MSNBC reports "young people" to see a 17% rise in insurance premiums

[Chuck61686]

And just for the record I DO SUPPORT HEALTHCARE REFORM (so yes, oldtimer you can count me in on that 60% in that old poll of yours). But I certainly I do not favor reform that ignores common sense solutions like TORT reform (granted, expecting common sense from congress these days is a long shot). This bill was hustled through congress using a controversial trick and key votes came from backroom deals. Not to mention vote #60 in the senate version was cast by someone who wasn't even elected.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[renetto]

I surmise the wishes of the majority must not matter in a democracy?

Definitely not.

For example, let's all vote on the sex of my dog. No matter what wins, male or female, it's not going to change his gender.

 

[Chuck61686]

Definitely not.

For example, let's all vote on the sex of my dog. No matter what wins, male or female, it's not going to change his gender.

So let's just abolish election day. After all the opinion of the majority doesn't matter anyways

 

[iknow]

When that poll showing 60% supported healthcare reform, it was probably long before the Louisiana Purchase, the Gator Aid, and the Cornhusker Kickback.

I tend to base my reasoning on the most recent data at my disposal. You've been a pharmacist long before I was born, surely this makes sense to you, right?

Since you're that smart and updated do you realize that many of those who disapprove Obama's HC bill disapprove because it is not "socialist" enough?

Oh and here I found an article of someone who sees it as it is- It's not about healthcare- and you know it.

Some Points

1. "The bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas"

2. "That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964"

3. "The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play."

4. "Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that’s the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html


By the way, you say you're not a "racist" which I'll believe, but you do have something personal against Obama- this is why you keep posting his image and keep mentioning his name. Like this is all about him. Can you please share your ideas on how you would fix our healthcare system?

 

[UArk2014]

I surmise the wishes of the majority must not matter in a democracy?

Yes, if this were Athens around the turn of the century, but this is a Democratic Republic. The wishes of the majority of elected officials is what matters. The whims of a highly mislead public are not sufficient to derail one of the most important economic rescue efforts in 3 decades. Regardless, you can find polls to back up whatever opinion you have.

I just did:
http://http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/polls-indicate-support-for-health-care-reform-has-increased-since-sunday-vote/?fbid=A_354opO_vv

60 votes is not a constitutional necessity.
You won't find the word "filibuster" in the constitution.
The "tricks" you complain about were used 32 times by Republicans. (reconciliation) Including when they passed the largest tax cut for the wealthy in history. You know, the one that makes Warren Buffet's receptionist pay a higher effective tax rate than he does?
If you don't like the kickbacks and backroom deals; support campaign finance reform, check the $3 box on your tax return, and push for completely publicly financed elections. Until money is not a motivator, the kickbacks are a way of life. Clean house as often as you like, but you will wear out your broom before they run out of scoundrels.

By the way, you've yet to substantively answer any of the questions posted to you in this forum. That's generally the sign of a weakly supported position.

 

[renetto]

So let's just abolish election day. After all the opinion of the majority doesn't matter anyways

Way to miss the point...are you that closed minded?

 

[Chuck61686]

Since you're that smart and updated do you realize that many of those who disapprove Obama's HC bill disapprove because it is not "socialist" enough?

Oh and here I found an article of someone who sees it as it is- It's not about healthcare- and you know it.

Some Points

1. "The bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas"

2. "That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964"

3. "The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play."

4. "Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that’s the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html


By the way, you say you're not a "racist" which I'll believe, but you do have something personal against Obama- this is why you keep posting his image and keep mentioning his name. Like this is all about him. Can you please share your ideas on how you would fix our healthcare system?

To answer your points:

1) I am not a Republican. I am an independent thinker. I hate how people use affiliative words like "liberal", "progressive", "conservative" and "tea bagger" as insults. And just for the record - I can't stand Mitt Romney...or GWB...or Sarah Palin before anyone brings them up.

2) The Civil Rights Act was one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history, almost as important as one signed by Abraham Lincoln nearly 100 years earlier. It should not be cheapened by comparing it to this healthcare bill.

3) Black...female...Latino...homosexual?
There we go again. This time with accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia. I have some really good friends who are black, female, Latino or homosexual. I would never think any less of someone based on their skin color, gender, race, or sexual orientation. It's quite a stereotype in and of itself to believe someone opposing this controversial bill is doing so cuz they're prejudiced.

