Mandatory Healthcare?
 

From what I understand as the bill stands ALL will be forced to buy health insurance under a private program and that I can agree with.

Couple obvious questions though?

Suppose a person currently uninsured BECAUSE premiums are too high due to a pre-existing condition say leukemia is now forced to purchase insurance. Are we going to jail them and then provide them care in the Fed big house or just fine the crap out of them? Will illegals, like auntie Obama be forced to buy insurance and how will anyone keep track of them when supposedly we can't do it now? How about the unemployed, or families living paycheck to paycheck? Will they be forced to reduce say their food intake or go w/o electricity, water etc.?

Or like always will the workingman and healthy be forced to subsidize above situations in the form of higher premiums?

Can't wait for someone to get to Leavenworth and be asked, "What are you in for?" and answer "not having health insurance. What time is dinner and can you call the Dr. my belly hurts" :D

and those poor Dr.'s Riot speaks of who don't take insurance. Will they be forced into a new career? LMAO

no dell there will be a fine i think and i think the fine is $750 per yr

which kinda makes it a tax increase on people who don't have health insurance and can't afford it now or in the new program

yeah great, this president is beyond a train wreck.......

Doesn't the Constitution protect the Citizens from being forced by the Federal Government to buy a particular "product" under threat of fine or imprisonment? This is bad news for Freedom and Liberty. It can still be stopped, but it doesn't look good.

commie..

Who pays for people who can't/won't carry insurance..we all do. So why the opposition to mandatory insurance? You guys all oppose mandatory car insurance too? I didn't hear all the commie talk when every state in the Union made that mandatory?

oh yeah..it's Obama now so it doesn't matter WHAT he does...it's wrong:zz:

all taxpayers do

it's not mandatory when someone will just rather pay the fine for the yr $750

explain to me how it is mandatory when the fine is less than the cost of coverage

bob instead of a fine do you think we should throw people into jail who don't buy it - what is your solution on this problem that will happen

I missed the law where everyone must purchase a car.

Not all states have mandatory auto insurance. N.H. for one only requires it if there is a loan on the car.

Take a good look at MA. if you think it's such a good thing. We have 6 hospitals bringing lawsuits against the state for not paying the promised medicare reimbursements. They may go bankrupt. There are still long waits in the emergency rooms and at the doctor's offices. Insurance premiums have gone up 42 percent. I chose to get catastrophic only insurance when this mandatory insurance went through. It was not good enough so I would still have to pay the fines. So now I pay the fines (alot cheaper than the monthly insurance) and continue to pay cash when I need to see a doctor (which is what I did before 2006).

C'mon, that is a cop out. The fact is that he does a lot of stuff that many of us dont care for. It isnt personal, its business.

I cant think of much that he has done that I agree with or will benefit the country IMO. Should I just lie and say I think he is doing things that I like? The fact is that just about any democrat would do things that i dont care for the majority of the time.

You guys will get your chance to be on the other side of the line in a few years...

Why should we believe your personal story when we can google like Riot? STOP MAKING SENSE!!!

Forgive me. I forgot my place.:)

We all know it's the damn doctors. If those greedy mfckr's didn't make so much money the whole country could have healthcare for free. But forget this meaningless crap.....how in god's name did the Dolphin's lose to Vince Young?

Some of you guys don't seem familiar with what is actually in either the House or the Senate bills (or the current Reid amendment to the Senate bill)

There are plenty of real summaries of actual content (not op-ed panic attacks) available today.

These explain how people who don't have health insurance now will be able to afford it, and how that will come about under the Senate bill (which has yet to be reconciled with the House bill, don't forget that).

The point is to give 31 million people, who do not have health insurance now - and whom we currently pay for as they tend to use mainly the ER, don't get healthcare until they are really sick, etc - affordable health insurance, by lowering the cost to where they can afford it.

Not to fine them because they are low income and can't afford health insurance :zz:

Unfortunately the loss of a public option leaves about 10 million still uninsured, but I'm sure that will be fixed in the future, after this initial health care reform passes.

Here is the Senate bill:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111...FRrJsgodAGJOKA

The President? If speaking of healthcare reform, you might rather speak of your elected officials in Congress and the Senate.

Specifically the GOP which contributed less than nothing but obstruction to this whole process, the Democratic Senator from Nebraska who stalled the Senate bill all by himself to obtain pork for his state (he's a whore, and now we know how much he costs); and the Senator from Connecticut who works for the major insurance companies who have their head offices in his state - the state designed to be most user-friendly to insurance companies regarding lack of regulation.

Gales, I think if you wade through the Senate bill, the fine maxes out at 2% of income for those of a certain low income level range, but the health insurance available to them (through non-profit exchanges) will more reasonable to obtain than paying the fine for them.

And those less than a certain income level are not "mandated" to have insurance.

Someone reminded in an op-ed that the initial 1964 Lyndon Johnson Medicare covered only widows and orphans. There have been two major adjustments to Medicare since, to where it now covers most elderly Americans.

Healthcare reform, like Medicare, will be adjusted over time to do what it needs to do, in a better manner than now implemented (not leaving out 10 million uninsured)

Right now, the CBO predicts it (the Senate version if implemented unchanged) will be clearly cost-effective, and reduce the budget deficit over the next 20 years by billions.

