Mandatory Healthcare?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

don't worry, the smart will take care of the dumb, unwashed masses who ought to know better than to formulate an ignorant opinion.

Don't you think there is a difference between saying, "Healthcare reform is terrible, because of ... increased costs, etc."; and saying that the American people should actually pray that something happens to a Democratic Senator so they can't make the 1am vote on the bill? (as Sen. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma had the nerve to say on the Senate floor yesterday).

Big difference in "opinion" between those two in my eyes, and yeah, I think the personal attack is pretty much the sign of the ignorant.

Of course, there is a debate question there: the Senator's presumption that God is on his side

[Honu]

I just want to know how an almost bankrupt government that is most likely going to have to ask for money from bankrupt banks is going to pay for the "right for all Americans" to have health insurance. Tell me how this is going to work out.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Honu

I just want to know how an almost bankrupt government that is most likely going to have to ask for money from bankrupt banks is going to pay for the "right for all Americans" to have health insurance. Tell me how this is going to work out.

Especially when millions of Americans still wont be covered.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Especially when millions of Americans still wont be covered.

But 31 million, uncovered now, will be.

That's wonderful. Terrific. The moment this bill passes, starting January 1 2010, insurance companies will no longer be able to dump sick children (cancer, etc) due to reaching lifetime limits of coverage during their childhood.

This is America. We take care of our own - or at least I think we should.

I just found this, a good, simple listing of what is in the Senate bill:
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/1...other-aspects/

[alysheba4]

its fantastic, the gov. running health care....how can things be better

[witchdoctor]

Originally Posted by alysheba4

its fantastic, the gov. running health care....how can things be better

To the Congress:





The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to
get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it
right; it is broke.


Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right;
it is broke.

The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it
right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to
"the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get
it right; they are broke

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right;
it is broke.

Billions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called
TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.... none show
any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: the American taxpayer.

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took
cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with
high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of
the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit
for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on
failed experiments.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services"
you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans
to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?
20% of our entire economy?


With all due respect,

Are you crazy?

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by witchdoctor

To the Congress:





The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to
get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it
right; it is broke.


Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right;
it is broke.

The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it
right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to
"the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get
it right; they are broke

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right;
it is broke.

Billions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called
TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.... none show
any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: the American taxpayer.

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took
cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with
high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of
the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit
for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on
failed experiments.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services"
you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans
to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?
20% of our entire economy?


With all due respect,

Are you crazy?

......preaching to the choir which dr.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by witchdoctor

To the Congress:





The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to
get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it
right; it is broke.


Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right;
it is broke.

The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it
right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to
"the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get
it right; they are broke

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right;
it is broke.

Billions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called
TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.... none show
any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: the American taxpayer.

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took
cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with
high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of
the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit
for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on
failed experiments.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services"
you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans
to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?
20% of our entire economy?


With all due respect,

Are you crazy?

Obamacare will not only work it will reduce the budget deficet by hundreds of billions.

Think about that statement for a minute.


How in the world does anyone believe this can possibly be true? It is laughable to not only believe that this program will work but actually save money!


It will lead to massive bleeding for the Democratic party for the next 10 years or so.

[Riot]

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services"
you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans
to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?
20% of our entire economy?

If anybody thinks the American government, and the services it provides us, is a 100% failure, I suggest you leave this country and go elsewhere, where it is better.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

But 31 million, uncovered now, will be.

That's wonderful. Terrific. The moment this bill passes, starting January 1 2010, insurance companies will no longer be able to dump sick children (cancer, etc) due to reaching lifetime limits of coverage during their childhood.

This is America. We take care of our own - or at least I think we should.

I just found this, a good, simple listing of what is in the Senate bill:
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/1...other-aspects/

31 million is not an accurate number. That is a best case, if everything works out perfect number.

America takes care of their own unless they can already take care of themselves. Then you need to have your good fortune redistributed.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

But 31 million, uncovered now, will be.

That's wonderful. Terrific. The moment this bill passes, starting January 1 2010, insurance companies will no longer be able to dump sick children (cancer, etc) due to reaching lifetime limits of coverage during their childhood.

This is America. We take care of our own - or at least I think we should.

I just found this, a good, simple listing of what is in the Senate bill:
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/1...other-aspects/

I think you have a simple disagreement in goals going on here. If these people fighting you don't seem interested in the improvements you're mentioning, it's because they don't value these things. They value exclusivity. They aren't interested in changes that make for a more decent (civil) society at all. They don't value that, and there is nothing that can be done to make them better people. They are selfish, and forcing companies to treat people in a decent way isn't going to interest them very much. Do they seem interested? They are what they are. You can't change selfish minds with arguments that have a payoff that involves protecting all citizens from a poor outcome. They aren't highly interested in that. Notice how these consumer protections haven't thrilled them? They lack the values that are necessary for one to be able to cherish such important consumer protections.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I think you have a simple disagreement in goals going on here. If these people fighting you don't seem interested in the improvements you're mentioning, it's because they don't value these things. They value exclusivity. They aren't interested in changes that make for a more decent (civil) society at all. They don't value that, and there is nothing that can be done to make them better people. They are selfish, and forcing companies to treat people in a decent way isn't going to interest them very much. Do they seem interested? They are what they are. You can't change selfish minds with arguments that have a payoff that involves protecting all citizens from a poor outcome. They aren't highly interested in that. Notice how these consumer protections haven't thrilled them? They lack the values that are necessary for one to be able to cherish such important consumer protections.