4) You can't judge a group of people based on the actions of a few extremists. Likewise, you can not make generalizations about that group cuz some senators aren't calling out the extremists. And this brings me back to point #1, which is why I don't affiliate myself with any political party. I hate generalizations.

And yes I do have something against Obama: He's a bad president. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a great man, great father, great husband and in fact, his story is the epitome of the American Dream considering all he went through before becoming president. He's a winner at life but a failure at being president. I do realize many of our country's problems are inherited from GWB. However, BHO added gas to the fire. The unemployment rate and national debt has only deterioriated throughout his presidency and thus, as far as I'm concerned, he simply has not fulfilled his campaign promise of "change". As much as GWB's mess may have hindered him, BHO's promises did not include an asterisk.

Regarding my proposals on healthcare reform: They're long and it would make this long post much longer. Just to epitomize it, however, a key point should be that everyone in America has a SAFETY NET where you absolutely can not lose your house, lifetimes savings, car and pets cuz of an unexpected catastrophic healthcare expense.

 

[type b pharmD]

To answer your points:

1) I am not a Republican. I am an independent thinker. I hate how people use affiliative words like "liberal", "progressive", "conservative" and "tea bagger" as insults. And just for the record - I can't stand Mitt Romney...or GWB...or Sarah Palin before anyone brings them up.

2) The Civil Rights Act was one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history, almost as important as one signed by Abraham Lincoln nearly 100 years earlier. It should not be cheapened by comparing it to this healthcare bill.

3) Black...female...Latino...homosexual?
There we go again. This time with accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia. I have some really good friends who are black, female, Latino or homosexual. I would never think any less of someone based on their skin color, gender, race, or sexual orientation. It's quite a stereotype in and of itself to believe someone opposing this controversial bill is doing so cuz they're prejudiced.

4) You can't judge a group of people based on the actions of a few extremists. Likewise, you can not make generalizations about that group cuz some senators aren't calling out the extremists. And this brings me back to point #1, which is why I don't affiliate myself with any political party. I hate generalizations.

And yes I do have something against Obama: He's a bad president. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a great man, great father, great husband and in fact, his story is the epitome of the American Dream considering all he went through before becoming president. He's a winner at life but a failure at being president. I do realize many of our country's problems are inherited from GWB. However, BHO added gas to the fire. The unemployment rate and national debt has only deterioriated throughout his presidency and thus, as far as I'm concerned, he simply has not fulfilled his campaign promise of "change". As much as GWB's mess may have hindered him, BHO's promises did not include an asterisk.

Regarding my proposals on healthcare reform: They're long and it would make this long post much longer. Just to epitomize it, however, a key point should be that everyone in America has a SAFETY NET where you absolutely can not lose your house, lifetimes savings, car and pets cuz of an unexpected catastrophic healthcare expense.

rofl.. "10% unemployment didnt turn around and we took out more loans" must be obama's fault!!

No president would have been able to fix unemployment, and our country's government would have more or less come to a halt without more loans. Not excusing the present situation, but not being able to miraculously turn the country around from the worst crisis in decades is not the fault of one man.

Well whoever instituted a 4 year term had voters like you on their minds because the american public is known to be capricious and change their loyalties on a whim, without being able to see the bigger picture.

I for one will wait to judge obama an effective president until he has finished his run. We all have the right to do that, we just dont have the right to make premature judgment. Thats why he's here to stay for 3 more years.

And to anyone who thinks the republicans are going to institute a wave of change this fall, i'd like to see you conjure up a veto proof majority in both houses.

 

[IrishHammer]

I hate how people use affiliative words like "liberal", "progressive", "conservative" and "tea bagger" as insults.

Heh heh...he said teabagger...heh heh.

 

[Chuck61686]

The wishes of the majority of elected officials is what matters.

Elected officials are elected to represent the wishes of the people who elected them!

Regardless, you can find polls to back up whatever opinion you have.

I just did:
http://http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/polls-indicate-support-for-health-care-reform-has-increased-since-sunday-vote/?fbid=A_354opO_vv

Did you even read the whole article?
"CBS asked what Americans thought of "the current health care reform bill." Quinnipiac asked what Americans thought of "the changes in health care passed by Congress." These questions concentrated on the 'contents' of the bill. CBS indicated 42 percent approving of the bill; Quinnipiac indicated 40 percent approval."
Horrible numbers, yet CNN uses the misleading headline "polls indicate support for health care reform up since vote." Notice also how they didn't publish polling results from the same source and same question, both before and after the bill's passage.

