# not politics just health care facts



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

From the presidents page
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/[email protected]

If you have health insurance through your employer and you like your plan, you can keep it.
If you're a small business owner, you'll receive new tax credits that make it easier for you to provide coverage for employees if you choose to do so.
If you have Medicare, the President's plan guarantees that your benefits will not be cut, and the Medicare Trust Fund will be extended for more than 9 years.
If you're uninsured, you could receive a tax credit to help pay for coverage if needed -- part of the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.
If you buy your own insurance, there will be new protections from insurance company abuses, and tax credits will make coverage more affordable.
You will never be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
You will never again be hit with arbitrary health insurance premium hikes.
Up to 17 million more people will be uninsured by 2019.
Insurers can continue their massive and arbitrary premium rate increases -- such as Anthem Blue Cross raising rates for customers in California by nearly 40%, and rates in Illinois going up by as much as 60%.
As many as 275,000 people could die prematurely over the next 10 years because they don't have health insurance.
The average family's health care costs will nearly double by 2020, from $13,000 to $24,000.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

How can you post this from the Presidents page and then say it's not politics? That's all this is.

I can dispute most of those points... because NO ONE has seen the actual new bill.

Sorry steff, I disagree... nothing but politics here.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> How can you post this from the Presidents page and then say it's not politics? That's all this is.
> 
> I can dispute most of those points... because NO ONE has seen the actual new bill.
> 
> Sorry steff, I disagree... nothing but politics here.


That's all in the bill that passed the Senate


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Its funny how some people dont believe this, but DO believe the naysayers....Something HAS to be done so that people can get good health care just like the members of the whitehouse...


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

WindowOrMirror said:


> PLEASE move this thread?


I agree. This is most definitely political.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

And you belive the Pres?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And that You can keep it is really NOT true either. Because a Sub-paragraph that says for ANY reason if your present insurance changes, ANY CHANGE that is, you then MUST switch over to the government plan.~!!!
And lets NOT forget this: Taxes for this bill Starts Right Away.~!
The PLAN for the most part does NOT Start for FIVE YEARS~!!!
So people will be PAYING Higher Taxes for FIVE Years Before the health care bill gets running in full~!
Oh how some forget the little things about this horrible bill that is being shoved down the throats of the American people.
Even the presidents brother , who is a doctor says this health bill is not he way to go about lower the price of health care..


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Im going to go read the bill before I say any more about this. We certainly cannot believe ANY politicians...


----------



## MariaAZ (Jun 5, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Even the presidents brother , who is a doctor says this health bill is not he way to go about lower the price of health care..


Just out of curiosity, which brother is this? I didn't know any of his siblings were physicians.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

suzfromWi said:


> Its funny how some people dont believe this, but DO believe the naysayers....Something HAS to be done so that people can get good health care just like the members of the whitehouse...


It's funny how some people DO believe this. This isn't about health care, this is ALL about politics - thread should be moved.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

May I suggest that the "report a post" little triangle in the upper right hand side of the OP be used, if you object to this and think it should be moved?

It will report it to the mods of this forum and then they will make a decision on it.

Regards.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

if you keep your temper, there's no reason for it not to be here. it's information that people really need to know. everyone. why bury it where others won't see it?


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

From Barrack Hussein's page and it's NOT political? Get real.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Hogwash. Its all hogwash. Look at ANY government program designed to "help" people and see what it has done. Ask someone about how well the government is running the health care it does now, VA and medicare/medicaid. Ask someone on medicare/medicaid how how many things the government will not cover. Ask them how easy it is to find a doctor who will take new patients. 

FYI, the health care insurance industry is already one of the MOST GOVERNMENT REGULATED industry in the United States. Do you really think more government regulation is going to make things better?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

WindowOrMirror said:


> PLEASE move this thread?


I can understand that. After all, you don't want facts like these to see the light of day.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Apologies... I see that my posts could be conducive to this discussion sliding sideways and don't want to contribute to that in the CF forum.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Steff, don't bother. If there is anything that has been obvious over the past kazillion threads that have been posted about health care it is the amazing ability for people to put on their rose colored glasses and look around declaring there is nothing wrong at all with the US health care system as is.

If people's taxes went up the same amount every year as health care cost have and they got less and less for their money these same cheerleaders of privatized healthcare would be screaming for change of the government. They would be in all honesty advocate a revolution. The message is clear from the free market cheerleaders, private companies can screw you over 7 ways to Sunday and that is okay because that is how capitalism works.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Ask someone on medicare/medicaid how how many things the government will not cover.


Things like what?



watcher said:


> Ask them how easy it is to find a doctor who will take new patients.


I just found a new doctor for my elderly friend after our move. Piece of cake. They list themselves in a searchable database at medicare.gov. Here, try it yourself.

http://www.medicare.gov/Physician/Search/PhysicianHome.asp?CookiesEnabledStatus=True&language=English&browser=IE%7C8%7CWinNT&dest=Nav|Home|Home|Home&version=default


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Health care being quite obviously a family issue the post is not out of place. And I NEVER, NEVER move threads to any other board. If it is here, it stays here (unless requested by the op) but I would close or delete it if it gets out of hand.

I have found that those who have health care just want to maintain the status quo, and they don't generally care about the 40 million or so who don't have any at all, and ignore that many other millions actually do have government funded care through medicare and medicaid. So why fight about it? Congress will most likely pass something, insurance companies will get richer, people will all still die of something, life will go on...


----------



## michelleIL (Aug 29, 2004)

Melissa said:


> Health care being quite obviously a family issue the post is not out of place. And I NEVER, NEVER move threads to any other board. If it is here, it stays here (unless requested by the op) but I would close or delete it if it gets out of hand.
> 
> I have found that those who have health care just want to maintain the status quo, and they don't generally care about the 40 million or so who don't have any at all, and ignore that many other millions actually do have government funded care through medicare and medicaid. So why fight about it? Congress will most likely pass something, insurance companies will get richer, people will all still die of something, life will go on...



Amen!


----------



## mtfarmchick (Feb 18, 2003)

Unfortunately, health care reform is about politics. I heard one senator (sorry, can't remember his name or where he is from) say that he will never vote for health care reform, no matter what. I think he said something like "Over my cold, dead body". I do remember that he is Republican. To me, that is pretty narrowminded no matter which side of the isle you sit. This isn't about getting people health insurance (which in my opinion is something we should all have reasonable access to). It is about which camp can hold out the longest with their argurment wether it be for it or against it. In doing so they aren't working together to reach a solution. 

Using the President's middle name to try to prove how evil (you think) he is, is a little like saying every man with the middle name of Harvey is an assasin.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes the only way to get health care under control is let the private sector take over. There is not one government controlled program that is running in the black. Just take a look at SS Medicare Medicaid VA and others like the post office nothing the government does when it comes to programs is good for Americans. Just look how many programs start out looking like they might work and bingo the government gets into the "pot" ands away goes the money for other things. get The Government Out of things. After all that is what Homesteading and this forum is all about doing things Without ANY government intervention and that includes this health care debacle.
Why do you think the government the party in charge now does not want ANY kind of tort reform? They have the trial lawyers in the hip pocket.
Why do you think The FairTax or FlatTax or ANY simple tax reform will never get passed??
Because it takes power away from the government and puts more control for the people.
And I could go on and on with so many programs that have failed but that has been posted time and again so it isn't necessary. but I will say this, that Cash For Clunkers was a HUGE waste, and so will be the Cash for old appliances.!
Ans so is this so called going green jobs. Most of that has now gone overseas, like making wind turbines and such. And not helping the American people get jobs at all.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

I went to look at the bill and saw that it would take a person hours or longer to read the entire bill....I dont have that kind of time on my hands...Then again some of the langage is foriegn to me. Its not like we have any say in the decisions they will make on Capitol hill on this bill. We can write our senators,[hahahaha] and either protest, or agree, but it still wont make any difference in the short run. I dont think its fair to read portions or take your favorite sides opinion on something so important. So where does that leave us then? Read the whole thing and try to understand what it all means, or pray for the best and let the cads fall where they may...


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Did I say cads? I meant cards. hahahahaha


----------



## Janis Sauncy (Apr 11, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Yes the only way to get health care under control is let the private sector take over. There is not one government controlled program that is running in the black.


I was under the impression that you were very happy with your own government run medical care.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

My thought has often been to just eliminate the entire insurance industry and watch prices level out to a point that people can actually afford to pay on their own. That is not a popular mainstream idea though. 

Since Cale and I have been married we have had periods of having health insurance and periods of no insurance. The irony being that almost always the actual out of pocket costs was higher when we had insurance than when we didn't. I had my four children within a six 1/2 year period of time from late 1986 to early 1993. The hospital bill for the first two with no insurance, was around $1700, the second two, just a few years later jumped to about $7-8000. Odd wouldn't you say?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I can understand that. After all, you don't want facts like these to see the light of day.


 I laugh when I hear the president saying he wants to get the fraud out of Medicare/Medicaid etc.
i agree 100%~!
But he doesn't need to tear the complete system apart to do those things.
And doing those puts the SS/Medicare/Medicaid programs back on the right road again. But lets not rip apart the whole health care system for that. It is not perfect but it sure as heck works well for the most part. And 85% of the American people don't want to change over to a government mandated health care system, not as it is written in these 2 bills. Which will get merged and voted on.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Suz,do you think those supporting this in Dc read it or understand it?

TO be honest I really don't CARE about the healthcare being proposed here,it will fail like almost every other fedgov. run program,it will cost five times as much as almost every other fedgov. program and it will never go away....like almost every other fedgov. program.

But it doesn't really matter as it isn't up to the USA to decide this anyway,it is nations like China and Japan who control the pursestrings....and will for the rest of this nation's existence...

This nation is bankrupt in several ways and will never recover...it might come back a little but the days of it's supremacy are over.

As long as Americans can cope with that things should be okay...


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Healthcare-the Crown Jewel of Communism... unknown.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

"You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" ound: Pelosi said this 2 days ago. 

http://www.wikio.com/video/2915725

With all the lies that the community organizer has said, you still believe what comes out of the WH??


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Melissa said:


> My thought has often been to just eliminate the entire insurance industry and watch prices level out to a point that people can actually afford to pay on their own.


 I would like to see everybody that wanted to buy health coverage could do so and choose from the 125+ companies that write such policies. Instead there is just 2,,,3,,, 4 to choose form and that is it. Have all the companies available to everyone, not just some states that only have 2 or 3 companies that can write policies.
That change alone "Competition" would bring down the cost of the premiums a huge amount.
Why is car insurance rates low? Because of competition. Many ads on TV both day and night. Choose us and lower your cost, no come to us and we will save you X amount.
That is what should be down in the health care insurance coverage..


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Wolf mom said:


> "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" ound: Pelosi said this 2 days ago.
> 
> http://www.wikio.com/video/2915725
> 
> With all the lies that the community organizer has said, you still believe what comes out of the WH??


LOL...that actually IS funny.

One thing that never seems to be addressed is tort reform...I wonder if it has to do with most of our politicians being lawyers????


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2010)

Everybody sees the health care insurance issue from their own point of view. Most then try to overlay their POV on the whole country. My point of view is this: It's not about health care. It's about *forcing* people to be part of the system. its about *forcing* people to fork over untold billions to insurance companies, who in turn pay lobbyists who in turn bribe congressmen. I don't want to be forced to buy anything. I've been forced to pay taxes and social security my entire life. Now as I approach the downhill side, I am going to be forced to slowly sell everything I own to provide some huge insurance company with a few extra thousand bucks a year? Or get rid of every single thing I own to qualify for medicaid? (something like $3000 net worth is the allowable maximum.) I worked hard for what I got, and I paid in taxes and SS on it. I could have been drawing SS disability for the past 5 years, I don't want it. I don't want full SS when I'm 65, I don't want medicare when I'm 65, I don't want to be in a hospital hooked up to tubes and wires while somebody tells my family "he needs more tubes", or "he needs to be unplugged" I do not want insurance. I want to pay the doctor if and when I go. I want the government to keep it's hand out of my pocket. I've given and given and given to the government. The SS money? They stole that from me , just like the tax. I don't even want it back. Only one thing I want from the government, is for them to stay out of my personal affairs. I want to live free and die free. I realize that my way of thinking is outdated, but I don't even care. I just want to be left alone.


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

Why is tort reform such a huge thing for conservatives? I personally am annoyed that there in not something in the current bills dealing with it, but the CBO has said that malpractice lawsuits take up between 1-3% of health care costs. We could outlaw them altogether and sorry but the 1-3% savings really amounts to nothing. So why is this the end all be all to the conservatives? In the last 20 years malpractice lawsuites as well as monetary awards from them have dropped 50%, did I miss the corresponding drop in health care costs? Nope, because this is a non-issue when the actual numbers are looked at. And the R's are always saying they respect the CBO's numbers on these things, so lets get an explanation for this then.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

What makes up the majority of healthcare costs?

Also how much does malpractice insurance cost medical professionals?
While actual lawsuits might only account for 2-3% of healthcare costs,what of the insurance?

Which would not be needed IF there was tort reform.

But as this society is based upon the 'big payoff' I doubt people would support it...less chance of winning life's lottery if you cannot make a few million from a medical error....


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

There is no healthcare reform without tort reform!!


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

Why if the number of suits and amount of awards have been halved in the last 20 years has cost been skyrocketing? You can't have it both ways, if the suits are the cause why has a massive decline in suits and awards not been corresponded with a decrease in costs? My guess is because the insurance companies are blood sucking leaches, but by doing nothing we can continue to let them do so, YEAAAA we win huh??


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ambereyes said:


> There is no healthcare reform without tort reform!!


I agree 100%.
Why do you think doctors do more tests then are really necessary? Because they are afraid of a malpractice suit, that is why.
And that alone drives up costs.
Put a cap on them and there are some places that have done just that and the cost of insurance did go down, regardless what those that say it only adds 2 to 3% in costs. That is not what has been the case in those states that have put a cap on suits.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> What makes up the majority of healthcare costs?
> 
> Also how much does malpractice insurance cost medical professionals?
> While actual lawsuits might only account for 2-3% of healthcare costs,what of the insurance?
> ...