lol
i have what i have because i worked for it. forgive me for believing that other people who want what i have can have it too. they can work for it just like i did and continue to do. i don't feel guilty because i think everyone who looks at what i've earned and wants it should work for it just like i did. no one has given me a thing. i've worked for it, it's mine. so, yeah, you're right. i don't want to give others my stuff. i want them to get it for themselves just like i did. how is that wrong? i didn't get a leg up, no free rides from anyone. why do others feel they should get what i've earned, without earning it?! my husband and i pay 187 every two weeks for health insurance. it was never a discussion of whether we could afford it, it was and is a necessity for us and our children. problem is, others such as some people who work for me, choose not to take out the health insurance available. but now i'm supposed to watch my costs and taxes skyrocket because a guy would rather buy chewing tobacco then pay for health insurance? he can't afford the one, but he can afford the other? and i'm supposed to feel bad if he gets the flu and doesn't go to the doctor, and whines that he hasn't got insurance? he chose not to get it. the employees portion where i work for his coverage is 10 bucks a week, but he chose not to get it! gimme a break. yeah, he's cheated out his rightful share.

[Riot]

my husband and i pay 187 every two weeks for health insurance. it was never a discussion of whether we could afford it,

But what if it was $867 a month, with some medical problems and routine monthly medications you have to take not covered?

I had health insurance at a practice I worked at about 5 years ago, and it was employee matching and cheap, but when I left, the same insurance cost was nearly $1000 a month for me to purchase it and keep the same plan as an individual.

Please don't assume that everyone who does not have health insurance is chewing tobacco, managing their finances or priorities wrong. Sure, some are, but lots of hardworking people can't afford health insurance once they have a medical problem, especially if they have moved, changed jobs, have to change carriers. It all starts from scratch at that point as far as the insurance carrier goes.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
i have what i have because i worked for it. forgive me for believing that other people who want what i have can have it too. they can work for it just like i did and continue to do. i don't feel guilty because i think everyone who looks at what i've earned and wants it should work for it just like i did. no one has given me a thing. i've worked for it, it's mine. so, yeah, you're right. i don't want to give others my stuff. i want them to get it for themselves just like i did. how is that wrong? i didn't get a leg up, no free rides from anyone. why do others feel they should get what i've earned, without earning it?! my husband and i pay 187 every two weeks for health insurance. it was never a discussion of whether we could afford it, it was and is a necessity for us and our children. problem is, others such as some people who work for me, choose not to take out the health insurance available. but now i'm supposed to watch my costs and taxes skyrocket because a guy would rather buy chewing tobacco then pay for health insurance? he can't afford the one, but he can afford the other? and i'm supposed to feel bad if he gets the flu and doesn't go to the doctor, and whines that he hasn't got insurance? he chose not to get it. the employees portion where i work for his coverage is 10 bucks a week, but he chose not to get it! gimme a break. yeah, he's cheated out his rightful share.

All this only makes the point that this shouldn't be treated like some sort of option. It should be treated like crime protection, fire protection, and military protection. When this plan starts working, I do not expect you to be paying 5k a year for you n' your husband's yearly medical care. Wait n' see. You are going to be better off. Right now, I would guess that, even though you n' hubby are paying that much, you are still at risk of being dropped if you get a long-term illness. Maybe one of you needs a 100k surgery, and then they try to make you folks pay 10k/year. They can do this right now. You have quite a ways to go before you're covered by Medicare. This black guy you've been bad mouthing is gunna save you n' hubby a lot of money. You are red meat right now for insurance companies to savage(and they are doing exactly that.) Right now, some of these insurance companies are only using 50% of their money on patients care. The other half is on stuff like C.E.O pay etc. Under this plan, they are gunna have to spend 85% of the money on patient care. There is zero doubt in my mind that you n' hubby are going to be better off, but you wait n' tell me about it. Doesn't sound like what you've got is something to be thrilled about having. You really want to keep paying 5k a year? Try 12-15k if this doesn't pass, and you start having to use your insurance. What about if you both somehow lose your jobs, and don't have it offered by your new employer. That happens. People have to take jobs that don't offer any coverage. Under this plan, you'll keep your insurance(and pay whatever portion of the premiums your new income will support.)There are big consumer protections with this plan. You know this is not radical. I know it's sold that way on here, but civilized Democracies do this for a good reason (the alternative does not work.) You think it works, but I'm pretty sure there are circumstances (beyond your control) that would change your mind about this system.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I think you have a simple disagreement in goals going on here. If these people fighting you don't seem interested in the improvements you're mentioning, it's because they don't value these things. They value exclusivity. They aren't interested in changes that make for a more decent (civil) society at all. They don't value that, and there is nothing that can be done to make them better people. They are selfish, and forcing companies to treat people in a decent way isn't going to interest them very much. Do they seem interested? They are what they are. You can't change selfish minds with arguments that have a payoff that involves protecting all citizens from a poor outcome. They aren't highly interested in that. Notice how these consumer protections haven't thrilled them? They lack the values that are necessary for one to be able to cherish such important consumer protections.