The "tricks" you complain about were used 32 times by Republicans. (reconciliation) Including when they passed the largest tax cut for the wealthy in history.

I'm not a Republican and I didn't like the Bush tax cuts because they heavily favored the upper, upper class, while leaving not much for the middle class. I believe in fair tax cuts for EVERYONE.

 

[Chuck61686]

rofl.. "10% unemployment didnt turn around and we took out more loans" must be obama's fault!!

No president would have been able to fix unemployment, and our country's government would have more or less come to a halt without more loans. Not excusing the present situation, but not being able to miraculously turn the country around from the worst crisis in decades is not the fault of one man.

Well whoever instituted a 4 year term had voters like you on their minds because the american public is known to be capricious and change their loyalties on a whim, without being able to see the bigger picture.

I for one will wait to judge obama an effective president until he has finished his run. We all have the right to do that, we just dont have the right to make premature judgment. Thats why he's here to stay for 3 more years.

And to anyone who thinks the republicans are going to institute a wave of change this fall, i'd like to see you conjure up a veto proof majority in both houses.

(Sigh) I never changed my loyalties and as I already said, I don't affiliate myself with a particular political party.
I agree, one man can not turn around country but that's exactly why Obama shouldn't have campaigned on these keywords: promise and change.

And gosh, with that stimulus bill costing 3/4 of a trillion $$$, am I asking too much for even a 0.0001% improvement in the unemployment rate?

 

[UArk2014]

Elected officials are elected to represent the wishes of the people who elected them!

No. They aren't. They are elected by people who feel they have the best judgement to act in their stead in congress. This does not equate to chasing polls before casting major votes.
"Modern American democracy is in the form of a democratic republic or a representative democracy. A representative democracy came about in the United States because the colonists were tired of taxation without representation and wanted a more fair system where the people had more say in the rule of the country. They did not desire the Athenian form of democracy however; as they feared it would give the people too much power and would lend control of the government to the uneducated masses. What they came up with was a representative democracy wherein elected representatives rather than direct rule by the people rule the government."
borrowed from: http://library.thinkquest.org/26466/history_of_democracy.html

Did you even read the whole article?
"CBS asked what Americans thought of "the current health care reform bill." Quinnipiac asked what Americans thought of "the changes in health care passed by Congress." These questions concentrated on the 'contents' of the bill. CBS indicated 42 percent approving of the bill; Quinnipiac indicated 40 percent approval."
Horrible numbers, yet CNN uses the misleading headline "polls indicate support for health care reform up since vote." Notice also how they didn't publish polling results from the same source and same question, both before and after the bill's passage.

I don't think you understand what you are reading. They are three separate polls. Regardless, to achieve even 40% public approval of such sweeping legislation in the face of a multi-million dollar misinformation campaign is actually pretty impressive. Especially if you consider that many of those "opposed" (myself included) are opposed because the bill does not GO FAR ENOUGH. ala Dennis Kucinich

I'm not a Republican and I didn't like the Bush tax cuts because they heavily favored the upper, upper class, while leaving not much for the middle class. I believe in fair tax cuts for EVERYONE.

That's great, but the hypocrisy of your 'friends in opposition' is relevant and should clue you in to their priorities.

 

[iknow]

rofl.. "10% unemployment didnt turn around and we took out more loans" must be obama's fault!!

No president would have been able to fix unemployment, and our country's government would have more or less come to a halt without more loans. Not excusing the present situation, but not being able to miraculously turn the country around from the worst crisis in decades is not the fault of one man.

Well whoever instituted a 4 year term had voters like you on their minds because the american public is known to be capricious and change their loyalties on a whim, without being able to see the bigger picture.

I for one will wait to judge obama an effective president until he has finished his run. We all have the right to do that, we just dont have the right to make premature judgment. Thats why he's here to stay for 3 more years.

And to anyone who thinks the republicans are going to institute a wave of change this fall, i'd like to see you conjure up a veto proof majority in both houses.

Exactly. No single man can change the world- He has only been in presidency for a year and has done great (considering he is a politician) at bringing change- We have been debating healthcare reform for decades and we're finally seeing change. I don't think that was an easy task.

I see the OP doesn't like any other politician out there, republican or democrat, so who do you want as our country leader? Do you realize no president can please everyone? I'm happy we at least have someone educated and open to change. We got the best we could have when comparing your options...unless there's someone else out there I haven't heard of.

