GOP leadership...

Are you incapable of understanding that 'wanting government out of health care' can be quite morally sound, if not more so?

 

[Lokhtar]

Get your hands off my Medicare? I don't think repealing Medicare is a position that any Republican could seriously take politically.

 

[morning]

Are you incapable of understanding that 'wanting government out of health care' can be quite morally sound, if not more so?

The idea that private insurance companies are ever going to regulate themselves in a humane manner is as fanciful and idealistic as the idea that communism can create a prosperous society. I've always taken a middle view on these issues.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

The idea that private insurance companies are ever going to regulate themselves in a humane manner is as fanciful and idealistic as the idea that communism can create a prosperous society. I've always taken a middle view on these issues.

100 points.

 

[Bernoull]

Are you incapable of understanding that 'wanting government out of health care' can be quite morally sound, if not more so?

Morally sound is providing access to healthcare to American. What's immoral is the current system where insurers can rescind one's policy when you get sick, deny you coverage bcos you had been sick etc etc. Republicans support the immoral status quo and that is tragic.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

"Don't touch my medicare, I don't want your government run health insurance!"

 

[morning]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/pols.dems.vandalized/

Early Monday morning, a glass panel at the Tucson office of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, was shattered, spokesman C.J. Karamargin said. It wasn't clear how the window was shattered, but visitors have to go through a gated courtyard to enter the office, and staffers suspect someone may have shot a pellet gun at the glass, he said.
Nothing was taken from the congresswoman's office, Karamargin said.

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/st...-Leads-to-Threats/TAZWZcNqz0aapIAGYDut-A.cspx

The same day a brick crashed through her Niagara Falls office, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) says her staff discovered an assassination threat aimed at her family members. The Democratic headquarters in Rochester was also targeted.

No one was inside when the brick was hurled through the Democratic Patry Headquarters on University Avenue. Attached was a note quoting conservative Barry Goldwater: “Exremism [sic] in defense of liberty is no vice”...Slaughter has been at the center of the push for reform. Last Thursday she received a chilling recorded message at her campaign office. “Assassinate is the word they used…toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes."

The FBI is now investigating

 

[royalewthcheese]

The idea that private insurance companies are ever going to regulate themselves in a humane manner is as fanciful and idealistic as the idea that communism can create a prosperous society. I've always taken a middle view on these issues.

I tend to agree with everything you post. Nice!

Morally sound is providing access to healthcare to American. What's immoral is the current system where insurers can rescind one's policy when you get sick, deny you coverage bcos you had been sick etc etc. Republicans support the immoral status quo and that is tragic.

I also appreciate what you add to the threads I read aimlessly to kill time during the day... and re: this post, I would have to say that most people who say things like "I don't want gov't to interfere" are usually spoonfed that nonsense from their parents starting at an early age and have never been exposed to how the world actually works (or doesn't work) for many people.

"Don't touch my medicare, I don't want your government run health insurance!"

LMAO!

 

[7starmantis]

Because the law mandates that insurers from that point on won't be able to deny children born with pre-existing conditions and people under 26 can still stay on parents plan. Insurance companies who don't allow this would be in violation of the law.

Also, the law calls for insurance high risk exchange pools to be set up in 90 days with $5 billion in Federal funding for those with pre-existing conditions to buy health insurance.

So all those will happen as mandated by law.

Gotcha, I was thinking of more of the mandate type effects. I agree with you about these, although I doubt it will make it through everything in 90 days. but soon afterwards I'm sure.

The trade off is that we get much worse infant mortality for instance. We get some things, but we lose other things so I called it a wash. I suppose if you tallied it all up you'd get a swing in the less or more direction, but not nearly in congruence with the amount of cash we're throwing around. So, you are correct, we may not be getting nothing, but we're getting a statistical nothing. Our return on investment is terrible when compared to the average. The question is, what do we do about it?

You have a great point. We do in fact spend way too much, although I dont see how this bill realistically changes that aside from "redistributing" (sorry best word I could come up with on the fly) the cost.

However, the infant mortality issue is really not as clear cut as many think. I dont really think its a great example here. But regardless, I agree with your main point. Wait, did we just agree?

Somehow they can do and sleep at night, they fought tooth and nail against SCHIP - health insurance for children.