We already have tort reform in this state. You won't find less expensive medical care in Las Vegas, I promise you. Now we've got horror stories about citizens being harmed and left penniless. The state legislature is considering reversing it now. Tirt reform isn't the cure-all you believe it to be.

Google for KODIN (Keep Our Doctors In Nevada).


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

dogrunner said:


> Why if the number of suits and amount of awards have been halved in the last 20 years has cost been skyrocketing? You can't have it both ways, if the suits are the cause why has a massive decline in suits and awards not been corresponded with a decrease in costs? My guess is because the insurance companies are blood sucking leaches, but by doing nothing we can continue to let them do so, YEAAAA we win huh??


But the planned reform is to the benefit of the same insurance leeches...

Remember,everyone will be required to carry health insurance....and there is no fedgov. option.

Odd that,the insurance leeches win out again....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Yes the only way to get health care under control is let the private sector take over.


Where does the incentive to lower prices come from?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> We already have tort reform in this state. You won't find less expensive medical care in Las Vegas, I promise you. Now we've got horror stories about citizens being harmed and left penniless. The state legislature is considering reversing it now. Tirt reform isn't the cure-all you believe it to be.
> 
> Google for KODIN (Keep Our Doctors In Nevada).


And the reform proposed by the Dems will do little as it simply forces everyone to carry health insurance,a boon to insurance companies to be sure but doesn't really help most people...

Especially individuals who make over $200,000 or families who make over $250,000,they will get to pay for everyone.

But again,it is unimportant as it will be the usual fedgov. fiasco...it will just be another nail in the coffin of this nation.


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> I agree 100%.
> Why do you think doctors do more tests then are really necessary? Because they are afraid of a malpractice suit, that is why.
> And that alone drives up costs.
> Put a cap on them and there are some places that have done just that and the cost of insurance did go down, regardless what those that say it only adds 2 to 3% in costs. That is not what has been the case in those states that have put a cap on suits.


Actually one of the states who did cap them was California. Just the past month insurers increased premiums in California up to 40%. Is that how tort reform will work nationally? Count me out.


----------



## Ashtina98 (Aug 10, 2007)

I don't think any of us have enough of the facts on what is being proposed. Pelosi herself said the bill needed to be passed to see what was in it? I would love to see every American who WANTED health coverage to have it. I don't know if I trust our corrupt government to handle it though. My dh and I received our SS statements for this year and at the bottom there was a note stating that at the current rate, there will be NO money left for us to collect when we reach retirement age. I just can't see putting anything else into the hands of our government.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

_(portion edited- can't use abbreviations in place of words that aren't allowed-M)_. 

You mean Beautiful Sunshine isnt allowed on your forum? Thats what I was intending to represent by such an abbreviation. I have only Beautiful Sunshine on my mind. Its apparent thats not what you have on yours if you are thinking about naughty words.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

> Under the Democrat plan, which right now is being lead by President Obama in what is essentially the bill compiled by the Senate Finance Committee, the entire health care system would be overhauled. Congress would make the following changes to the insurance industry:
> 
> 1. Legislate the elimination of preexisting conditions so that everyone can get health insurance regardless of their health status;
> 2. Create state based insurance exchanges where individuals and small businesses can come together to purchase insurance in a more open and competitive marketplace;
> ...





> On the other side of the debate is the Republican Plan. It is actually much easier to write about because it is much smaller in scope. The Republicans support 4 major principles:
> 
> 1. Malpractice Reform. The goal of malpractice reform is to drive down high malpractice insurance rates for physicians and hospitals. Further, this would encourage providers to stop practicing defensive medicine and the corresponding ordering of unnecessary and expensive tests.
> 2. Allow individuals and business to buy insurance across state lines to create a more competitive health care insurance marketplace by increasing competition. This could potentially drive down costs of health care insurance for everyone.
> ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-rubin/health-care-reform-is-les_b_481003.html

Of course the Dem plan would impact more people....you are forced to have health insurance.LOL


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

the words "required/forced" is what bothers me 2nd - the first is not knowing what this bill is EXACTLY before the vote happens.

do you buy anything without knowing what it is - that's a pretty good way to have a huge mess on your hands.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

suzfromWi said:


> Im going to go read the bill before I say any more about this. We certainly cannot believe ANY politicians...


I think this is the best approach. I agree that our health care system needs some improvements, but I strongly suspect that you will be very disappointed and very angry with the real results of this current bill(s). 

I would also suggest that folks not fall into the 'we must get something passed and we can improve upon it later' trap. This health care issue has now become so very toxic that there is not a politician in the world who will broach the subject in a serious manner after the 'something' gets passed, at least for several generations anyway. Couple this with what history tells us about large scale social programs that once implemented are near impossible to 'undo' and it becomes critically important that folks understand what is at stake here.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> We already have tort reform in this state. You won't find less expensive medical care in Las Vegas, I promise you. Now we've got horror stories about citizens being harmed and left penniless. The state legislature is considering reversing it now. Tirt reform isn't the cure-all you believe it to be.
> 
> Google for KODIN (Keep Our Doctors In Nevada).


 That is because you only have a "few" companies to choose from.
This tort reform also has to be in conjunction with opening the States up so companies can write polices across state lines. 
Course one of the reasons just maybe you don't have any State Incomes Tax either. Ever thought about in that way?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Where does the incentive to lower prices come from?


Competition that is where. Let all 125+ companies write polices across state lines. Then let people choose which one is cheaper etc. And believe me, if all 125 were writing policies, there would be cheaper ones to choose from.
Just like you can now for auto insurance coverage.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Melissa said:


> My thought has often been to just eliminate the entire insurance industry and watch prices level out to a point that people can actually afford to pay on their own. That is not a popular mainstream idea though.


As I have stated many times in these forums, I agree with just banning all insurance and letting the market force medical providers to bring prices down to what people pay out of pocket. Heck even vets are now pushing medical insurance for your pet so they can jack prices skyhigh and become just like human medical providers. The whole trick of medical insurance is to get the end consumer to not think about provider charges but to just pay insurance premiums forever for protection. Yep its a legalized protection racket. Therefore the consumer doesnt care about provider charges just insurance premium. And like the mob type protection racket, when you actually need it, they arent necessarily going to provide the protection.

This would put lot fat cats on a severe diet and they arent going to go for it. And they are the ones with the political muscle. Eliminating insurance is not on anybody's political radar screen. Not the medical providers and for sure not the existing insurance companies.

The only choices out there are todays weird American hybrid system which will soon enough self destruct out of pure greed if not changed. Or the current Demo solution which in my opinion is a corporate handout basically bribing corporations with lots of new MANDATORY customers in order to get a few very necessary changes. Or we can go to a socialized system like every other industrialized country and eliminate the middleman or marginalize the middleman to such an extent they arent really a factor like in Germany. Of the three choices, that is the only sane one. No insurance companies and medical providers work for basically a guarenteed govt salary. They can concentrate on medicine and not how to maximize their personal wealth playing pricing games with patients and insurance companies or worry how to pay for malpractice insurance. If they screw up, they lose their license, go back to working at McD and "uncle deep pockets" looks after the injured party.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Competition that is where. Let all 125+ companies write polices across state lines. Then let people choose which one is cheaper etc. And believe me, if all 125 were writing policies, there would be cheaper ones to choose from.
> Just like you can now for auto insurance coverage.


Again they DONT WANT TO COMPETE, they have the markets all divvied up amoungst themselves to protect their profits. Any of them RIGHT NOW could chose to get licensed and approved to sell medical insurance in any state in the union. They arent doing it. They arent going to do it.

Or would you FORCE them by govt mandate to all offer insurance in ALL STATES? Thats not very free market is it? Shouldnt they choose where they want to offer their product/service?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

See this bill that maybe signed really should be called Insurance reform, and cut backs in Medicare benefits. And leave it at that.
What is going to take place (I hope not) is the 25 million seniors that have those policies called "Advantage Programs) will be gone. I have one of those myself.(Humana)
Now if those are gone Medicare only pays 80% The rest is picked up by those supplemental policies, of those the Advantage is one.
Now 25 mill people that have those "Advantage" policies will HAVE to switch to a lesser covered policy~!
The Advantage program means that like mine Humana the hospital bills Humana NOT Medicare, They get monies from the Government.
The cost to the government is 17%
But Humana Pays 20% of the bill that is left after Medicare pays 80%.
Now there are co-pays etc. But also prescription costs are also built into Advantage programs. 
WHen bought separately and I have done this so I know what I am talking about. The cost is around 90 bucks Plus the cost of the Drug Program at 35 to 45 Extra. A Month.
This year these advantage programs already went up over 100% 
Some were paying $18 a month those same people now pay $65 a month~!
And after these Advantage programs are gone we will be paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 a month~! Just home many on SS can Stand for that kind of raise in coverage.
Please don't forget Medicare takes out 89 bucks before you even get your SS Check.~
So now people on SS will be way over 200 closing in on 300 a month to have health insurance. 
And now those getting 500 or so a month on SS,, WHAT are they going to do for the rest of the month to live on? And don't forget the high cost of drugs on top of all that.
And the Dreaded "Donut Hole" Once reached 3500 has to be paid directly out of their pockets before it picks back up again.
You know this truth has not been getting out to many on SS.
If it had millions of seniors would be marching on Washington believe me. 
Their health coverage will be getting scaled back by quite a bit in a rationing pool, you can bet your live on that.


----------



## reese (Jul 6, 2004)

Melissa...I&#8217;m with you on _the eliminate the insurance industry all together_, and have been saying that for a long time now. At the very least make it [insurance] work through the people so if they want compensation for their medical claims, they deal with the insurance company not the medical office accountant. 
I had no problems getting health care w/o insurance 13 years ago, can't tell you what it's like now between having military hci (Tricare...which I&#8217;m not a fan of nor a fan of military health care...) and then private. We spend all this money for insurance, because it's now "required" in order to be seen at the dr's., that we hardly ever use. So it's a waste of our money to have it. 

When we didn't have insurance, I had some major health issues, and yes we had a hefty bill due to it, and we arranged payments and stuck to them, and when we had financial difficulty with the payments, we worked out another payment plan. It took us years to pay off, but we did it. 

There are clinics still out there today, that the uninsured can go to when need be, pay cash or even arrange payments. There is even at least one cancer hospital out there that will work out payment plans for those that are uninsured that I know of. 

As for the prez's plan out there...the CBO report isn't back yet and it's still not out in public. All other plans out there, including the Senate bill being forced through, come with the same conclusion, another government entitlement program that is unconstitutional and fiscally unsound leaving more and more debt for generations to come. 

Rhetoric doesn't mean squat, anyone can say anything, painting a pretty euphoric image of what one wants to get others to agree. But the *realistic ripple effect*, which seemingly those trying to push this through and wanting it aren't seeing or thinking about, or worse don't care...no matter how you slice and dice it, government controlled health care insurance *will infringe on your rights to choose*, plain and simple. This leads to your individual freedoms gone with the wind.

If one is worried about health care for those that aren't able to afford it, look into charities, and give to those, direct those in need to them and demand the government give you back more of your money so you can give even more to charities. If you are a case that is having a hard time affording health care, demand the government to give you back your money so you may choose to use it as you deem necessary and work out payments. If you are honest, I bet there are dr.'s out there that wouldn't turn you away...especially in this current climate.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> Again they DONT WANT TO COMPETE, they have the markets all divvied up amoungst themselves to protect their profits. Any of them RIGHT NOW could chose to get licensed and approved to sell medical insurance in any state in the union. They arent doing it. They arent going to do it.
> 
> Or would you FORCE them by govt mandate to all offer insurance in ALL STATES? Thats not very free market is it? Shouldnt they choose where they want to offer their product/service?


 Yes Government mandate if that is what it will take. But then What is fair about what may happen when the government gets control over ALL health care? And you only then get One Company to choose from How Fair Is That?
Something Has to be done Nobody will argue with that.
But it is the States for the most part that is stopping companies from crossing State lines not really the companies themselves.
if that was the case then you would only see one or 2 auto insurance companies, you don't you see one after another pick us we are cheaper, we will give yo a better rate. Not with the health insurance companies.
Also remember some companies are in Both Auto and health insurance.
So that doesn't wash that they don't want to cross State Lines.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> That is because you only have a "few" companies to choose from.
> This tort reform also has to be in conjunction with opening the States up so companies can write polices across state lines.
> Course one of the reasons just maybe you don't have any State Incomes Tax either. Ever thought about in that way?


Tort reform has nothing to do with how many medical insurance companies there might be, where they operate, or even whether there's a state income tax. Tort reform only involves limiting certain awards in civil lawsuits. In practice, tort reform lets doctors and hospitals off the hook while damaging the most vulnerable people in society; the disabled.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Competition that is where. Let all 125+ companies write polices across state lines. Then let people choose which one is cheaper etc. And believe me, if all 125 were writing policies, there would be cheaper ones to choose from.


The interesting thing about that proposal is that the only way you can open-up health care insurance availability across state lines is to eliminate state insurance regulation. It's just another deregulation ploy, and there's no reason to believe that it will save anything. In fact deregulating insurance will legalize price fixing among insurance providers.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> But it is the States for the most part that is stopping companies from crossing State lines not really the companies themselves.


That's inside-out logic. The state regulators setup guidelines that insurance companies have to follow. It's up to the insurance company to make application to operate in that state, and submit to state rules. If they don't like the rules they don't have to operate in that state.

Allowing insurance companies to operate unfettered across state lines is deregulation, pure and simple. Is that really good for consumers?


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Tort reform is not just about people suing. It's also about all the unneeded extra medical tests given to prevent law suilts. That's where the true extra costs come in. 

Just because Obama is using the insurance companies as the BIG culprit these days to sell his hc program, does not mean we have to buy into it. 

