Mandatory Healthcare?

[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.

[Smooth Operator]

Been enjoying the recent Senate proceedings to the full


Cons sooooooo deserved to get to this point



Hopefully there's a provision in there that puts high-pitch Hannity's personal income tax rate at 95%, for good measure

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%. 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.

In all fairness Wellpoint are a bunch of whores.

[Antitrust32]

Its sad when a presidency as poor as Bush II's was, will soon be considered the "good old days".

President Obama is a liar and a fraud. We all will be paying so much for this **** that keeps on passing through for the rest of our lives.

If you thought this country is broke now.. just wait a few more years.

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Been enjoying the recent Senate proceedings to the full


Cons sooooooo deserved to get to this point



Hopefully there's a provision in there that puts high-pitch Hannity's personal income tax rate at 95%, for good measure

You're not a great American, SO.

What amuses me about his show is now he's playing country music before and after commercial breaks. If that doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Been enjoying the recent Senate proceedings to the full


Cons sooooooo deserved to get to this point



Hopefully there's a provision in there that puts high-pitch Hannity's personal income tax rate at 95%, for good measure

you appear to be totally incoherent,as usual! You really should seek counseling for your obsession with Hannity.

Hannity is horrendous.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

sure, no one should ask for prayers that something happens.

as for the bolded, making generalized statements about having higher education, while saying others obviously aren't educated enough to think things thru (since they have a difference of opinion from you) in my opinion is a personal attack. it's calling people stupid without actually using that word.

No, what it is, is somebody telling me to get it about global warming, because their view is that Al Gore sucks and cannot be believed thus global warming is a lie; and me saying sorry, my opinion that global warming exists is because I look at from the point of view of my scientific training, not from the point of view of my politics.

If you interpret that as calling someone else stupid, I can't change that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You stated there is no connection. Obviously there is.

Yes, they both involve, "the government".

[Riot]

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.

According to the CBO the Senate plan will markedly cut thegeneral budget deficit by trillions over 10-20 years. It depends upon the final funding for the bill, whether the Senate or House version.

[Riot]

The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint,

The insurance lobby has been fighting health reform tooth and nail (see Joe Lieberman) because of the new restrictions on consumer abuse, what they can charge, loss of the ability to dump clients, etc.

I doubt any insurance agency cost analysis is anywhere near being objective, let alone, "the best".

[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

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, they both involve, "the government".

and that is EXACTLY what you should be scared of.


Tell me this, What has the goverment actually been able to do Correctly in recent history (not the past 10 months but 20 years) that involves a government program?

The only think I am thankful for a federal goverment at all is for protecting our freedom and the military.

Social Security is a freaking mess. I put in 6% of my salary and wont ever see that. Medicare isnt exactly the most wonderfully smooth program in the world and now our whole damn country will be on medicare. This stimulus thing will ruin the country for the youth when it comes to inflation.

Goverment programs do nothing but rob hard working people. Its legal stealing.

[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 Riot

Yes, they both involve, "the government".

So your premise that MA shouldnt be used as an example of mandated insurance coverage was wrong. Right?

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

According to the CBO the Senate plan will markedly cut thegeneral budget deficit by trillions over 10-20 years. It depends upon the final funding for the bill, whether the Senate or House version.

This is the single biggest deception of this whole healthcare debacle. The numbers are so juiced that it is hard to believe that anyone with a straight face could even suggest that this is possible.