All they care about are cutting taxes for rich people, tea-baggin corporate scrota, waging wars and ramming us with their misguided, intolerant theocratic/social agenda...thumbdown

Healthcare is NOT a GOP priority. They have NO VIABLE PLAN, all they have offered is baseless lies, fear-mongering, obstructionism etc etc. Rather than solving national issues, there only concern is midterm electioneering, so much for GOP leadership...

Republicans support the immoral status quo and that is tragic.

Wow, speaking of intolerance.....

Look, I think you are a reasonable person, and I used to really take your posts seriously. But to spout such blatant halve truths and partisan bias talking points is doing nothing for the discussion.

I mean seriously, they opposed increasing SCHIP, not SCHIP itself, they have many viable plans just not massive overhaul plans, blah blah blah. C'mon man, lets at least be reasonable in our bias. "teabaggin scrota"? Seriously? Speaking of corporate though, this bill suits the corporate insurance quite well dont you think?

I've never put anyone on ignore here on SDN, but this is just ridiculous. Lets at last have a serious discussion apart from emotionally charged verbal diarrhea like this.

 

[morning]

Gotcha, I was thinking of more of the mandate type effects. I agree with you about these, although I doubt it will make it through everything in 90 days. but soon afterwards I'm sure.


You have a great point. We do in fact spend way too much, although I dont see how this bill realistically changes that aside from "redistributing" (sorry best word I could come up with on the fly) the cost.

However, the infant mortality issue is really not as clear cut as many think. I dont really think its a great example here. But regardless, I agree with your main point. Wait, did we just agree?





Wow, speaking of intolerance.....

Look, I think you are a reasonable person, and I used to really take your posts seriously. But to spout such blatant halve truths and partisan bias talking points is doing nothing for the discussion.

I mean seriously, they opposed increasing SCHIP, not SCHIP itself, they have many viable plans just not massive overhaul plans, blah blah blah. C'mon man, lets at least be reasonable in our bias. "teabaggin scrota"? Seriously? Speaking of corporate though, this bill suits the corporate insurance quite well dont you think?

I've never put anyone on ignore here on SDN, but this is just ridiculous. Lets at last have a serious discussion apart from emotionally charged verbal diarrhea like this.

Our maternal mortality rate is also the 40th best in the world. I get that there's fuzziness in the infant mortality statistics - attempting to save more premature babies, etc - but what's complicated about our maternal mortality rate? We have lower life expectancy than Cuba.

Republicans do not have "many viable plans." That's just wishful thinking. They were in power for almost a decade - if they had "many viable plans" they would have attempted to enact said "many viable plans." Or are you saying that they have these ideas and plans but just didn't feel like doing anything about it at any point when they had a Republican president and controlled both chambers of Congress?

 

[7starmantis]

Our maternal mortality rate is also the 40th best in the world. I get that there's fuzziness in the infant mortality statistics - attempting to save more premature babies, etc - but what's complicated about our maternal mortality rate? We have lower life expectancy than Cuba.

Republicans do not have "many viable plans." That's just wishful thinking. They were in power for almost a decade - if they had "many viable plans" they would have attempted to enact said "many viable plans." Or are you saying that they have these ideas and plans but just didn't feel like doing anything about it at any point when they had a Republican president and controlled both chambers of Congress?

This is getting tiresome. The Cuba stat, really? There is just so much wrong with using these kinds of differing stats as comparable. I'm not going to research and re-post all of it. If that means you win, fine you win. Who cares?

You might want to research logical fallacies a bit as your last several posts I've seen contain prominent ones. "If someone had a plan for the current issue it would have been done earlier. Since it wasn't done earlier, no one has a plan".

I'm out guys, have fun this is so pointless since we all have so much power to change each others minds here. This is a very complex issue containing lots of fixes, some of which most everyone agrees with, some of which most dont agree with, some of which a few agree with, some of which a few disagree with, and every myriad of possibilities in between.

Have fun.

 

[morning]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it. By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."
The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

This is getting tiresome. The Cuba stat, really? There is just so much wrong with using these kinds of differing stats as comparable. I'm not going to research and re-post all of it. If that means you win, fine you win. Who cares?