This is a pretty repititious tactic of his - always make someone/something the culprit as a smokescreen to hide what's really going on. 

Of course, hc costs are rising - they're for profit & can see that if this bill passes, they'll eventually be out of business & they have to answer to their shareholders now.

This also impacts jobs - no business - especially small businesses - want to hire anyone until they find out how this bill will impact them. But "O" ignores this - he's part of the jobs problem.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> Tort reform is not just about people suing. It's also about all the unneeded extra medical tests given to prevent law suilts. That's where the true extra costs come in.


Yes, that's true, and is a very real problem. When doctors are afraid to NOT order tests then expensive work is done to cover themselves with little likelihood that the tests will find a problem. But tort reform is a poor way to address that particular problem.

A more direct way to address the problem of too many tests being ordered is for doctors to shift the responsibility of whether to have tests to the patient. The doctor will only order tests when they are necessary, but educate the patient about other conditions that might be causing the problem. Then patient then makes an informed decision based on cost and probability that the test is necessary.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Allowing insurance companies to operate unfettered across state lines is deregulation, pure and simple. Is that really good for consumers?


How about free trade?? Isn't that what the US is all about? Doesn't competition keep prices down? Econ 101

Unfettered? Deregulation? Them's rabble rousing words - who ever said that would happen by allowing insurance companies to sell their product across state lines.

PS:_Insurance companies are one of the *most* regulated industries in the US today._

I cannot believe even you, nevada, would ask such a queston.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Not necessarily true, nevada. 

I recently had surgery & the surgeon would not perform it until my referring Dr. signed off that I was "healthy" to have the surgery - so my Dr. ordered more tests to cover his derriere.

We discussed this as I believed it was a CYA move on the surgeons part & my Doc said that this happens constantly. 

So, if I'd have said no extra tests - I wouldn't have had the surgery....Not always in the patient's control.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> How about free trade?? Isn't that what the US is all about? Doesn't competition keep prices down? Econ 101
> 
> Unfettered? Deregulation? Them's rabble rousing words - who ever said that would happen by allowing insurance companies to sell their product across state lines.
> 
> ...


So what does it mean to allow insurance companies to operate across state lines? The reason they can't do it now is because some insurance companies don't want to submit to regulation by certain states. The only way to fix that is to pass federal law that allows insurance companies to operate anywhere they want without interference by state regulators.

Isn't that what's being suggested? Maybe you should tell me exactly that can happen without deregulation.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> I just found a new doctor for my elderly friend after our move. Piece of cake. They list themselves in a searchable database at medicare.gov. Here, try it yourself.


 You live in Las Vegas so you have lots of Doctors around. Where I am at the many of the doctors and most of the specialists wont even take TriCare (let alone Medicare) because the reimbursables are so low.



> I went to look at the bill and saw that it would take a person hours or longer to read the entire bill.


 Thats a big part of the problem. Even most of Congress hasnt read it or understands it.



> I personally am annoyed that there in not something in the current bills dealing with it, but the CBO has said that malpractice lawsuits take up between 1-3% of health care costs.


 Thats 1-3% from actual suits Dogrunner; the real cost is the unnecessary tests and invasive procedures that physicians use to avoid litigation. Those costs are huge and conveniently ignored by some.



> Pelosi herself said the bill needed to be passed to see what was in it?


 Thats a good summation of whats wrong with this bill.



> The interesting thing about that proposal is that the only way you can open-up health care insurance availability across state lines is to eliminate state insurance regulation.


 Good grief allowing insurance companies access to other states doesnt mean they dont have to comply with that states regulations...life insurance, auto insurance..they have figured it out.



> A more direct way to address the problem of too many tests being ordered is for doctors to shift the responsibility of whether to have tests to the patient.


 Unless your in a vegetative state or mentally incompetent its already the patient's responsibility.

We do need HC reform but this current bill is a mess which even the Dems acknowledge.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The interesting thing about that proposal is that the only way you can open-up health care insurance availability across state lines is to eliminate state insurance regulation.


Ya OK now what is going to take place when the Government is in control. Surely not the states. So again that argument does not wash, as there won;t be any state regulation left after national health care.
So it does not matter. One way or another States will Have to give up their control over insurance companies.
Either by opening it up to 125 other companies or the government will have One Policy for all. Not really a good thing no matter how you look at it. Competition let,, 125 companies Fight for the right to cover the people, not the government Mandating it so. There will be many law suits filed IF this does become the case because No where Ever in history has the Government mandated, that you BUY something like this insurance policy, or fines will be the name of the game.
Not really the future many would want to take place.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wolf mom said:


> Not necessarily true, nevada.
> 
> I recently had surgery & the surgeon would not perform it until my referring Dr. signed off that I was "healthy" to have the surgery - so my Dr. ordered more tests to cover his derriere.
> 
> ...


Yes. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is having extraordinary tests done for normal conditions. I'm talking about someone coming to be treated for a headache and the doctor ordering $2000 in diagnostic tests. While it could be something serious, it probably isn't. We don't want doctors to be afraid to use their judgment in situations like that.

Remember Schwarzenegger in Kindergarten Cop:

Kid: What's wrong?
Arnold: I've got a headache.
Kid: It's probably a brain tumor.
Arnold: IT'S NOT A TUMAH!


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

7thswan said:


> And you belive the Pres?


Thats what I was thinking. 
And yep, its political. 
And the answer is not giving it over for more government control.
You tell me 10 things the government has control over that actually works like they claimed it would when they lied to us to get "those other people" to give it to them. (cuz I never vote to let them have what they want so its not me)


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Melissa said:


> I have found that those who have health care just want to maintain the status quo, and they don't generally care about the 40 million or so who don't have any at all, and ignore that many other millions actually do have government funded care through medicare and medicaid. So why fight about it? Congress will most likely pass something, insurance companies will get richer, people will all still die of something, life will go on...


:goodjob:

Can't our reps intelligently come together and MAKE CHANGES regardless of political affiliation? I see passionate viewpoints on both sides but I also see a lot of biased bullying instead of real adult solutions. To the conservatives I say I don't care if you disagree with HOW Obama is approaching this issue, but GET SOMETHING DONE. Like NOW. And end this Culture of Hostility that Limbaugh seems to have taken to a new level ever since he came on the scene. This hostile attitude is no better than those of shock jocks and gangsta rappers and is one part of the downfall of our American culture, IMO anyway. When it comes to politics, intelligent solutions is the goal - not hating one side or the other - but look at our culture now.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

One thing to remember as we work through this: we already have "health care". We are talking about "asset protection."

I have neighbors sans insurance. Came a major illness, and yes, they had to spend down assets and lose some before medicaid kicked in, but she is getting top notch treatment.

That said, of course as a consumer I want top coverage for few dollars. And as an adult I know that isn't realistic. So I figure we have to meet somewhere in the middle on "asset protection."


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Yes. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is having extraordinary tests done for normal conditions. I'm talking about someone coming to be treated for a headache and the doctor ordering $2000 in diagnostic tests. While it could be something serious, it probably isn't. We don't want doctors to be afraid to use their judgment in situations like that.


I have already addressed that. So they aren't sued if something shows up they did not test for and the person thinks they should have. But doing those many extra tests just adds to the cost of health care Once in the Hospital.
Case in point:
Last summer I went through many many tests, trying to find out just why I was having irregular heart beats. 4,, 5 sometimes as many as 6 real quick beats then back to normal then 3 fast ones etc.
Nothing was found. Had they asked ME what I thought was wrong they would have not needed even ONE of those tests. But they went right on test after test after test. Nothing~!
Then they were stumped.
I then asked the doctor well I think I have Sleep Apnea, would that cause the heart to act funny.??
Heck when I was on the heart machine after going through a "Stress Test" My heart was beating so funky,. they could NOT even use the computer driven Program~!!!!
They had to monitor me manually "Cuff Method"~!
Went for a Sleep Study and BINGO that was IT Nothing else was causing it.
Now how much DID THAT in costs raised the cost of being in a hospital???
ASK the PERSON and Do what he says first then if nothing is found go on to other tests.
But not the tests first adding huge cost factors into the mix.
but they did that because of being afraid of malpractice, and the VERY nigh cost of their malpractice policy they have to pay for out of pocket. Which again is another story in by itself. 
And I am sure this happens day i and day out all over this country, upping the cost of insurance. Put a Cap on the suit so the Doctors Know just where they stand and bingo the cost will come down.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nodak3 said:


> One thing to remember as we work through this: we already have "health care". We are talking about "asset protection."
> 
> I have neighbors sans insurance. Came a major illness, and yes, they had to spend down assets and lose some before medicaid kicked in, but she is getting top notch treatment.
> 
> That said, of course as a consumer I want top coverage for few dollars. And as an adult I know that isn't realistic. So I figure we have to meet somewhere in the middle on "asset protection."


That's true. If you have no assets, or the only asset you have is a home with a declaration of homestead, there isn't a lot they can do to collect medical debts. But if you've got stock or a summer home you could lose them.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

So as many on here are saying it is not the health care system that needs to be reformed it is the Cost of the Insurance for those people to get good health coverage.
We have the finest health Care in the world. It is the COST of the Insurance that is out of line.
But lets not tear the whole thing apart to get the cost under control. There are other ways to get the same thing done.
A squeaky wheel, the bearing gets replaced . You do not replace the entire hub and axil,( if caught early enough that is .) lol


----------



## Ana Bluebird (Dec 8, 2002)

Well, I'm glad some of you have great health care and don't want to change a thing, but there are the rest of us that say "something HAS to be done". Everything is just too expensive! Hey, trust the insurance companies to watch out for us, right!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ana Bluebird said:


> Well, I'm glad some of you have great health care and don't want to change a thing, but there are the rest of us that say "something HAS to be done". Everything is just too expensive! Hey, trust the insurance companies to watch out for us, right!


 Thats right nobody will disagree with that.
Something has to be done.
But not what is going through right now. that will not lower prices at all. In fact many are now coming out including a high ranking democratic senator said the premium will in all likely hood go up.
Think about that he just said that yesterday in fact. So now the truth is starting to trickle out at least.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> So as many on here are saying it is not the health care system that needs to be reformed it is the Cost of the Insurance for those people to get good health coverage.
> We have the finest health Care in the world. It is the COST of the Insurance that is out of line.
> But lets not tear the whole thing apart to get the cost under control. There are other ways to get the same thing done.
> A squeaky wheel, the bearing gets replaced . You do not replace the entire hub and axil,( if caught early enough that is .) lol


No one is suggesting that we tear anything down. We're just talking about insurance reform. The only thing at risk of being torn down is the profit structure of the insurance industry.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> No one is suggesting that we tear anything down. We're just talking about insurance reform. The only thing at risk of being torn down is the profit structure of the insurance industry.


It certainly wil be if government gets this health bill passed. 
And that is not what the majority wants to happen. 85% like what they have now. And if you really want the truth in just how many can't get health care coverage. it is about 5%~!
Since when in this country do 5% of the population get their way.
What about the other 95%? Don't they have a say in things?
Not according to this administration they don't.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

When I purchase Motorcycle Ins. , I buy it in another state because, I do not have to pay for more HC on the policy, because I already have it. This cannot be done with all policies, Think about it- every insurance policy you have covers you for bodily injury- why are we paying for it so many times- The Government regulations. Remove them, let me buy policies from a company that can compete. Being a Tea Party Member- we read these bills, lawyers, Dr.s regular people- what the Gov. is shoving at us is NOT what people want. The Gov. is ignoring that. They see people wanting something done and the Gov. is taking advantage of the cituation. Medicare denies more health care needs than any HC companies do. We simply do not need the Government running anything else, they can't run anything correctly. This HC crap is not what people think it is. Do Not Blindly Trust our Government anymore. Things are different now, what is going in the WH, is not like anything that has ever happened to this Country. Please, what matters most to you? Giving up your freedom for a small bit of HC. If you could see all the things that are being done right now to take away our Freedoms-from takeing fishing away, to the Feds doing land grabs, Cap and Tax, too many things to list. See all those other things and the HC Bill will be put in perspective. Do not support this Bill.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> It certainly wil be if government gets this health bill passed.
> And that is not what the majority wants to happen. 85% like what they have now. And if you really want the truth in just how many can't get health care coverage. it is about 5%~!
> Since when in this country do 5% of the population get their way.
> What about the other 95%? Don't they have a say in things?
> Not according to this administration they don't.


What exactly will be "torn down"?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> What exactly will be "torn down"?


 So many things. But I will stop with 3 items.
if you can believe the number without insurance then 40 to 50 million More people coming in with NO intentions on getting more doctors, nurses etc.
Then the Advantage program for 25 million Seniors will be gone.
And another one is cutting costs for medicare that may just lead to rationing health care to SS folks. Besides the 50 million extra people coming into the system, and it is nice of them to do that to our older generation after they have worked and lived this long in the USA,.
No choice one must But from One Company oh my that is 4, well I could go on and on but won't.


----------



## MattPA (Apr 9, 2009)

Couple of Points:
1) Who is going to pay the subsidies for the low income person.
Answer: Higher Taxes / Higher Premiums
Government cannot set price of coverage by Insurance Companies and Doctors
2)The Federal Government does not have the right to force someone to purchase a good or service. 
Answer: States can do this to an extent. Car insurance is different because you can choose not to drive, hence no fee. 
3)Almost every state has legislation in front of it to prevent the Federal Gov't from doing this. VA already passed theirs. See Worldnetdaily.com
4) You do not get something for nothing. It costs someone. In this case middle class Americans.
5) Their are 380 million Americans in this country and only 1/3 supports the other 2/3rds
Answer: The 2/3rds include children, retired, unemployed/underemployed and welfare.
6) The U.S. is not a Democracy. Its a Republic. 
Answer: Check out the difference on youtube in a video called The American Forms of Government.
7) Rome Fell and so will we.
Answer: ROME started as a republic where the people where governed by the rule of law not by democracy. A person had the law to protect his rights. Once ROME started to become a democracy its government became big and corrupt and eventually a dictatorship where the rights of its citizens were stripped away. See Video above.
8) Republicans are for the rich is a misleading statement. Republicans are for the right of any citizen to the pursuit of happiness which includes wealth. It is this battle between the Haves (People who work) and those HaveNOTS (sorry its really heard to define this group without being insulting to someone ) that the Democrats pit against each other as a distraction to whats really going on and that my friend is the dumbing down of society and the stripping of personal rights and freedoms.Remember, money is enslavement and doesn't always translate into Happiness.