I'm not a democrat or republican either- I vote for whoever I believe can do the best job. Unless someone else comes up and really impresses me I'm voting for BO again. Or BHO if that's what you like to call him.

 

[iknow]

Since we're talking about polls, here is one that shows you who Obama's most loyal supporters are- no, not just the black ones

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125423/americans-postgraduate-education-back-obama.aspx

 

[type b pharmD]

(Sigh) I never changed my loyalties and as I already said, I don't affiliate myself with a particular political party.
I agree, one man can not turn around country but that's exactly why Obama shouldn't have campaigned on these keywords: promise and change.

And gosh, with that stimulus bill costing 3/4 of a trillion $$$, am I asking too much for even a 0.0001% improvement in the unemployment rate?

I wasnt talking about changing political loyalties, I was just mentioning the 4 year term idea because , a lot of times , public support (which more or less means little given how easily brainwashed and ignorant the majority of the public is) will wax and wane so much over the course of a month or a few months, that if the politicians governed based on popular appeal, everything would be a giant ****up. The people dont participate in government, they choose someone they think will make the best choices, and then they wait. You dont get to change horses in midstream. Whether or not public opinion is behind a particular bill doesnt matter at the time it is voted on - hell the majority of the public have no idea what the bill even consists of - they think it is literally going to bring about the end-of-days. It matters a year, two , or three years later when they can see how the bill has worked for them. Which is really great for obama, because not only does he get the $250 checks out to seniors this year to get them to go to the polls, but he also will gradually phase in and "spend" the political capital over time so that by the time the public can see just how much the bill has helped them, they'll be dependent on it, and viciously attack anyone who tries to pry it from them.

Smart move , i would say.. but then again, we all know he is a smart cookie.

 

[Chuck61686]

Since we're talking about polls, here is one that shows you who Obama's most loyal supporters are- no, not just the black ones

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125423/americans-postgraduate-education-back-obama.aspx

This must explain why I've seen such a formidable opposition with my viewpoints in this thread
Just so you know of at least one politician I like, I was hoping Mike Huckabee would get the GOP nomination.

Anyways...I gotta chill from this thread for a bit. I have studying to get done.

 

[iknow]

This must explain why I've seen such a formidable opposition with my viewpoints in this thread
Just so you know of at least one politician I like, I was hoping Mike Huckabee would get the GOP nomination.

Anyways...I gotta chill from this thread for a bit. I have studying to get done.

I actually liked Huckabee too...

 

[Old Timer]

When that poll showing 60% supported healthcare reform, it was probably long before the Louisiana Purchase, the Gator Aid, and the Cornhusker Kickback.

They were all removed from the bill. They no longer exist. So now what has your buns in a uproar. You didn't seem to mind Senator Shelby trying to blackmail the President to get a pork project in Alabama.... As long as the payoff goes to a Republican it's okeedokee......

I tend to base my reasoning on the most recent data at my disposal. You've been a pharmacist long before I was born, surely this makes sense to you, right?

No it doesn't make sense to me and it did not make sense to the founders. I suggest you check out the Federalist Papers so you understand the founders were worried about the whim of the public which can be easily manipulated. This will change over time. Once the people realize that the bill passed and the earth did not crash into the sun as the R's predicted, they will like it just fine....

 

[torchbearer]

Canada has socialized medicine, so does most of Western Europe. This is nothing but a big fat insurance reform bill and if you don't see that, there is no hope for you.

OldTimer, I'm of the opinion that *all* government activity is socialist. If you support any government program whatsoever, you are supporting socialism. Both socialism and an underlying, unspoken threat of violence are inherent in all government action.

Also, OldTimer, I have always enjoyed your posts, but you have seemed more brusk, more arrogant lately. Is everything okay?

And, yes, while predicting exact changes in insurance premiums is not possible, one can certainly consider the relevant factors and make educated guesses on the trends that will arise. A hike in rates for young people seems very likely.

 

[cycloketocaine]

This thread is entertaining. Keep up the good work!

 

[Chuck61686]

Guys, I found the silver lining to the healthcare bill I'm very surprised none of you brought this up yet.

If I do a residency I can get subsidies for my health insurance!
(Residencies do pay less than 400% of the federal poverty level, ex. < $43k, right?) Seriously. But wait...I graduate in 2012. Don't think it will have kicked in by then. Damn.