Interesting. I haven't seen too many discuss the psychological aspects of the current polarization of the country on most issues. I don't know if I would agree with all those characterizations. Some of them, yes.

Some (the general "some") are clearly mislead about what is or is not involved in health reform (thinking things are there that are clearly not). Thus they dislike something that doesn't exist. I'm not interested in changing peoples opinion to match mine. But I am interested in discussing differences of opinion, based in accuracy. Before you can assess something, you have to at least have some familiarity with it. If you actually know what is there, and don't like it, that's different than blindly fearing the unknown, or having been lied to about content ("death panels" "Muslim Kenyan" type of thing)

I wouldn't characterize most who disagree with health reform as selfish individualists. I see nothing wrong with strong individualism, and think it can co-exist with strong societal mores and sense of community, co-shared existence.

I do think it's true most people don't worry about what's not directly affecting them or under their own nose. And many fear change for change's sake, fear of the unknown, "outside forces", especially when the country has been so unsteady the past few years.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

I wouldn't characterize most who disagree with health reform as selfish individualists.

Well, they are against sharing risk. There are many reasons for that. One main one is the lack of common blood(melting pot.) People are much less interested in sharing risk with people that aren't like themselves. If you're Swedish, then you're probably going to be more more willing to want to share risk with Swedes. That's because of ethnic pride, and common cultural values. Other than this no-common-tribe factor though, one can't deny that most of those against healthcare reform are simply selfish and/or stubborn. Look, when you have a couple paying 5k a year, and they don't want to change it? That's pretty damn stubborn. The thing about a lot of these folks that gets me is how they so quickly change their tune about the value of human life. Something doesn't even have a brain yet, and they consider it so precious. Well, fine, but notice how they change their tune later on if that baby grows up poor. Couple weeks ago they had some lady show up at one of those arena clinics they've been having. There is nothing they could really do for her. She had breast cancer eating her up. Amazing how if she was 2 months in the womb they'd care about her, but not now. Now they think she's getting what she must be deserving. At that same arena clinic they had a nurse come for care. They weren't getting enough hours, at either hospital they worked at, to qualify for medical coverage.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Honu

I just want to know how an almost bankrupt government that is most likely going to have to ask for money from bankrupt banks is going to pay for the "right for all Americans" to have health insurance. Tell me how this is going to work out.

some don't think about how the govt operates, college degrees notwithstanding. the govt has nothing without first taking it from someone. they play robin hood, taking from the haves to give to the have nots-while giving themselves a little along the way. problem is, you can only take so much from the haves, and then you have to start taking from the have a littles. at any rate, the govt gives NOTHING that didn't first belong to someone else. the govt makes no money, it's not a business. it shows no profits. a whole lot of people will be affected because the govt is attempting to cater to a segment of the population. the costs will become astronomical-meaning a huge tax increase to cover the gap.
the fed has outgrown itself by leaps and bounds. we all benefit from the interestate hwy system, the military. we won't all benefit from this garbage they're trying to pass.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

some don't think about how the govt operates, college degrees notwithstanding. the govt has nothing without first taking it from someone. they play robin hood, taking from the haves to give to the have nots-while giving themselves a little along the way. problem is, you can only take so much from the haves, and then you have to start taking from the have a littles. at any rate, the govt gives NOTHING that didn't first belong to someone else. the govt makes no money, it's not a business. it shows no profits. a whole lot of people will be affected because the govt is attempting to cater to a segment of the population. the costs will become astronomical-meaning a huge tax increase to cover the gap.
the fed has outgrown itself by leaps and bounds. we all benefit from the interestate hwy system, the military. we won't all benefit from this garbage they're trying to pass.

The only good Federal Program is a dead Federal Program.

[Danzig]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read


The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.

Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so "substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance" that companies like WellPoint might need to "be considered part of the federal budget."


Even though Medicare's unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost "only" $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO.

Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid's final machinations. Job creation, here we come.

The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read


The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%.


Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010.

The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic.

How else would you expect the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy et al.

and this is a scheme that would make Chas. Ponzi proud! A good portion of that 95% that supposedly starts after 2014 will actually start in 2019. By that time some of the people who will pay for the program will be long gone.