----------



## MattPA (Apr 9, 2009)

I just looked up the numbers and out of 380million people, there are approximately 138 million tax payers in the United States


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> if you can believe the number without insurance then 40 to 50 million More people coming in with NO intentions on getting more doctors, nurses etc.


The system can take it.



arabian knight said:


> Then the Advantage program for 25 million Seniors will be gone.


No it won't. If that's a fact then provide a link. My elderly friend in a Medicare Advantage patient now, so I've been following that one closely. I think you fabricated that point.




arabian knight said:


> And another one is cutting costs for medicare that may just lead to rationing health care to SS folks. Besides the 50 million extra people coming into the system, and it is nice of them to do that to our older generation after they have worked and lived this long in the USA,.
> No choice one must But from One Company oh my that is 4, well I could go on and on but won't.


Medicare's not going anywhere, and they won't need to ration health care. That's just a scare tactic.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Sheesh I don't know where all this talk of unnecessary testing is coming from. When I go into the doctor I ask questions about each test if it is really necessary. They have been always upfront about how much I really need each one. If I think it will cost too much I can tell them, don't test me for that. I have had the doctor call the accounting office to find out how much each part of my care will cost and pick and choose what I think I need.

For everyone yapping about too much regulation, your flat wrong. Regulations play a very important part. We have all seen the damage that no regulations can do with the latest economic crisis. This is in large part because of deregulation, not in spite of it. The biggest problem with an unregulated free market is that you can't trust people by and large to make the right decision. People are greedy, people don't always care about other people, people don't always make the right decision. If they did we wouldn't need regulation, we wouldn't need laws.


----------



## fetch33 (Jan 15, 2010)

I don't believe a thing BO says.. if his mouth is moving, he is lying. Did you know that insurance company's make, on average, only slightly more than 2 % profit? Walmart makes more... yet all we hear about are those evil companies... Can you imagine only making 2 cent profit on every dollar spent? I really believe the Dems are trying to run the insurance companies out of business to promote government healthcare. Guess what? Cradle to grave doesn't work. Canada and England are going under because of their health care costs.


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

provide one shred of evidence that Canada is "going under"? Nice try but talk about lying, look at your own post.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What exactly will be "torn down"?


You Know Nevada,you have heard it right from Obamas mouth-he wants single payer. It will take about 10 yrs, but he will have it, with this Bill. Go right to utube and listen to him say it. You have seen the Video down in Politics, and you know it.


----------



## Dr. Mom (Jan 13, 2008)

By the time people figure out that health care reform has nothing to do with health care, it will be too late. The govt thinks this will be best for the people so it just has to be done. All it will do is turn us into a socialist country where everyone will be in the same social class. Health care is not a constitutional right. When/if the govt makes it into a single payer system, then all the insurance company workers will be unemployed. What have we gained then?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> You Know Nevada,you have heard it right from Obamas mouth-he wants single payer.


Not true. In fact, Obama said in his last health care press conference that he didn't think single payer would work in this country. Listen to it yourself (right at the 2:00 mark in the clip).

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks?blend=1&ob=4#p/search/10/gtUYFROnzrg[/ame]

Obama's stand against single payer is one of the biggest problems I have with Obama.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Dr. Mom said:


> By the time people figure out that health care reform has nothing to do with health care, it will be too late. The govt thinks this will be best for the people so it just has to be done. All it will do is turn us into a socialist country where everyone will be in the same social class. Health care is not a constitutional right. When/if the govt makes it into a single payer system, then all the insurance company workers will be unemployed. What have we gained then?


That's exactly what Reagan said Medicare would do to this country back in 1961.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzNTB1qtFA[/ame]

Did Medicare turn this country into a socialist nation? No. In fact Medicare has become a mainstay in our government, and no one in congress has the nerve to touch it today. Notice how arabian knight used the possibility of fooling with Medicare as one of his arguments against Obama's health care reform.

No, the idea that this is part of a socialist movement is nonsense.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The system can take it.
> 
> No it can't as it hardly can handle todays amount say nothing when the Baby Boomers hit~!
> 
> ...


And OH is that so. Well here this is just the start because of Medicare CUTS because even now it pays too little to Hospitals.


> Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care,* will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona*, saying the U.S. government pays too little.





> Medicare Loss
> The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the governmentâs health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.


 And please also to take notice of where this info is taken from, Not FOX Not MSNBC, somebodies Blog NO, none of those places.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0
And here is where it really will get bad because of the CUTS in Medicare.


> Obama to outline $313 billion in Medicare, Medicaid spending cuts
> The president says his latest plan, which includes potential cuts to hospitals and pharmaceutical firms, will help curb costs as he seeks to expand healthcare coverage to the uninsured in the U.S.
> June 14, 2009|Noam N. Levey
> WASHINGTON â Under pressure to pay for his ambitious reshaping of the nation's healthcare system, *President Obama on Saturday outlined $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade to help cover the cost of expanding coverage to tens of millions of America's uninsured*.


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/14/nation/na-obama-radio14


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

1. I haven't found anybody who can confidently explain the current Senate bill as it has been reconciled. It is in excess of 2000 pages, written in legalese. I doubt the staffers who actually wrote the thing know exactly what is in it.

2. I'm tired of pulling the wagon for everybody that wants to ride. I believe in taking care of the elderly, those who are legitimately so disabled they cannot care for themselves and for poor children. As for the rest of this modern day voracious crowd, the black folks have a saying, "every tub needs to set on its own bottom". 'nuff said.

3. I don't care what kind of healthcare you have, you are going to die. Just *when* you assume room temp has a lot to do with your genetics and the lifestyle you choose to lead. Sure, some folks come up snake eyes in life's lottery - those are the people I have sympathy for and can support society helping with their healthcare. See point number two.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And OH is that so. Well here this is just the start because of Medicare CUTS because even now it pays too little to Hospitals.


No one is cutting Medicare. Trust me, they'll keep Medicare intact.


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

Our health care insurance hit $15,000 ten years ago even with $10,000 per person per year deductibles. We dropped it and went without insurance. We live carefully. We avoid going to the hospital if at all possible and self-treat for minor things like a broken leg. Hospitals and doctors are only a last resort.

Frankly, health care should not have anything to do with employment. This whole thing is bogus. The President's plan isn't even going to go into effect if approved until 2013. In the mean time don't get sick.

What should they do? Provide free preventative care, prenatal, childhood care and basic health care. If you want more than that you carry private insurance. Smoke and want a new set of lungs or a new heart? That's additional. Dems will find this too politically correct. Reps will not want to pay for it. Nobody will be happy. That mean's its a good idea.  By the way, abortions and prophylactics should be free. Nobody actually enjoys having one.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> No one is cutting Medicare. Trust me, they'll keep Medicare intact.


So you are then saying President Obama is a Lier. OK I will buy that.
Then why are you believing other things that O has said?
And why are you backing his plan in health care then if you believe he is a lier?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Nevada said "A more direct way to address the problem of too many tests being ordered is for doctors to shift the responsibility of whether to have tests to the patient."

That would be way cheeper, we could be our own doctors, to heck with insurance companies..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> That would be way cheeper, we could be our own doctors, to heck with insurance companies..


I'm trying to make sense of that. It almost looks like you're saying that you would prefer to have your insurance company be your doctor. Whatever...

But I don't have a problem with making my own financial decisions regarding my medical care. Why should I? Besides, isn't free choice what conservatives are all about? You don't like free choice all of the sudden?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm trying to make sense of that. It almost looks like you're saying that you would prefer to have your insurance company be your doctor. Whatever...
> 
> But I don't have a problem with making my own financial decisions regarding my medical care. Why should I? Besides, isn't free choice what conservatives are all about? You don't like free choice all of the sudden?


 Where is the "Free Choice" of which you speak of? Surely not in any of the bills before Obama.


----------



## mellba (Oct 15, 2004)

Nevada, I think you ARE the voice of reason.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mellba said:


> Nevada, I think you ARE the voice of reason.


What reason there is no Choice going to happen. You Will Buy Your Health Care for The Government end of story. That is no choice at all.
If you want prove I shall provide it for you.


----------



## Dr. Mom (Jan 13, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's exactly what Reagan said Medicare would do to this country back in 1961.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzNTB1qtFA
> 
> ...


Medicare did not turn the country into a socialist nation overnight but it definitely steered it down the path toward socialism, along with several other govt programs. We the People have become too complacent and allowed the govt to grow bigger and bigger. 

When Medicare started in 1965, the life expectancy was only around 70 years of age. People were only expected to be on Medicare for around 5 years or so. Now the life expectancy is around 80, all the baby boomers are becoming eligible for Medicare, and the system is overloaded. Poor planning perhaps by people who didn't know what to expect because they weren't in the insurance business? And now they want to take over ALL the medical needs of the entire nation when they can't even run a simple program like Medicare? I don't think so. 

The govt should not be involved health care, making cars, banking, housing, postal services, or a host of other programs that are now going bankrupt after big govt started taking over. Let the private sector, also known as capitalism, take back those programs and run them right. This country was founded on free enterprise. It's time to get the govt out of things it shouldn't be in.


----------



## clovis (May 13, 2002)

:thumb:


PhilJohnson said:


> Steff, don't bother. If there is anything that has been obvious over the past kazillion threads that have been posted about health care it is the amazing ability for people to put on their rose colored glasses and look around declaring there is nothing wrong at all with the US health care system as is.


Great post!!!!!


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

steff bugielski said:


> From the presidents page
> http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/[email protected]


My dear, these are not facts, this is propaganda. Most people are satisfied with the insurance they have and realize that the government does very few things better than the public can.

Remember the President's example comparing UPS and the US Postal Service? Ummm, the US Postal Service is _cutting _service because it's losing money.

If insurers are required to insure everyone without consideration of preexisting conditions they'll either go out of business or rates for everyone will increase. How is it fair for an insurance company to be required to insure a cancer patient at a premium of, say $500/month when their treatment costs $5000+/month? Or a person with asthma whose medications cost $300+/per month. Even though that's less than my arbitrary premium amount it doesn't provide much cushion in the case of another illness or an asthma related test or hospitalization. (My daughter's asthma medications cost around $600+ per month... but her asthma is quite severe.)

You realize that Medicare and Medicaid "save" money by setting reimbursement rates lower and often disregard the actual provider cost, right? You realize that fewer and fewer providers will accept Medicare and Medicaid, right? The President can say that Medicare won't be cut... benefits may not be cut but reimbursements _will_. 

You do realize that many medical technology companies and insurance companies are trying to prepare for any possible change? They realize that any plan will require providers/practices to take on MANY more patients for the same reimbursement they are currently getting, right? Personally, I don't want my provider to spend less time with me than he currently does.

Let me see.... It's March and I've had at least three appointment with my primary provider. I've got another one in a month or so. I've seen my neuro a couple of times too.... if these providers have to take on more patients then they won't have the time to spend with me....I'm a very complex patient.

Personally I don't want my doctor to be rushed. 

The proponents of this socialized plan say that we can keep our policies. They don't mention that it's likely that the plans will cost much more than commercial insurance with fewer benefits and less provider reimbursement (Remember the Post Office?). The plan is likely to make more burdens to the current insurers driving many of them out of business and encouraging many small businesses (the primary employers of our nation) to use the government plan instead of offering employer sponsored plans. 

Please don't confuse propaganda and facts.


----------



## stickinthemud (Sep 10, 2003)

This thread, like every other discussion I have seen/heard/read on "Health Care" recently, is 90% about Insurance--about finding someone ELSE to pay for health care. How about--just to remove the insurance variable--going with Melissa's proposal and say all health insurance is banned. What Health Care problems exist? What reforms are needed?
Or is insurance the problem?


----------



## luvrulz (Feb 3, 2005)

steff bugielski said:


> From the presidents page
> http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/[email protected]
> 
> If you have health insurance through your employer and you like your plan, you can keep it.
> ...


And on the apron strings of this bill, he's trying to reverse Roe vs. Wray - and *ALLOW* abortions??? Do you also agree with that? So glad I didn't vote for this man...........


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

What is Roe vs. Wray? Wade I assume you mean?? And what do mean "reverse" it? Only the supreme court can do that by the way. As it stands now roe v wade is what allows safe legal abortions, so with your logic reversing it would make them illegal which seems like what you are advocating. It appears you do not know your facts, so please refrain from posting like you do.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

dogrunner said:


> What is Roe vs. Wray? Wade I assume you mean?? And what do mean "reverse" it? Only the supreme court can do that by the way. As it stands now roe v wade is what allows safe legal abortions, so with your logic reversing it would make them illegal which seems like what you are advocating. *It appears you do not know your facts, so please refrain from posting like you do.*


LOL....not very friendly.


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

I thought the same thing, and I am sorry it came across snarky I really don't mean to be rude. I am just so frustrated about this issue and the blatant misinformation that is constantly thrown out as fact. This one was so wrong with the basic facts that I was rude about it, I do apologize for the tone but I won't for the content.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

The blatant misinformation is certainly not restricted to those opposed to MORE fedgov intrusion into our lives and wallets.

Funny that no UHC system seems to work very well in any other nation...without massive taxation AND people buying private insurance(on top of the gov. mandated insurance) to cope.

This will fail like almost every other fedgov. program,but the proponents do not seem to care as they won't be paying....ound:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Joshie said:


> Let me see.... It's March and I've had at least three appointment with my primary provider. I've got another one in a month or so. I've seen my neuro a couple of times too.... if these providers have to take on more patients then they won't have the time to spend with me....I'm a very complex patient.