 

[Tinkerbell22]

That's exactly what I meant. Less than 400% of the poverty level refers to an income of less than $43k.

And last I checked pharmacists make more than 20/hour.

Exactly, so why the heck should we qualify if we're making far more money than the average American? You make no sense.

 

[Marcus X]

Guys, I found the silver lining to the healthcare bill I'm very surprised none of you brought this up yet.

If I do a residency I can get subsidies for my health insurance!
(Residencies do pay less than 400% of the federal poverty level, ex. < $43k, right?) Seriously. But wait...I graduate in 2012. Don't think it will have kicked in by then. Damn.

Most residencies provide healthcare.

 

[litetigre]

Exactly, so why the heck should we qualify if we're making far more money than the average American? You make no sense.

Maybe he meant that besides serving the public, health care workers now have to pay more taxes to subsidize the patients they are treating.

 

[iknow]

Maybe he meant that besides serving the public, health care workers now have to pay more taxes to subsidize the patients they are treating.

But in one way or another, everyone serves the public.

 

[Old Timer]

OldTimer, I'm of the opinion that *all* government activity is socialist. If you support any government program whatsoever, you are supporting socialism. Both socialism and an underlying, unspoken threat of violence are inherent in all government action.

Also, OldTimer, I have always enjoyed your posts, but you have seemed more brusk, more arrogant lately. Is everything okay?

And, yes, while predicting exact changes in insurance premiums is not possible, one can certainly consider the relevant factors and make educated guesses on the trends that will arise. A hike in rates for young people seems very likely.

I am brusk because people throw around words and they have no idea what they mean. I can say anyone dumb enough to use torchbearer as a handle is in my opinion ******ed. But if you go to the dictionary and look up ******ed, you will see that my opinion would be stupid. So if you go to the dictionary and look up socialist you will see that it is a noun that means a person who advocates or practices socialism. If you then look up socialism you get the following:
Socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

You can believe the bill is socialist and you could also believe in the tooth fairy but your opinion is wrong not based on anything factual. It is in fact an attempt to score cheap political points by demonizing the opposition by using bogeyman words to scare people even dumber than you.

There are many things about the bill I don't like. But it is NOT socialist by any definition and your Nazi like repeating of the big lie over and over and over until everyone believes it's so is what makes my blood boil. Argue on the merits of the legislation just passed. Stop making stuff up.

 

[OUTexan]

I think most people would agree Health Care Reform is needed. However, doing it through an already broke federal government is not the way a lot of people would handle it. I think more people are upset by the wasteful spending of Washington than any one issue. People talk bad about how CVS just piles on programs that don't mount to a hill of beans. If you look at our federal government, they do the same.

With regards to the health care bill, I believe it just makes people less responsible for their own health care. How many times a day do you get asked, "Why is it that much? Doesn't my insurance pay for it?" People have no clue what goes on with their insurance coverage and this will increase that kind of behavior.

I believe forcing insurance companies to cover "pre-existing conditions" will increase everyone's cost of insurance premiums. I think this will cause some if not all of the insurance businesses to go under and lead us to a universal, single-payer system by 2030 or so.

 

[Old Timer]

I think most people would agree Health Care Reform is needed. However, doing it through an already broke federal government is not the way a lot of people would handle it. I think more people are upset by the wasteful spending of Washington than any one issue. People talk bad about how CVS just piles on programs that don't mount to a hill of beans. If you look at our federal government, they do the same.

With regards to the health care bill, I believe it just makes people less responsible for their own health care. How many times a day do you get asked, "Why is it that much? Doesn't my insurance pay for it?" People have no clue what goes on with their insurance coverage and this will increase that kind of behavior.

I believe forcing insurance companies to cover "pre-existing conditions" will increase everyone's cost of insurance premiums. I think this will cause some if not all of the insurance businesses to go under and lead us to a universal, single-payer system by 2030 or so.

Another person who never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. This system with insurance is the free market system we have developed. The government did not create Blue Cross and Blue Shield. So the profit motive of the insurance industry has caused the problem along with narcissism in out culture and the big bad boogey-man government had nothing to do with it.

Finally, the Insurance industry fully supports this legislation. Why? In return for covering preexisting conditions, they get 32 million new and basically healthy customers. That will allow them to cover the preexisting conditions and still make a boat load of money. Aside from abolishing insurance companies and making all health care cash & carry this is a totally free market approach. If a free market system is so great explain why no country has a free market health care system and just about every modern nation state has a government run system.