If you googled a bit, you might learn the earth is no longer considered flat ;)

Deb..I will come visit you in jail should that happen ;) :{>:

but not in the winter time....

Has the real bill even reached the Senate floor yet? I hope they make them read every word of this stinky thing on the floor before another vote.

dont bet on it...they have to get ready for Valentine's Day!;)

Opportunistic Parasites:

1)Nebraska Hair Helmut

2)Lieberman(I Shill for Israel.) This individual acted the worst, because his actions had nothing to do with the feelings of the people in his state. The other two do at least come from states that are consistently a-s-s backwards.

3)Don't forget that crook from Louisiana. Miss Mary always gots a whole lotta cash in her drawas.

olympia snow is a republican she offered a trigger plan program that would set off a public option if necessary , sadly the democrats voted that down

Oh, I'm certain that bitch had poor people's medical needs #1 on her list of priorities.

I think its funny Riot didnt even say a word about RileyORiley's post yet she had a response to everyone else's.

She doesnt have an agenda :rolleyes:

no more than harry reid cares about the 80 yr old that won't be able to get the operation anymore becuase there too old and it's too expensive

come on scuds if you beleive either party is fighting for the little guy here you are asleep at the wheel

Some Democrats are, but a lot aren't. No Republicans give a sht about the "little guy." They are just fine with healthcare staying f'd up, and families having to go bankrupt trying to pay doctors 300-400k a year etc. They are just not gunna vote for something that keeps insurance companies from riping people off. You can see no Republican Senators are voting for it, and it's not like any of them say they are real close to voting for it. They don't care about insurance companies turning down patients with previous conditions etc. They don't give a sht about that. They don't care about catastrophic conditions, and limits etc. 55 decent Dems(and 5 filthy whores) have to do it all.

why no tort reform in any of the bills scuds? who in wash protects the trial lawyers and there multi million dollara salaries yr ????

Vets don't have nearly the problem with that, and they still rip people off as much as humanly possible. I'd like to see tort reform, but you just ignored the fact your Republicans wouldn't vote to stop insurance companies from turning down people with previous conditions. Wouldn't stop insurance companies from getting rid of patients with conditions they didn't like. I can tell ya what would happen with tort reform. Doctors n' insurance companies would suck that money up like a cat does milk. There are 3 greedy parties here. Not just 1. All three need to be kept from ripn' people off. You've mentioned your favorite 1, but all 3 need to be fought. If you want tort reform, you better have a sure way to get the money savings to consumers. I just don't think Republicans, Doctors, or insurance companies are interested in doing that.

the republicans are in favor of eliminating pre-existing conditions by the way. It was part of the bill they released.

i 'll give you my two , but how can a bill go through with any legitmacy without tort reform , surely the democrats coffers aren't being filled by the tort lawyers in this country are they? why was it totally exclueded , to me it's as bad as no votes from the right on the bill . do harry and nancy just think everyone outsude of dc is stupid?? where is the tort refrom show it to me scuds and then i will believe that the dems aren't in it for the $$$ either

Yada yada yada about the doctors money! the poor bastards start out wanting to do good and then after 12 yrs of school and residency, they get to pay an average of 250,000 a yr for malpractice insurance. The cost of running a decent office with capable staff isn't as easy as it would seem, as attested by any number of horror stories about dr visits. So much for playing golf on Wed morn! The insurance companies have standards by which the drs. must qualify to be included in the various plans. If not, the docs are culled from the program. Lax regulation of Drug companies and no tort reform
puts the cost of Medical care out of reach. I could go on....

Tim
Malpractice insurance is not that high. Mine was only $28,000 this year. Also, I had to pay another $1200 so I can take the test to recertify for my specialty for the next 10 years.

The true cost of malpractice is not the premiums but cost of ordering tests to CYA.

That's great for you! I wish I had a link for you,but I read that somewhere...and my neurologist confirmed it! what specialty do you practice?

Interventional cardiology

ER stuff?

I think it's funny you think there's a connection :zz:

So please, explain how MA's being in arrears of it's states' matching Medicare payments to it's own facilities has anything at all to do with the federal government?

Or how the MA program, which differs completely from the federal healthcare reform act, is pertinent to the discussion?

Which is beyond absurd, considering how the Constitution structured voting in the Senate to be simple majority rule - which is supposed to account for the imbalance of both small population states and large population states having equal weight via 2 senators.

The fillibuster and 60-vote-for-everything games? The GOP needs to be slapped silly. Mitch McConnell just stood up there and lied this morning in his speech before the vote. But the Dems used it, too.

I think the Senate needs to change the house rules, and the one I like is that every three days, the votes required to break fillibuster lower. After three days, it doesn't take 60 to break, it takes only 59, then 58, etc.

Debate happens, but complete obstruction of our government - which is exactly what is happening now - is removed.

Gales, there is tort reform in the House bill, a 100% GOP contribution.

Sorry - they get no credit for that from me. The GOP took away all possible control over premium costs for those people out of the Senate bill. That's how that part of the bill was "released" by them.

And it doesn't much matter what the GOP wants to try and take credit for "being in favor of", when 100% of them said Americans do not get that legal consumer protection, and 100% of them voted against it.