You are aware that a lot of Americans die from lack of medical care each year, aren't you? If I'm reading your post correctly, your primary concern with health care reform is that you don't want to share the medical industry with any more Americans than it's being shared with right now. As long as you've got yours, you really don't care?


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> The blatant misinformation is certainly not restricted to those opposed to MORE fedgov intrusion into our lives and wallets.
> 
> Funny that no UHC system seems to work very well in any other nation...without massive taxation AND people buying private insurance(on top of the gov. mandated insurance) to cope.
> 
> This will fail like almost every other fedgov. program,but the proponents do not seem to care as they won't be paying....ound:


Again, you do not wish to acknowledge facts. I work, have insurance and support this reform. So your last line is completely false, simple fact if we want to deal with those.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You are aware that a lot of Americans die from lack of medical care each year, aren't you? If I'm reading your post correctly, your primary concern with health care reform is that you don't want to share the medical industry with any more Americans than it's being shared with right now. As long as you've got yours, you really don't care?


People die in nations with UHC systems in place too...what of that?


I see the old 'you don't care about others' ploy is being used.

Just a little too predictable in my opinion.:grin:

If any of the proponents could name a UHC system that works it would be appreciated.

By the way,as the proposed program will simply force everyone to pay for insurance and those who cannot pay will be paid by others,that seems to be a little uncaring too...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

dogrunner said:


> Again, you do not wish to acknowledge facts. I work, have insurance and support this reform. So your last line is completely false, simple fact if we want to deal with those.


Why do you support it?

Because you want to benefit insurance companies?

You know of course that this will simply force everyone to buy private health insurance...

Either directly for themselves and if they are 'lucky' enough to be successful by being taxed.

I love how some feel they have the right to others earnings...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> People die in nations with UHC systems in place too...what of that?


It's interesting to me how conservatives are so concerned about the possibility of 3000 Americans dying in another terrorist attack, yet when it's demonstrated that 45,000 Americans die needlessly each year for lack of health care it's no big deal.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> .. yet when it's demonstrated..


This being the antecedent, and not yet satisfied, I don't believe I need to spend any time on the consequent.

R

P.S. 2.4 million Americans die each year for lack of a youth potion. I don't want to be taxed to find one.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It's interesting to me how conservatives are so concerned about the possibility of 3000 Americans dying in another terrorist attack, yet when it's demonstrated that 45,000 Americans die needlessly each year for lack of health care it's no big deal.


People die needlessly all the time...how many die from medical malpractice a year?

I believe a million babies are aborted every year in the USA....


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

WindowOrMirror said:


> P.S. 2.4 million Americans die each year for lack of a youth potion. I don't want to be taxed to find one.


LOL....it is for the old ones,how can you be so cruel???:smiley-laughing013:


----------



## reese (Jul 6, 2004)

*The Joint Committee on Taxation report*

The committee also determined that the bill would subsidized insurance premiums for 7 percent of taxpayers -- about 13 million people -- while some 73 million people would face higher costs from the new fees and taxes.

_OMG>..just on the radio..."The ends justify the means, they don't know what is good for them, we do, and we'll do it for them." WT...I DO know what is good for me and I don't need any bureaucrat telling me, nay, forcing something on me I know is not good for me and my fellow Americans over all. I didn't catch who said that...but wow..._

Again...look at the ripple effect...


> There's a long list of taxes in the Senate bill, including some paid directly by consumers. Other taxes are on providers who will simply pass it on to consumers.
> "It has imposed a lot of taxes and fees on the drug companies, on the medical device manufacturers, on the insurance companies," said economist Doug Holtz Eakin. "All of that is going to show up in higher sticker prices for those that have health insurance."
> 
> And then there is the proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans, which was pushed back but will result in significantly higher tax payments by tens of millions of Americans who have generous insurance plans through their workplace.
> ...


*
The Congressional Budget Office *

What the CBO doesn't take into consideration is the ripple effect, or better put, the tsunami effect.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

WindowOrMirror said:


> P.S. 2.4 million Americans die each year for lack of a youth potion. I don't want to be taxed to find one.


A youth potion may never exist, where basic health care services are readily available right now for those who can afford it. I believe that Americans dying for lack of health care is a national disgrace.

Having the means to save 45,000 American lives each year while doing nothing is completely without conscience.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

What do you mean by 'die needlessly' anyway?

How EXACTLY is that proven?

Seems kind of like that Obamaism "jobs created *OR saved*"...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> People die needlessly all the time...how many die from medical malpractice a year?


Why do we bother with the war on terror? All it's preventing is people dying needlessly. Is that really a big enough deal to spend $1 trillion on?


----------



## reese (Jul 6, 2004)

Also note that the CBO reports have been off a lot, in some cases estimates 3 X's lower than actuality.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> What do you mean by 'die needlessly' anyway?
> 
> How EXACTLY is that proven?


How about a Harvard study.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada,good to see you haven't changed...

Again I do not CARE if this passes or not...but thats okay because I won't be paying for it.:grin:

I DO know it won't work as planned and the 'solution' will be to spend more money on it....

Lets just hope China is willing to loan us the money.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

reese said:


> Also note that the CBO reports have been off a lot, in some cases estimates 3 X's lower than actuality.


If you're concerned about cost, how about we pay for it with tax cuts the same way we paid for the Iraq war?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

36000 die from flu every year...yet people have to pay for shots...

The horror...

Of course under the proposed system.....people will still have to pay for shots.


----------



## reese (Jul 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> A youth potion may never exist, where basic health care services are readily available right now for those who can afford it. I believe that Americans dying for lack of health care is a national disgrace.
> 
> Having the means to save 45,000 American lives each year while doing nothing is completely without conscience.


Then _YOU_ pay for it, do not force others through taxes, fees, fines, raised costs, etc. if you feel it's a disgrace. _ YOU_ make the personal sacrifice and allow others to make that_ choice_ for themselves if they desire to make that personal sacrifice as well to help. 

This is what it comes down to; freedom of personal choice to provide charity, or forced to pay through government regulations and control. Our country was _not_ founded on the latter, and many of us are working hard to preserve the former as our country and constitution was founded on. Just because one doesn't want the government dictating where our money goes, doesn't mean we don't care about those in need. In FACT, dare I say most of us would love to have more of our money so we can actually give to charities that do provide care for those in need.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> How about a Harvard study.
> 
> New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage


Wow,things are sure getting worse....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

A mere 8 years ago only 18000 people died...

If things don't change soon,we will ALL die....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> 36000 die from flu every year...yet people have to pay for shots...
> 
> The horror...
> 
> Of course under the proposed system.....people will still have to pay for shots.


Pretty weak argument...

Whatever, I'm headed for a breakfast buffet. Eat your heart out.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtkpTrvwQ6c[/ame]

"I'll have some of the yella, and don't get cheap on me."


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

reese said:


> Then _YOU_ pay for it, do not force others through taxes, fees, fines, raised costs, etc. if you feel it's a disgrace. _ YOU_ make the personal sacrifice and allow others to make that_ choice_ for themselves if they desire to make that personal sacrifice as well to help.


Ahhh,see you do not understand.

While the idea is noble and good to make some pay for others healthcare,it is NOT noble or good to make those who support such ideas pay...better to make the 'evil rich' pay...LOL


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Pretty weak argument...
> 
> Whatever, I'm headed for a breakfast buffet. Eat your heart out.
> 
> ...


Don't eat too much,remember almost 1000,000 Americans die from heart disease.

Perhaps buffets should be regulated???:smiley-laughing013:


----------



## reese (Jul 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> If you're concerned about cost, how about we pay for it with tax cuts the same way we paid for the Iraq war?


apples to oranges...doesn't work

My number one reason I'm against this, and all other bills out there about the HCI that is being forced upon us, is that plain and simple, it's* not constitutional*. Instead of a government run entitlement program, leave it for where charity works best, for the private sector to provide charity from their own kind spirits and free wills.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

85,000 die each year from the infections they get in Hosptials -Each Year.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Hmmm...that is an inconvenient little fact.:clap:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Don't eat too much,remember almost 1000,000 Americans die from heart disease.
> 
> Perhaps buffets should be regulated???:smiley-laughing013:


No need. I take Alli before each meal to keep me from getting bigger than a house, and it also takes the fat out of my diet. No sign of cardiovascular disease.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> No need. I take Alli before each meal to keep me from getting bigger than a house, and it also takes the fat out of my diet. No sign of cardiovascular disease.


Does it work?
And what about it's.....affects?

Good to know you are healthy enough.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Having the means to save 45,000 American lives each year while doing nothing is completely without conscience.


 What a one note wonder. This supposed factoid isnt even used by the BO administration anymore because its just unfounded.

Some of you seem to think this is a black and white issue but its not. Many of us are for reform but against this monstrocity of a bill and the special interests behind it. Using propaganda like both sides are doing only clouds the issue.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Does it work?
> And what about it's.....affects?
> 
> Good to know you are healthy enough.


Oh it works alright. Alli neutralizes an enzyme that's necessary for the colon to absorb fat, so the fat goes right through you. You can lose a lot of weight fast with Alli.

The side effects are obvious at first. Expect abdominal cramps, urgent bowel movements, and a lot of gas, but that goes away in 3 or 4 weeks of use. Most of the side effects are the colon's reaction to having oil in it. It's about what you would expect by taking a few tablespoon of mineral oil with each meal.

Anyway, I'm outta here. See you in an hour or two.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Oh it works alright. Alli neutralizes an enzyme that's necessary for the colon to absorb fat, so the fat goes right through you. You can lose a lot of weight fast with Alli.
> 
> The side effects are obvious at first. Expect abdominal cramps, urgent bowel movements, and a lot of gas, but that goes away in 3 or 4 weeks of use. Most of the side effects are the colon's reaction to having oil in it. It's about what you would expect by taking a few tablespoon of mineral oil with each meal.
> 
> Anyway, I'm outta here. See you in an hour or two.


Urgent bowel movements and a lot of gas....no long road trips at first then huh???

I am off to work soon,counting down the days until I no longer will be saying that....:bouncy:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Written by a physician friend of mine:

_The docs who support Obamacare, by and large, seem to be those (and this is just my impression) who don't actually have to make a budget, meet a deadline, or take care of a payroll. Many are dependent on a public aid practice (which, if you're in the right specialty - like OB - can be lucrative). They are employees of larger institutions, and are paid a salary. It doesn't touch them, so if they get something for nothing, why not? 

Obamacare would not affect me all that much. As I've said, although 40% of my work is Medicare, only 15% of my income is. If Medicare (or Obamacare) cuts it by 21%, it's only a 3% cut in the big picture. BUT, that's not the problem. The problem is that other docs, who get about 80% of commercial rate from Medicare will get hit hard. The other thing which will happen is that private insurers will start following the Medicare price model (many do now) and cut their reimbursements as well. 

Here's an example of how sneaky they are: 

In January, a new Medicare regulation came into play that had two key provisions. Let's say that your a surgeon, okay? You get called by the primary care doc to see a patient. The reimbursement for that consultation has been cut to about $75. It used to make a difference how long you spend with the patient (level of acuity). Not anymore. A consult is a consult. Seventy Five bucks. 

Regardless of time of day. 

So, it's 3 AM, and you get called to see a 85 year old in the ER with a possible bowel perforation. You gonna get out of bed and drive in, spend 2 hours looking at the patient, evaluating labs and x-rays and THEN go to your office at 7 AM? 

Hell no. You'll let it wait until you get there. 

But wait! There's more. 

If you OR ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR PRACTICE, has seen the patient before within the last (I believe) two years FOR ANY REASON, it's not an "initial consultation," but a followup. The reimbursement for that is about $45. So, if your partner saw this 85 year old for a breast lump 18 months ago, and now she presents with a bowel obstruction, and you're on call...it's a "followup." 

And this is the nickel and diming that's occurring. 

_


----------



## mandidawn (Aug 11, 2006)

> I just found a new doctor for my elderly friend after our move. Piece of cake. They list themselves in a searchable database at medicare.gov. Here, try it yourself.


I tried it and asked for doctors in my zip code. It gave me plenty of doctors, all over an hour away (not my zip code!)



> Sheesh I don't know where all this talk of unnecessary testing is coming from. When I go into the doctor I ask questions about each test if it is really necessary. They have been always upfront about how much I really need each one. If I think it will cost too much I can tell them, don't test me for that. I have had the doctor call the accounting office to find out how much each part of my care will cost and pick and choose what I think I need.


Hmm, must be nice. I go in for my yearly every year, specificaly say "this is what my ins company will pay for, only do these tests!" and hand them a piece of paper with insurance codes and such on it, and yet EVERY.SINGLE.YEAR I end up having to pay for things because they did other tests. Just simple blood work/ect but I still have to pay for it. They dont' even tell me what all they are looking for, nor do I get results. If I call for results, I get "it's all normal". No, I want numbers!! It's like pulling teeth. I've switched doctors 3 times in the past 5 years because of this, and it still happens.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

OK, I have a lot to do this weekend, so you all behave and keep this thread civil. I would hate to have to spend a lot of time handing out infractions when I come back... <makes me grumpy> Carry on!


----------



## quietstar (Dec 11, 2002)

After careful consideration of the people pushing this bill, and the less than honorable way this process has excluded my representives, I say no thanks....But wait!! The plan is to deny any American citizen a real choice. I can sense the angry spirits of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and companions rising in anger at this outrageous proposal. The Tea Party and it's like can only grow and become louder with this added fuel...Glen


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Wow, this is like GC, only more polite!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

reese said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > If you're concerned about cost, how about we pay for it with tax cuts the same way we paid for the Iraq war?
> ...


Apples to Oranges?

It must be apples when a republican spends $1 trillion, but oranges when a democrat spends $1 trillion. Don't you just hate it when an uppity democrat thinks he can spend like a republican?