You might want to research logical fallacies a bit as your last several posts I've seen contain prominent ones. "If someone had a plan for the current issue it would have been done earlier. Since it wasn't done earlier, no one has a plan".

I'm out guys, have fun this is so pointless since we all have so much power to change each others minds here. This is a very complex issue containing lots of fixes, some of which most everyone agrees with, some of which most dont agree with, some of which a few agree with, some of which a few disagree with, and every myriad of possibilities in between.

Have fun.

Alright, I'm curious. Why do you think our maternal survival rate (per 1000 pregnancies) is worse than, let's say Canada?

And yes, we did agree about something.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Wow, speaking of intolerance.....

Have you not dealt with liberals before? They are the most open-minded, accepting people you know ... unless you disagree with their ideology in the slightest. Then they hate, scorn, and mock you as a racist, ignorant, homophobic, fool - and reject you completely. The irony makes me laugh every time.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Have you not dealt with liberals before? They are the most open-minded, accepting people you know ... unless you disagree with their ideology in the slightest. Then they hate, scorn, and mock you as a racist, ignorant, homophobic, fool - and reject you completely. The irony makes me laugh every time.

I think it's more hypocrisy than irony. It goes to show how difficult it is to overcome our baser instincts. Shunning the "other" is pretty ingrained in us, not that it makes us okay.

 

[FlowRate]

Have you not dealt with liberals before? They are the most open-minded, accepting people you know ... unless you disagree with their ideology in the slightest. Then they hate, scorn, and mock you as a racist, ignorant, homophobic, fool - and reject you completely. The irony makes me laugh every time.

I hate to get into partisan bashing, but it bothers me how when you disagree with a "liberal" (incorrect usage of liberal, but at least everyone knows what I mean), they call you "closed-minded." The political/social connotations of different insults used by each "party" are really interesting.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I'm not comfortable with that. It might be a good idea in the long run, but I'm positive that less than 50% of America supports a public option and this is something I would not want to ram down people's throats.

I'm glad you feel this way ... however, I can't help but chuckle at the fact that according to the poles, 54% of American's opposed the current version of reform and only 41% supported the plan that was, in my opinion, 'rammed down our throats.' I know people say it's because we don't understand it (at 2.5k pages ... I don't think that's our fault, the congress hasn't even read that bitch) or that people support the provisions but have a knee jerk reaction to the bill as a whole, BUT ... it still feels, to me, a lot like what you outlined above

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

(updated March 2010)

 

[Lokhtar]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

I am not going to comment on whether this bill was good (in my opinion) or not, but people who are banking on the 55% who oppose the bill staying that way are not living in the real world. When the benefits start coming, that number will decrease. How much it does, and how much Democrats can take advantage of that is a different story. Its a miderm election, so Dems will lose seats no doubt (only twice since the civil war has the majority with the President not lost seats), but how much they will lose will probably depend on unemployment at the time.

I dont think this bill will really affect them as negatively as some pundits suggest, especially if, as Obama is saying, he starts doing campaign style rallies and keeps driving home the message of the benefits. Republicans have to keep mentioning taxes and mandates - but they have a problem. The mandate doesnt begin until 2014. So they will be rallying against a mandate that doesnt exist yet while trying their best to answer questions on entitlements that ALREADY are helping people and that they voted against.

Can Democrats turn that into an offensive strategy instead of playing defense like they have been? I dont know - a better political analyst than me can answer that question. But I do suspect (though obviously its an opinion) that the healthcare angst will not help Republicans as much as some think - now if we still have 10% unemployment, that certainly will.

Just my personal 2 cents.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I hate to get into partisan bashing, but it bothers me how when you disagree with a "liberal" (incorrect usage of liberal, but at least everyone knows what I mean), they call you "closed-minded." The political/social connotations of different insults used by each "party" are really interesting.

My point was that liberals (the left, democrats, however you'd like it put - the current democratic supporters in the US) pride themselves on being so open minded, and accepting of all ways, shapes, and forms, BUT the reality is that they are only open and accepting of those who share their viewpoints, and very, very quick to dismiss and label those who think differently. The Republicans may be 'closed-minded' (I agree that this is a generalization just as much as my own), but they don't tout themselves otherwise.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I think it's more hypocrisy than irony. It goes to show how difficult it is to overcome our baser instincts. Shunning the "other" is pretty ingrained in us, not that it makes us okay.