To blame the government for the narcissism in our culture is frankly narcissistic and that my friend is pure irony.

 

[OUTexan]

OldTimer, I have not read any bills, only commentary from CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC. But in my lifetime, I have not seen government put its hand in anything that they have not messed up more. That is a personal belief I have and that will probably never change.

I do have a question though. Say someone is young and figure it is cheaper to pay the "fine" for not having insurance rather than buying an insurance policy. Then, they find out they have cancer and the next day they get cancer. I assume that under the new legislation, an insurance company would have to cover all cancer treatments. Am I correct in assuming that this could happen?

I also wonder why some people believe insurance should cover all expenses of their health care. I do not have grocery insurance where I pay $50 a month and then go to the grocery store and expect my groceries to be free. Why don't people want to pay for their body to be good? I understand not wanting to pay thousands of dollars, but why should insurance cover all of an office visit instead of a patient paying $75?

 

[Tinkerbell22]

Maybe he meant that besides serving the public, health care workers now have to pay more taxes to subsidize the patients they are treating.

Well pretty much any worker making above a certain salary is going to be subsidizing these people. Like the other person said, I don't think we can objectively say one profession serves the public more than another. Maybe some of our patients are police officers or firefighters making less than 43,000/year. I'm not saying I do or don't agree with any of the issues in this thread... I'm just saying that you can't really complain about a pharmacist not qualifying for tax credits. I'll just be grateful to have a job making more than 400 percent above the poverty level.

 

[Old Timer]

OldTimer, I have not read any bills, only commentary from CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC. But in my lifetime, I have not seen government put its hand in anything that they have not messed up more. That is a personal belief I have and that will probably never change.

As long as you understand what a belief is and what a fact is. Medicare and Social Security are unqualified successes. Just because the Congress has stolen the money from the trust fund, does not make the programs less successful. Before Medicare seniors were the most likely people to live in poverty. That is no longer the case. The ability to deduct interest on mortgages has fueled the greatest strengthening of the middle class in our history. The G.I. bill has been an unqualified success. The Interstate Highway system is another item that contributed to our prosperity. The ability to move people and goods across the country by road was critical to our prosperity. The space program has also been an unqualified success. Let's go on to the Clean Air act and the Clean Water Act, both were highly successful pieces of legislation. The Hoover Dam, The Lincoln Tunnel, Rural Electrification,The Civil Rights Act of 1965, The FBI, The Secret Service, DARPA (The inventor of the Internet), The National Park System, The FAA. I'm sure I could find a few more....

I do have a question though. Say someone is young and figure it is cheaper to pay the "fine" for not having insurance rather than buying an insurance policy. Then, they find out they have cancer and the next day they get cancer. I assume that under the new legislation, an insurance company would have to cover all cancer treatments. Am I correct in assuming that this could happen?

That could happen and the fine will have to be large enough to discourage this type of behavior. The fine could always be adjusted. If the insurance companies are onboard I wouldn;t worry about over burdening them

I also wonder why some people believe insurance should cover all expenses of their health care. I do not have grocery insurance where I pay $50 a month and then go to the grocery store and expect my groceries to be free. Why don't people want to pay for their body to be good? I understand not wanting to pay thousands of dollars, but why should insurance cover all of an office visit instead of a patient paying $75?

Now is where you and I are in agreement with one of the major flaws in our health care system. The payer and the consumer are not the same person. This is bad in a capitalistic system because the consumer has very little incentive to hold down costs. So we need to understand we all want more health care than we can afford. So I personally would let the people choose between a capitalistic system where everyone pays out of pocket for everything and there is catastrophic coverage available over a certain amount or a single payer government system supported by taxes. Our present system is neither capitalistic nor socialistic it is somewhere in between. The Health Care Bill merely perpetuates a bad system and is only really an insurance reform bill not a health care bill.

 

[RX CARE]

I also wonder why some people believe insurance should cover all expenses of their health care. I do not have grocery insurance where I pay $50 a month and then go to the grocery store and expect my groceries to be free. Why don't people want to pay for their body to be good? I understand not wanting to pay thousands of dollars, but why should insurance cover all of an office visit instead of a patient paying $75?