----------



## redtx (Jun 8, 2002)

This thread is interesting, but I was just wondering if anyone besides me is a small business owner who writes that check every quarter to the insurance company, and has watched the amount grow over 300% in the last ten years? I keep seeing that everyone is worried about their insurance costs going up, but the fact is they have been going up for years. That is one reason wages haven't gone up and companies are moving offshore. Don't get me wrong I am not at all happy with the plans coming out of Washington and I have my doubts as to weather anything they come up with will do any good, but what we have right now is not really workable. I am looking at dropping coverage or closing the doors and everyone that I know who is also running a small business is in the same boat.

On another note, I keep seeing the fact that most Americans are happy with the insurance they have, but you do realize that most Americans have government subsidized health insurance, about 60% through Medicare, medicade, and government employment. While I am real glad that you all are happy with the insurance my taxes are paying for, how long do you think we folks in the private sector are going to go along with this when we canât afford to cover our employees or ourselves?


----------



## Mavors (Mar 30, 2007)

How to drive down healthcare costs? That is the real question as if the costs are lower then it will be readily available for everyone.

1. Ins, as I see it, is really to help protect from those big events in life that catch us by surprise. i.e. cancer that costs lots and lots of money.
2. Why are we using ins. to pay for things like doctors appointments, stitches to cuts and other small problems? These are things that are the normal life things that we all should be paying for.

Here is what I propose.
1. Everyday medical is out of pocket. say in HSA accounts that are not taxed and continue to build over time. This is important because just like everything else I buy I ask "How much?". People don't have any incentive to ask how much in the medical industry these days.
2. Competition across state lines. I should be able to buy ins. from any company in these United States of America.
3. Tort Reform must be addressed to put limits on lawsuits yet still allow a process to handle when the medical industry has done something really wrong.
4. I own my ins policy not my employer. Just like auto ins. I get my own policy and I own it.


I know this isn't perfect, but I know that price can be driven down in the free market if the free market is allowed to work. Our current system, which is excessive gov't regulation over a partial free market, does not work and from the parts of the healthcare bills I've read they will not aid us either.

In all this freedom must win out. I am willing to risk all fighting to keep the freedoms I still have. We are loosing our freedoms daily on local and national levels. I would rather be poor, sick and free than a slave to yet another governmental program. :duel:

Long live These United States of America

Eric


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Apples to Oranges?
> 
> It must be apples when a republican spends $1 trillion, but oranges when a democrat spends $1 trillion. Don't you just hate it when an uppity democrat thinks he can spend like a republican?


There you go again....

How about some of those pesky facts:

1. Fact - it took Obama 12 *months* to add as much to the national debt as Bush did in 8 *years*.

2. Fact - Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%. Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade. 

3. Fact - Bush loaned $240B to banks and insurance companies to ensure economic stability. A lot of that money has already been paid back, with interest...a rare time when the government actually is making money.

Compare that to who Obama has lent $320B. Car companies, car finance companies, union allies...money that we will most likely never see again.


Face it, Team Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010. 

No Republican has ever matched such figures, even in time of war...


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Steff- are you sorry you brought this up yet?!?!?

And, yes, it had better be more polite than GC. I have never understood why people can't discuss an issue without being rude. State your case and then listen to other people as they do the same. It is called civility...


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

Jolly,
What you, and too many others, continue to either ignore or not know about is that Bush's budget numbers NEVER included the costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Obama has included the full costs of those in his budget. So yes Obama's budget appears bigger, but it is an honest accounting. Add the cost of the wars to Bush's budgets and then compare otherwise your numbers are not worth comparing, they are false.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Let's try to focus on this current health care bill- please. This could go on forever if we start dredging up too many other topics...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

dogrunner said:


> Jolly,
> What you, and too many others, continue to either ignore or not know about is that Bush's budget numbers NEVER included the costs of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Obama has included the full costs of those in his budget. So yes Obama's budget appears bigger, but it is an honest accounting. Add the cost of the wars to Bush's budgets and then compare otherwise your numbers are not worth comparing, they are false.


Our hostess wishes us to stick to healthcare, so I shall...as of *TODAY* the CBO has raised their estimate of the healthcare bill to $875B. Most Dems think the mark will hit $950B if they are sucessful in their reconcilliation bid. They are politically fearful of the $1T pricetag...one trilllllion dollllars does have a frightful roll of off the tongue.

However, to kep the pricetag below a trillion dollars, they are going to *cut* Medicare. If you'll not the earlier post I made about physician reimbursement, you'll see why doctors are already dropping out of Medicare - it's simply not worth it, and that is before the dollars are cut some more.

Therefore, my question is why are we going to cut the healthcare of 40.5 million Americans, in an effort to provide healthcare for an additional 30 million, or so? Especially if the 30 million are much healthier than the 40.5 million people we are taking care away from?

As I have said earler, as many as thirty states have enacted or are considering laws opting out of Obamacare...if SCOTUS rules that the states do have the right to opt-in or opt-out, this thing is dead as a hammer, no matter what view you have of it. And if passed, the Dems are politically dead as well...most folks in the know say the current pick-up for the Republicans in an off-year election should be about 24-30 seats in the house. Enacting Obamacare has people talking about 80 seats in the House and a possible Senate majority flop.

You think Mr. Obama likes Chicago-style politics? Wait until he has to deal with a Republican House, a Republican Senate and nine empty SCOTUS seats at his next SOTU speech.

Enact Obamacare and he's Carter II, the one-term wonder.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

The biggest issue is that the CBO only talks about 10 years worth of budget...

That's 10 years of expense and only 6 years of "benefit". It's a false accounting. Look at the next 5 years estimate after that... there's an eye opener.

Just the facts indeed.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> How about a Harvard study.
> 
> New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage


Why do you intentionally post this falsehood?

For those who want the truth go to General chat and search "Harvard Study" and read how this is first, NOT a harvest study, second, performed by an activist group that's prime goal is to get single coverage (Public option government medicine) and that the study is flawed because it only interview the people ONE TIME in the 18 or 16 years and never interviewed people again just followed up and found who was dead and if they were dead it was attributed to "no health insurance" from their previous interview.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> Why do you intentionally post this falsehood?
> 
> For those who want the truth go to General chat and search "Harvard Study" and read how this is first, NOT a harvest study, second, performed by an activist group that's prime goal is to get single coverage (Public option government medicine) and that the study is flawed because it only interview the people ONE TIME in the 18 or 16 years and never interviewed people again just followed up and found who was dead and if they were dead it was attributed to "no health insurance" from their previous interview.


Got a more accurate number?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Got a more accurate number?


Yes, 128 people in the U.S. die annually due to a lack of health insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Yes, 128 people in the U.S. die annually due to a lack of health insurance.


Okay, but you forgot a reference.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Okay, but you forgot a reference.


I don't have a link because I pulled the numbers out of thin air.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Got a more accurate number?


Please, go a bit further... I like where you are heading with this. 

More accurate number for what?

Also, please define what "an accurate number" is so we can discuss this. Remember, don't be obscure... let's get to brass tacks here.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> The biggest issue is that the CBO only talks about 10 years worth of budget...
> 
> That's 10 years of expense and only 6 years of "benefit". It's a false accounting. Look at the next 5 years estimate after that... there's an eye opener.
> 
> Just the facts indeed.



Where are you getting your facts?



> CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, *would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current lawâwith a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP. *That judgment is unchanged from CBOâs previous assessment, and the imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBOâs 10-year budget estimates.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> Please, go a bit further... I like where you are heading with this.
> 
> More accurate number for what?
> 
> Also, please define what "an accurate number" is so we can discuss this. Remember, don't be obscure... let's get to brass tacks here.


You're being obtuse. You CAN'T have lost your train of thought in just a few posts.

There can be no question that we're talking about the number of Americans who die each year for lack of health care. What other number could we possibly be talking about, and how did you become confused?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> Where are you getting your facts?


LOL, really?

I get it from a vast array of places. Places that all add a little the others don't like this:



> The CBO, however, says that the spending reductions and additional revenue would accrue at a faster rate than new spending during the second 10 years, leading to continuing deficit reduction in the future. &#8220;CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget
> deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law&#8212;with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of [gross domestic product],&#8221; the letter says.
> 
> Likewise, the estimate says that although the legislation would increase the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare by $200 billion over the first 10 years, &#8220;CBO expects that the proposal would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following the 10-year budget window.&#8221;
> ...


http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73079-cbo-health-bill-spends-871b-reduces-deficit-by-132b

I guess if we can add any numbers we want... like assumed future "cuts" and "tax hikes". 

You usually are much better with finances than this Mike, take off your party glasses.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> You're being obtuse. You CAN'T have lost your train of thought in just a few posts.
> 
> There can be no question that we're talking about the number of Americans who die each year for lack of health care. What other number could we possibly be talking about, and how did you become confused?


Sure there can be a question of what number you're looking for accurate numbers on. I make no claims as to how many people "died from lack of health insurance"... that's you and your party's bag. I just pointed out that it's FALSE and based on a FALSE study.

Perhaps you should (again) read a little of this:
http://www.thedoctors.com/KnowledgeCenter/References/CON_ID_000696



> Harvard Study Continues to Distort Health Care Quality Debate
> by Richard E. Anderson, MD, FACP
> The Harvard Medical Practice Study is often cited in discussions of health care quality and medical malpractice reform. Missing from this discussion is any mention of the critical flaws of the study, which not only render the data of virtually no use for public policy debate, but which also fail to support the authors&#8217; conclusions about the medical-legal system.
> The study&#8217;s principal conclusions are: (1) Medical malpractice is common. (2) Relatively few injured patients actually sue. (3) One hundred and fifty thousand patients die annually because of their medical treatment. (4) There is no correlation whatever between medical negligence and the outcome of malpractice litigation. The Harvard authors deduced from this data that there is not too much malpractice litigation, but too little. Even though they admit the rate of meritless suits against physicians is too high, they still view it as preferable to reform of the tort system.
> ...


There's a lot more at the link.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

The above is long but it shows the methodology flaws associated with the Harvard study. This isn't the first time this "study" has been quoted. It's quoted also to state that doctors kill 80,000 people a year... do we believe that too?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

> HARVARD STUDY USES QUESTIONABLE METHODOLOGY, SAY CRITICS
> 
> A Harvard University study published in the American Journal of Public Health claimed that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health care coverage. It's an alarming figure, except that this study is seriously flawed, says U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, who represents Florida's 6th Congressional District.
> 
> ...


http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2009/11/harvard-study-used-by-cbs-claiming.html


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> Sure there can be a question of what number you're looking for accurate numbers on. I make no claims as to how many people "died from lack of health insurance"... that's you and your party's bag. I just pointed out that it's FALSE and based on a FALSE study.
> 
> Perhaps you should (again) read a little of this:
> http://www.thedoctors.com/KnowledgeCenter/References/CON_ID_000696
> ...


Are you sure that's a rebuttal to the study I was referring to? Your link seems to be about health care quality, not health care availability.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Are you sure that's a rebuttal to the study I was referring to? Your link seems to be about health care quality, not health care availability.


It's not a rebuttal to THIS years study specifically, but the study in general. 

That's the point, this study has been used (flawed as it is) year after year to push an agenda.

It's a FLAWED study and you keep repeating it.

Furthermore, if you REALLY believed it, you'd be outraged that Obama wants 180,000 Americans to die until his "benefits" of actual coverage kick in.

You know as well as I do it's a red herring. 



> Consider the questionable methodology behind the report. According to an analysis by John C. Goodman, President, CEO and the Kellye Wright Fellow of the National Center for Policy Analysis:
> 
> The authors of the Harvard study interviewed the uninsured only once -- and never saw them again; this alone undermines the integrity of the findings.
> A decade later, the researchers assumed the participants were still uninsured and, if they died in the interim, lack of insurance was blamed as one of the causes.
> ...


 (From a link above)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> It's not a rebuttal to THIS years study specifically, but the study in general.
> 
> That's the point, this study has been used (flawed as it is) year after year to push an agenda.
> 
> ...


Isn't 45,000 still the best number we have right now?


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Isn't 45,000 still the best number we have right now?


Read it and weep. No people die from lack of insurance. Zero. From the March 2010 Atlantic Monthly
"The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it. Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diego&#8217;s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. *In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured. *"


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Isn't 45,000 still the best number we have right now?


No. It's not. A false premise is no premise.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

zong said:


> Read it and weep. No people die from lack of insurance. Zero. From the March 2010 Atlantic Monthly
> "The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it. Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diegoâs Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. *In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured. *"


An admittedly interesting editorial, it contains no compelling argument. It's difficult to believe that a lot of people people who develop high blood pressure and fail to get treatment aren't going to die early.


----------



## Tim1257 (Feb 20, 2006)

I agree that there are problems in health care especially mental health insurance coverage, but I know any program with the US govt regulating and mandating will suck even more.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> An admittedly interesting editorial, it contains no compelling argument. It's difficult to believe that a lot of people people who develop high blood pressure and fail to get treatment aren't going to die early.


Are you suggesting that people cannot be treated for high blood pressure unless they have insurance? Surely, you can see the flaw in that theory.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Isn't 45,000 still the best number we have right now?


No, 128 is a better number.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> I don't have a link because I pulled the numbers out of thin air.


:thumb: Isn't this where the pro health care plan proponents get their numbers?


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2010)

Nevada said:


> An admittedly interesting editorial, it contains no compelling argument. It's difficult to believe that a lot of people people who develop high blood pressure and fail to get treatment aren't going to die early.


Not hardly an editorial. Here is the article referred to. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4149/is_4_44/ai_n32435347/
Regardless of whether you want to stick to the mythical 45,000 or not, it's clearly not universally accepted. The number, according to this study is zero. In a GC thread, we dismantled the study you refer to as seriously flawed. This is the number we have now. Unless you can prove it is as flawed as the "45,000 study"


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

It's my opinion the only way this is going to work is if we have the same medical system as the VA has.
All goverment run. As long as the medical doctors can opt out of treating medical patients there won't be enough to take care of every one.