Good point. To be fair ... it's a generalization more than anything, which is never a good thing. I clearly lean right, but shudder at the idea of being lashed into a category with people who don't believe in evolution and want a ban on stem cell research, just as the same way I'm sure others here vote left, but wouldn't want to be completely labeled as some liberal, extreme, leftist.

 

[Lokhtar]

I'm glad you feel this way ... however, I can't help but chuckle at the fact that according to the poles, 54% of American's opposed the current version of reform and only 41% supported the plan that was, in my opinion, 'rammed down our throats.' I know people say it's because we don't understand it (at 2.5k pages ... I don't think that's our fault, the congress hasn't even read that bitch) or that people support the provisions but have a knee jerk reaction to the bill as a whole, BUT ... it still feels, to me, a lot like what you outlined above

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

(updated March 2010)

Well I have read it, and as I said before, it's not quite 2000 pages of reading. It's more like 900-1000, and while I could potentially see it being reduced to 800 or so by taking out some stuff, you really can't make it much smaller if you are going to tackle something as complex as healthcare. I know some people on the right want easily understandable bills that Sarah Palin can write on her palm, but it's not going to work with a system as convoluted as healthcare. Or you leave big holes in coverage (*cough* donut hole *cough*) or miss things completely.

On the other hand, the people on the left who are defending every part of the bill should read some parts which are designed clearly to buy off votes. Not that this makes it any different than any other bill, but it's there and it does make it more beaurocratic than it needs to be.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

I'm glad you feel this way ... however, I can't help but chuckle at the fact that according to the poles, 54% of American's opposed the current version of reform and only 41% supported the plan that was, in my opinion, 'rammed down our throats.' I know people say it's because we don't understand it (at 2.5k pages ... I don't think that's our fault, the congress hasn't even read that bitch) or that people support the provisions but have a knee jerk reaction to the bill as a whole, BUT ... it still feels, to me, a lot like what you outlined above

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

(updated March 2010)

Of course, now somebody here claimed there is a new poll saying 49-40% favoribility for the legislation after it cleared the house. I cannot verify this, but I wouldn't put it past public opinion to take an upswing now that this looks like it's behind us.

I think the negative opinion of the bill has more to do with how contentious and drawn out the process was. Really turned a lot of people off I feel.

 

[wjdghks]

John McCain: There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Haha, butthurt republicans are now planning to act like 8 year old kids who had their toy taken away from them.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I am not going to comment on whether this bill was good (in my opinion) or not, but people who are banking on the 55% who oppose the bill staying that way are not living in the real world. When the benefits start coming, that number will decrease. How much it does, and how much Democrats can take advantage of that is a different story. Its a miderm election, so Dems will lose seats no doubt (only twice since the civil war has the majority with the President not lost seats), but how much they will lose will probably depend on unemployment at the time.

I dont think this bill will really affect them as negatively as some pundits suggest, especially if, as Obama is saying, he starts doing campaign style rallies and keeps driving home the message of the benefits. Republicans have to keep mentioning taxes and mandates - but they have a problem. The mandate doesnt begin until 2014. So they will be rallying against a mandate that doesnt exist yet while trying their best to answer questions on entitlements that ALREADY are helping people and that they voted against.

Can Democrats turn that into an offensive strategy instead of playing defense like they have been? I dont know - a better political analyst than me can answer that question. But I do suspect (though obviously its an opinion) that the healthcare angst will not help Republicans as much as some think - now if we still have 10% unemployment, that certainly will.

Just my personal 2 cents.

Here's my issue ... you're essentially riding on the idea that people like the perks of the legislation, but have some knee jerk reaction and automatically dismiss the bill as a whole. I can see that. Here is my issue ...

You say things like 'when the benefits start rolling in.' I feel this is unfair, and the reason why is because the short term isn't going to be like the long term. I think the benefits are going to be viewed way quicker than the cost, strain, etc catches up, and this is going to create a false sense of 'yes we can,' before 2014 when everything really gears up. My guess is that this will will seem great for the first few years, but not so much as time goes on and on.