This is such a shallow analogy. You have to first understand that the whole issue centered around this whole debate is inefficiency and unfairness. It's not just about some people wanting it free. Heck if insurance companies where as honest and consistent as possible, obama probably wouldn't have attempted to touch this issue. They do not have to cover everything, and people would probably want to pay regularly and consistently, as long as the terms of the same insurance they bought are the same, and they materialize when it's time to actually use it. But they keep changing the terms according to the condition of your health, and by definition, that is no longer insurance, that's just plain robbery. People pay into insurance for years and literally get cutt off when they get sick. You can charge me 1000 dollars copay or 10k deductible for surgery, but don't drastically increase my premiums or cut me off altogether when I get sick, going against the agreement we had. And do you know it's not only people who are sick? Even healthy people....premiums just going up just to increase profit.

As the adage goes with this whole debate, some people say they have perfect insurance, they pay for it, they have no issues. But they do not realize the inherent flaws in insurance practices when they actually want to use their great insurance....I mean REALLY use it.....and see how swiftly they slap you with a ridiculous premium hike or cut you off altogether.

 

[Old Timer]

Read this article in The Washington Times and you will see why we needed to pass health care reform. As you read it think carefully about two things:

1. Is this kind of country we want to live in that will allow a company with obscene profits to make on the backs of MS sufferers? These people were considered dogs to the company. When we dehumanize people we are on the slope to destruction as a society.
2. This is from the Washington Times one of the most right wing newspapers in the country. This is not from some left wing rag

 

[Pharmavixen]

But in my lifetime, I have not seen government put its hand in anything that they have not messed up more.

 

[renetto]

But in my lifetime, I have not seen government put its hand in anything that they have not messed up more.

Interstate highways, the post office, roads, traffic rules, and the FAA have messed up our way of life?


Puhleez.

 

[Sparda29]

Here's a post I read on the 4chan forums, and it pretty much singlehandedly destroys the conservative argument.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the Municipal Water Utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit my mail I have to send out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school. After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not been burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department. I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

 

[renetto]

Here's a post I read on the 4chan forums, and it pretty much singlehandedly destroys the conservative argument.

lol you go to 4chan

 

[Chuck61686]

Here's a post I read on the 4chan forums, and it pretty much singlehandedly destroys the conservative argument.

I'm still keeping my hopes up that our government doesn't fail like your Mets did in the last month of 2007 and 2008 Or the time Kenny Rogers blew the NLCS with a bases loaded walk.

PS- Copying and pasting a political argument from another source shows bankruptcy of rhetoric and lack of independent thinking. I can find conservative and liberal arguments that debunk both opposing viewpoints. Don't be what Ayn Rand calls a "second hander".

 

[Ilikechemicals]

That was done by Hollywood not the government.

 

[iknow]

But in my lifetime, I have not seen government put its hand in anything that they have not messed up more. That is a personal belief I have and that will probably never change.

I have met many people who are a lot happier with their Medicare insurance than with the private insurance they had when they were young.

 

[Sparda29]

lol you go to 4chan

Not really. I go to the Luelinks forums, which are kinda linked with the 4chan people (same crowd I guess).

 

[type b pharmD]

Not really. I go to the Luelinks forums, which are kinda linked with the 4chan people (same crowd I guess).

and that association has brought us all these great gifs?

Keep up the good work sparda!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

lol you go to 4chan

4chan and Facebook will lead to the destruction of civilization.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Don't be what Ayn Rand calls a "second hander".

But are not all the followers of Ayn Rand "second-handers" for being objectivists instead of following their own path?

Ayn Rand demanded a fair amount of slavish devotion from her followers for someone so dedicated to the sanctity of the individual.

Required reading for all objectivists: Judgement Day: My Years with Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Brandon, and It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand by Jerome Tuccille (if you can find it - might be out of print).

 

[Sparda29]

4chan and Facebook will lead to the destruction of civilization.

We are starting with our war against the Church of Scientology and the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[homeslice]

That was done by Hollywood not the government.

Ahahaha...you're one of them.

 

[rphello]

Ahahaha...you're one of them.

I know people that think dinosaur fossils were planted by God to test our faith.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Exactly. No single man can change the world.

'Cept Gavrilo Princip...he can...

 

[Marcus X]

Ahahaha...you're one of them.

I really hope this thread derails into a long, drawn-out argument about the moon landing.

Oh, goodie! The crazies are out to play!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I know people that think dinosaur fossils were planted by God to test our faith.

They were put there by Steven Spielberg so he could make billions off of the Jurassic Park franchise.