----------



## LandRover (Jan 24, 2008)

I know, we need tort reform and to move all the insurance companies to Delaware. That'll solve everything!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Are you suggesting that people cannot be treated for high blood pressure unless they have insurance? Surely, you can see the flaw in that theory.


A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford it.

I suppose some people could diagnose and treat themselves, but how many do you think will do that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

LandRover said:


> I know, we need tort reform and to move all the insurance companies to Delaware. That'll solve everything!


We've already got tort reform in this state. Show me the inexpensive medical care.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> A lot of people wouldn't be able to afford it.


A lot of people can't afford Obamacare.



Nevada said:


> I suppose some people could diagnose and treat themselves, but how many do you think will do that?


They would be better off going to a doctor for that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You are aware that a lot of Americans die from lack of medical care each year, aren't you? If I'm reading your post correctly, your primary concern with health care reform is that you don't want to share the medical industry with any more Americans than it's being shared with right now. As long as you've got yours, you really don't care?


A small rant here but there are good points as well. . .

A lot of people die from a lot of things should we try to prevent all the deaths? Once the government starts regulating our health care can it not start regulating our behavior to reduce health care cost? They already regulate how you may act in your car to reduce the medical cost (seat belt laws). In some places you can not order anything other than a well done hamburger. People on this very board are upset that the government protects them from the evil killer raw milk. Shall we give more power to limit our lives to the government or do we want freedom?

What's next home ownership reform? How many people die every year because they are homeless or are 'under homed"?

You know what, life really ISN'T fair. Some people, for what ever reasons, have more money and will always be able to buy the very best of what there is. And there will be people who, for what ever reason, don't even enough money to buy the very basics. But its not the governments job to take money from one person and give it to another. The government's job is to make sure that everyone has the same basic chance to make it. After that you are on your own.

And you can think what you want about me but you don't know me. You have no idea how much of my money and time I freely GIVE, as opposed to have the government take it from me by the threat of force, helping people. But I am totally opposed to this bill and any other which forces you to give money to people.

One last thing. Most people who are poor or disadvantaged or down on the luck or whatever you call it are there because of their own actions. Yeah, there are some who are not but they are actually few and far in between. The ones who have made bad decisions and want nothing more than to cry and whine about how hard they have it and get a hand out I have very little compassion for. The ones who are willing to stand up and say 'I screwed up, help me fix it' are the ones I will give the shirt off my back to.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> A youth potion may never exist, where basic health care services are readily available right now for those who can afford it. I believe that Americans dying for lack of health care is a national disgrace.
> 
> Having the means to save 45,000 American lives each year while doing nothing is completely without conscience.


Tell ya what. Why don't you gather a few like minded souls and start a NPO to provide health care insurance to the uninsured? Are you not one of the the ones who says that its the profit driven insurance companies which are causing the problems? Then start a company which doesn't seek a profit. In a matter of months you should have millions of people insured who would never had been able to afford it. 

I should tell you it won't work because its not the insurance industry which is driving the cost of health care. Its lawsuits and the demand for more and better treatments.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada, let's all play dumb and pretend your "45,000 deaths per year from lack of medical insurance" number is accurate. It is a genuine fact that 195,000 people die each year (from 2004 study, so it's probably higher now) in hospitals from medical mistakes.



> *In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA*
> 
> Article Date: 09 Aug 2004 - 13:00 PST
> 
> ...


It sounds like people are better off without medical insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> They would be better off going to a doctor for that.


But the fact is that a lot of people who don't have health care coverage don't seek medical help. They assume that they won't be able to afford the course of treatment anyway, so there's no use even getting diagnosed. In the case of high blood pressure that decision could be fatal.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Nevada, let's all play dumb and pretend your "45,000 deaths per year from lack of medical insurance" number is accurate. It is a genuine fact that 195,000 people die each year (from 2004 study, so it's probably higher now) in hospitals from medical mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like people are better off without medical insurance.


Of course you know that assertion is absurd. While there are a lot of unnecessary deaths from mistakes, they still save a lot more than the foul-up.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But the fact is that a lot of people who don't have health care coverage don't seek medical help. They assume that they won't be able to afford the course of treatment anyway, so there's no use even getting diagnosed. In the case of high blood pressure that decision could be fatal.


So they're not dying from a lack of insurance (is that even a medical condition?), they are dying from ignorance.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

deaconjim said:


> I don't have a link because I pulled the numbers out of thin air.


Cool. Means as much as those that say 50 million have no insurance. that is bogus also.
The real number maybe as low as 5 million that have no insurance and that number is not just taken "out of thin air" sort of speak.
There is so much misinformation about those that don't have insurance that it makes one skin crawl thinking some folks fall for the high number.
Included is all the "part time college students who feel they are "invincible and don't feel they have to get insured. And how about the 25 million ILLEGALs in this country they are also included, What part of Illegal do some not understand?
And then there are those that do not want to get insurance for one reason or another.
And oh yes those that switch jobs and are out of a job for a few weeks Those are also counted in the 50 million without because they are switching jobs they have not yet got a new one to get into the insured again.
And that is then down to about 5 million as the true number of people that have no insurance, and most of them could get help if they knew where to go and look for the States and Government help programs.
So you see very few really truthfully do not have insurance and that leaves 5 million or less that are making policy changes and health changes for the rest of the 95% of the population.
Something here stinks and doesn't seem right when such a small percentage can change the entire countries health program.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

redtx said:


> This thread is interesting, but I was just wondering if anyone besides me is a small business owner who writes that check every quarter to the insurance company, and has watched the amount grow over 300% in the last ten years? I keep seeing that everyone is worried about their insurance costs going up, but the fact is they have been going up for years. That is one reason wages haven't gone up and companies are moving offshore. Don't get me wrong I am not at all happy with the plans coming out of Washington and I have my doubts as to weather anything they come up with will do any good, but what we have right now is not really workable. I am looking at dropping coverage or closing the doors and everyone that I know who is also running a small business is in the same boat.
> 
> On another note, I keep seeing the fact that most Americans are happy with the insurance they have, but you do realize that most Americans have government subsidized health insurance, about 60% through Medicare, medicade, and government employment. While I am real glad that you all are happy with the insurance my taxes are paying for, how long do you think we folks in the private sector are going to go along with this when we canât afford to cover our employees or ourselves?


Insurance cost will keep going up as long as medical cost keep going up. As long as we allow lawyers to play lawsuit lotto with doctors and demanding more and better medical treatment you can bet the cost will keep going up and up and up. It won't matter if you are paying the insurance directly or if you pay it via the government, its going to go up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Deacon Mike said:


> Where are you getting your facts?


Are you deigning that the benefits do not kick in until 6 years after the taxes are started?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> Insurance cost will keep going up as long as medical cost keep going up. As long as we allow lawyers to play lawsuit lotto with doctors and demanding more and better medical treatment you can bet the cost will keep going up and up and up. It won't matter if you are paying the insurance directly or if you pay it via the government, its going to go up.


True and that is also being said by a high ranking Democratic Senator. 
All it does is makes the climb higher a little slower, but it does not stop the rise in costs on insurance.
Same thing for those that are so up in arms about Global Warming. All it may do is slow it up some.
But by golly if Mother earth says she is going through a Climate Change, she will dern well do it, and man no matter how strong he thinks he is is not going to stop GW IF that is what Mother Earth is up to.
And the same thing does apply for the cost of health insurance it will go up no matter what. More and Better steps have to be taken other then what this health bill contains. That is a fact you can take to the bank.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> Are you deigning that the benefits do not kick in until 6 years after the taxes are started?


 I hope nobody is thinking things will kick in right away. They won't for 5 to 6 years. 6 years of collecting taxes from the American people, when those that do not have insurance now will continue to have none for at least for 5 years anyway.


----------



## mike3367 (Dec 15, 2004)

here some real facts for you on this. a NFIB lobbiest guy came in our small business tues of this week, and was telling my boss of the new health care stuff and how itll effect him. he look at me right in front of the lobbist and said if the health care bill if come like it is and what he told my boss i would be laid off soon as he was made to made to pay for the extra insurance on top of workman comp and having to meet my social security payment too. it made me think of how all the rest of the small business guys/gals are gonna to react to there employees like my boss might do


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mike3367 said:


> here some real facts for you on this. a NFIB lobbyist guy came in our small business Tues. of this week, and was telling my boss of the new health care stuff and how it'll effect him. he look at me right in front of the lobbyist and said if the health care bill if come like it is and what he told my boss i would be laid off soon as he was made to made to pay for the extra insurance on top of workman comp and having to meet my social security payment too. it made me think of how all the rest of the small business guys/gals are gonna to react to there employees like my boss might do


 True...
And people wonder why nobody is hiring~!
Because businesses Big and Small, are Scared to death of just how much in new applied taxes is going to hurt them, if this health care, and cap and Tax, (trade) goes through~! A few more people should go around and ask and see just what business are doing and saying about such things. 
I have as I ride along with my friends that are ini the vending and coffee service.~ They are IN these places and ask questions themselves as they see their sales are down about 20% to 25%~! And they are the lucky ones~! 
As their coffee service part of their company is UP in sales, and is helping them on their vending side.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Have you looked at your office visit bills lately? The cost as risen signifigantly.
A five minute visit with your Dr.[ most of the visit is with a nurse or other] costs over 100 dollars...Children need a lot of doctors care over time. How many low income families can afford the cost of either the high premium ins. or pay the office visit plus meds ect. Im not sure how to handle this problem, but there must be an answer. In asnwer to the medicare issue, it is not free. A certain amount, is deducted from our ss every month. Then we also pay for supplemental ins. besides that. We cannot be without ins, now that we are older and have issues. DH has Parkinsons. As time goes by this could get very costly....No one seems to have the answers that really work for everyone.
I feel sorry for the young people coming up into a world of such monumental money issues...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

The young people are the ones who will be saddled with the debt so people NOW can have their medical care...

The time honored American way,make someone else pay for me.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

The same as Social security. The young pay for the olders. Those same olders paid for THEIR olders....


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> LOL, really?
> 
> I get it from a vast array of places. Places that all add a little the others don't like this:
> 
> ...


Here's the relevant passage from the original letter:

_These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. _

Your argument is apples and oranges. What the CBO has done is estimated the impact of the bill as written on the deficit. The bill, as written, reduces the deficit over the next 20 years. The CBO then states that if the bill is changed in the future, their estimate is not valid. Well, no duh. The as yet unwritten changes on the as yet not passed bill would be responsible for the future deficit impact, not this bill. The bill reduces the deficit, per the CBO. Period.



watcher said:


> Are you deigning that the benefits do not kick in until 6 years after the taxes are started?


You should read the CBO analysis. The last few years of the decade are basically break even.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Responsible Americans are the ones getting the shaft under the current system. These are the hard-working folks down on their luck who don't seek services for what they can't pay for, can't afford insurance, wait to seek medical help until symptoms are so severe that treatment is much more costly and possibly too late.

Irresponsible Americans happily live off the government, clog our ER's with every little insignificant cold, abuse their bodies with too much food and alcohol, and walk out without paying a dime - and without any shame.

This is our current system. I find it very hard to believe that "people aren't dying due to lack of health insurance." RESPONSIBLE Americans are dying due to a lack of health insurance - is this the direction we want our country to continue? ANY changes to our system will bring screamers for the status quo, but something's gotta give.

If anything, I wish we could legally cut down on "frequent flyers" - not people legitimately ill - but those who use ambulances as a taxi service, and those who visit the ER on a frequent basis for constant non-emergencies. I gotta think that this step alone would save millions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> So they're not dying from a lack of insurance (is that even a medical condition?), they are dying from ignorance.


I didn't describe ignorance, I described no being able to afford medical care.

I suppose that if I were in that situation that I would attempt to handle it myself, drawing from my fire/rescue training. I would probably use lisinopril from overseas and monitor the effectiveness with a BP cuff. That could be done for $20/month.

http://www.inhousepharmacy.com/heart-health/prinivil.html

But I wouldn't call someone "ignorant" for not having the same level of medical training that I have.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> The young people are the ones who will be saddled with the debt so people NOW can have their medical care...
> 
> The time honored American way,make someone else pay for me.


Has anything different been proposed? That's what people want, and even expect.


----------



## Dr. Mom (Jan 13, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Has anything different been proposed? That's what people want, and even expect.


Hmmmm, not quite . . .

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

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/P...eform-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9593912

http://pollster.com/


But even the polls can be manipulated . . .

http://themoderatevoice.com/59346/n...eform-even-as-obamas-approval-ratings-suffer/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Dr. Mom said:


> Hmmmm, not quite . . .


No one is ever going to get elected on that. We always (my entire life) elect the candidates who tell us that they will increase spending while reducing taxes. We know there's something not quite right about that, but we vote for it anyway. Some candidates also promise a lower deficit, but it's never happened and we don't seem to mind broken campaign promises in the long run.

Ron Paul is open and honest about the need to reduce spending and pay off debt with taxes. No one really wants that, so he hasn't got a prayer to become president.

Even conservatives rallied around the borrow & spend policies of the Iraq war era. Conservatives were perfectly content to enjoy tax cuts that were paid for through borrowing.

The beauty of the whole thing is exactly what Oz suggested; that we're taxing people too young to vote (or not even born yet). Borrowing money to run the government is taxation without representation in its purest form. Young people have no say in government, so we leave them to pay our bills.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> Here's the relevant passage from the original letter:
> 
> _These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. _
> 
> ...



These are the notes directly from the CBO analysis on March 11.



> a. Does not include effects on spending subject to future appropriation.
> b. Includes excise tax on high-premium insurance plans.
> c. These estimates reflect the effects of provisions affecting Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs, and include
> the effects of interactions between insurance coverage provisions and those programs.
> ...


So there's still the double dipping of Medicare, the imaginary income from the "Cadillac tax" and revenue from Social Security and also a little tidbit about the Postal Service.

Then they throw in the little caveat:



> Other Considerations
> CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the discretionary costs that would be
> associated with H.R. 3590. (Those costs would depend on future appropriations and are
> not included in the tables accompanying this letter.) As indicated in CBO&#8217;s earlier
> ...


and this:



> Under the legislation, federal outlays for health care would increase during the
> 2010&#8211;2019 period, as would the federal budgetary commitment to health care.6
> CBO now estimates that the federal commitment would increase by about
> $210 billion over that period, rather than by $200 billion as previously estimated.
> ...


In fact the whole rest of the letter is a caveat.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf

The whole LETTER is a "we know what you want to hear and here it is but that's only if we can have all this magically generated savings".

The second 10 years we will be LUCKY if the federal commitment only equates to 50 BILLION dollars more than they "originally projected" just 3 months ago. Unfortunately, as Canada and Britain can attest to, the cost of services in their "non-corrupted by big insurance companies" land, will skyrocket.

Another caveat:



> There is some question as to how section 3112 of H.R. 3590, which changes funding for
> the Medicare Improvement Fund (MIF), would be implemented. That section would
> strike the amount that, until recently, was the funding provided for the MIF for 2014 and
> replace it with zero, thereby yielding savings that would offset part of the cost of
> ...


It's riddled with a WHOLE bunch of probably, maybe's and "but's" and all of them are in the FAVOR of whichever result will lower the impact of this bill.

Flat out Deacon Mike, Do you think that this will reduced the deficit 10 years from now? Then, let's look at 15 years from now which is what I said. Keep in mind the first 10 years is from 2010 or 2011 depending on when the bill is actuated.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I think it's sort of cool though that decreasing Postal services and SS will help to fund this "deficit lowering plan"... well that and some creative accounting on the medicare front.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

redtx said:


> This thread is interesting, but *I was just wondering if anyone besides me is a small business owner who writes that check every quarter to the insurance company, and has watched the amount grow over 300% in the last ten years?* I keep seeing that everyone is worried about their insurance costs going up, but the fact is they have been going up for years. That is one reason wages haven't gone up and companies are moving offshore. Don't get me wrong I am not at all happy with the plans coming out of Washington and I have my doubts as to weather anything they come up with will do any good, but what we have right now is not really workable. *I am looking at dropping coverage or closing the doors and everyone that I know who is also running a small business is in the same boat.*
> 
> On another note, I keep seeing the fact that most Americans are happy with the insurance they have, but you do realize that *most Americans have government subsidized health insurance, about 60% through Medicare, medicade, and government employment. While I am real glad that you all are happy with the insurance my taxes are paying for, how long do you think we folks in the private sector are going to go along with this when we can&#8217;t afford to cover our employees or ourselves?*


This post really stands out (to me) because it is a point of view that I don't often see expressed here, though it deserves to be considered. My husband has worked for the same employer for around 16 or 17 years. It is a company that employs around 100 workers locally. They are currently stretched to the limit.

He has been in the same position for the past 10 years or so. He gets a raise almost every year but we don't see it. He brings home the same amount of money in his paycheck, give or take a dollar or so. He claims the same way, there are no other changes, except in the cost of the family health insurance coverage. 

The insurance used to cost $46 a week for coverage in 2005. In 2008, the cost was $70. In 2009 it rose to $77 a week. This year, in order to keep the weekly price tag from rising again, the company opted for a lesser policy. Instead of a $5 copay for prescriptions, it is now $10.The copay for a doctor visit is now $25 and the hospital coverage and diagnostics coverage isn't as good. So we are paying the same for much less coverage and quality.

In our area, we also have some people who work for an employer that offers insurance, yet they don't make enough to cover their children, so the kids receive government healthcare like Child Health Plus, etc... While I feel sorry for them, it seems as though no one is looking out for my family and others like it. There are government healthcare programs for the elderly, the disabled, the veterans and the welfare recipients. If you own a house and work for a living, there is nothing out there to help to defray the costs and make healthcare more affordable. I guess they just expect you to lose your home in the event of an illness.

Don't get me wrong...We don't need assistance with paying for health insurance right now...But we do know that we are paying too much. If my husband were to lose his job tomorrow, we would be unable to pay the insurance costs for COBRA out of his unemployment and my job doesn't offer insurance because I only work 30 hours per week. We would be uninsured and would have no choice, but to go without. Although we could survive on unemployment and still pay for our mortgage, food, etc... The job market in this rust belt city is pretty bleak right now.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

We can agree on something has to be done.
But not the way government is going about it with what and how the health care is going to be handled by the government.
There are better ways then what is on the table right now.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

TheMartianChick said:


> This post really stands out (to me) because it is a point of view that I don't often see expressed here, though it deserves to be considered. My husband has worked for the same employer for around 16 or 17 years. It is a company that employs around 100 workers locally. They are currently stretched to the limit.
> 
> He has been in the same position for the past 10 years or so. He gets a raise almost every year but we don't see it. He brings home the same amount of money in his paycheck, give or take a dollar or so. He claims the same way, there are no other changes, except in the cost of the family health insurance coverage.
> 
> ...


So tell me how this bill addresses any of that?

Unless it has changed companies are only charged a fee of something like 750.00 a year if they don't offer insurance.

I can guarantee you that my company (probably your husbands) and many others will figure out it's just easier to drop your insurance... they pay FAR more than 750.00 a year now.

So the system will become inundated... and NOW it will be illegal for you not to have insurance. They will TAKE money from you automatically to pay for you not having insurance.

I can't understand how anyone can support this.


----------



## redtx (Jun 8, 2002)

Just as a response to all the talk of tort reform this has been our results in Texas

"Medical negligence damage caps in Texas benefit only doctors, medical malpractice insurers
Filed under: Texas Medical Malpractice Insurance â Tags: doctors, heath insurance, Insurance, liability insurance, Medical Malpractice Insurance, medmal, Patients, Physicians, Tort Reform â Mike @ 9:27 am 
side note: There is no arguing that the Texas model of tort reform has not lowered medical malpractice insurance premiums. The question this author brings up is, âWho has been the prime beneficiary of the tort reforms? Because it isnât the healthcare consumer.â

While limits on damages awarded to victims of medical negligence in Texas have been touted as a model for America, a study by the watchdog group Public Citizen shows Texasâ damage caps arenât providing benefits to consumers. According to the report:

The only improvement in Texas since 2003 has been a decline in doctorsâ liability insurance premiums. But payments by liability insurers on behalf of doctors have dropped far more than doctorsâ premiums. This suggests that insurers are pocketing more of the savings than they are passing to doctors.

There is no evidence that any of the savings has been passed on to patients or taxpayers more generally. (emphasis added) The data suggest that Texas liability âreformâ is just a giveaway to liability insurers and, to a lesser extent, doctors.

The potential for large damage awards to victims of medical negligence is thought to lead to âunnecessaryâ testing and lab work, which supposedly would give doctors a better chance to defend themselves from allegations of malpractice.

But the Texas experience shows no evidence that capping damage awards leads to a reduction in such procedures. In fact, in Texas the experience has been just the opposite.

According to the Public Citizen study, Medicare reimbursements for diagnostic, x-ray and lab services in Texas grew by 16 percent from 2003 to 2007, while nationally the increase was only 10 percent.

Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has pointed out that the number of Texans with health insurance has increased by 400,000 since damage caps went into effect in 2003 and implies that the caps have made health insurance more affordable, allowing more people to afford coverage. 

What Kyl doesnât say is that the population of Texas has increased by more than 2.7 million since 2003, according to Texas Department of State Health Services estimates.

Public Citizen points out that the percentage of Texans without health insurance has actually increased since the institution of damage caps, from 24 percent in 2003 to 25.1 percent in 2008. Both figures were the highest in the country, and the rate of uninsured has increased faster than the national average since 2003.

Have damage caps brought down the cost of health insurance for Texans? The state ranked 33rd in cost of health premiums in 2003; it still ranked 33rd in 2008. Health insurance premiums have increased in Texas by almost the same rate as the rest of the nation over that period.

But while consumer health insurance costs in Texas have gone up, the medical malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors have gone down 27 percent. And the malpractice payouts by insurers have gone down 67 percent. Which leads to the question: who is really benefiting from damage caps?

Have damage caps resulted in an influx of new doctors to Texas to provide greater access to medical care, as Kyl contends? According to the Texas Department of Health Services, the number of doctors per capita in the state has gone up a whopping 0.4 percent in the six years since caps were enacted. 

In the six years before caps, when damage awards were unlimited, the number of doctors per capita rose 8.7 percent. So itâs hard to see where caps have produced a stampede of doctors.

And caps have had no effect in rural Texas, where malpractice costs were frequently blamed for doctors leaving the business. Again according to the Texas Department of Health Services, the number of doctors per capita in rural counties went up 6.8% in the six years before capsâ¦but has gone down in the six years since caps. 

In 2007 there were more counties in Texas that did not have an obstetrician or gynecologist than was the case before caps were enacted.

This is not to say that malpractice damage caps were the cause of consumer health insurance premiums rising while doctorsâ malpractice premiums were falling, or a reduction in the per capita number of rural doctors, or an increase in the number of uninsured Texans. On the other hand, there doesnât seem to be anything positive to point to, other than lower costs for doctors and insurers that donât seem to be passed along to consumers.

In the meantime, limits on damage awards have one inarguable affect: Texans most severely harmed by medical negligence do not receive just compensation for their injuries as determined by a jury of their peers."

Sorry folks not seeing tort reform solving anything and I can tell you from personal experience that insurance premiums have gone up right at 70% since 2003. Thatâs not according to a Harvard study, but according to my bills from Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Nevada why would you go to an overseas Pharmacy to treat high blood pressure with Lisonopril when you can get it for ten dollars for a 90 day supply?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

redtx said:


> Nevada why would you go to an overseas Pharmacy to treat high blood pressure with Lisonopril when you can get it for ten dollars for a 90 day supply?


Because it requires a prescription. I was assuming that the doctor visit was financially out of reach. Of course there are cheap & free clinics around.

As for tort reform, that article is exactly what we're seeing in Nevada. The legislature is now considering raising that cap on lawsuits as a result.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

redtx said:


> Sorry folks not seeing tort reform solving anything and I can tell you from personal experience that insurance premiums have gone up right at 70% since 2003. That&#8217;s not according to a Harvard study, but according to my bills from Blue Cross Blue Shield.


Nobody is saying that Tort Reform on its own will lower rates. it IS a start.
But what IF you had a Choice to "shop around"? 
Like one has a choice to "shop around" for car insurance?
Then you would not have to stick with BC/BS.
And that would then bring down even Blue Crosses rates.
In conjunction with tort reform.
But one does not have to dismantle and mess up the entire health care system in America for those 2 things to happen.
And get the fraud out of Medicare/Medicaid and SS system one still does not have to mess around with what is working just fine now in America, and the way people are being treated in the best health care services in the world.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> But what IF you had a Choice to "shop around"?
> Like one has a choice to "shop around" for car insurance?


What does that mean? When I moved from Arizona to Nevada I had to change companies because my auto insurance company didn't operate in Nevada. Then when I moved from Las Vegas to Elko I had to change companies, since my new auto insurance company didn't operate in northern Nevada.

I didn't seem to have very open choices. I went with who my agent said to go with.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> But one does not have to dismantle and mess up the entire health care system in America for those 2 things to happen.


How does this reform bill dismantle the health care system? Can you give me some examples of things that will be dismantled?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No one is ever going to get elected on that. We always (my entire life) elect the candidates who tell us that they will increase spending while reducing taxes. We know there's something not quite right about that, but we vote for it anyway. Some candidates also promise a lower deficit, but it's never happened and we don't seem to mind broken campaign promises in the long run.
> 
> Ron Paul is open and honest about the need to reduce spending and pay off debt with taxes. No one really wants that, so he hasn't got a prayer to become president.
> 
> ...


Look at where all the money for the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty" came from. It came from the tons of money pouring into the US treasury after that well known right wing President JFK cut taxes. Look at the amount of money coming into before the tax cut and after. It is a historical FACT the lower the tax rates, to a point of course, the more money comes into the government due to the increase in the economy due to people being willing to do what it takes to earn more money. 

Look at it this way. Say you normally work a 40 week for $50/hr. Would you work an extra 10 hrs a week to an extra $500? Now would you work those extra 10 hrs if you only got to keep $450 of the $500? How about if you got to keep $300? How about if you only got to keep $200? What if you only got to bring home $100? 

My point is at some point the money you are going to get to keep just isn't worth the extra effort you'd have to put in the earn it. Therefore you don't earn it and the government gets zero ($0.00) in taxes from you. 

If you want to see the economy jump and unemployment drop just have the government cut the top tax rate and the corporate tax rate in half for the next 10 years.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What does that mean? When I moved from Arizona to Nevada I had to change companies because my auto insurance company didn't operate in Nevada. Then when I moved from Las Vegas to Elko I had to change companies, since my new auto insurance company didn't operate in northern Nevada.
> 
> I didn't seem to have very open choices. I went with who my agent said to go with.


Funny I have lived in several states and my auto insurance has been with the same company and none of the states I have lived in was the one with the company's "home office" in it. 

You know that the insurance industry (home, medical, auto etc) is one of the MOST regulated industries in the United States. But lets stick to medical insurance here. You know for a company to be allowed to offer insurance in a state it must agree to cover what the state DEMANDS it cover. That means is El Cheapo insurance wants to offer a bear bones family health insurance policy which would only cover say vaccines for kids and 3 office visits per family member per year and not cover things like pregnancy or cancer treatment it could not do it in most (probably not any) states. 

Shouldn't a family have the ability to pick what ever coverage it thinks is best? Wouldn't it be better to allow a family to be able to afford some coverage than none at all?

Switch gears a bit. What if a state suddenly decided to require all auto insurance companies to be required to provide only full liability and collision coverage for every car it covers? Do you think that would bring the auto insurance premiums DOWN in that state?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If you want to see the economy jump and unemployment drop just have the government cut the top tax rate and the corporate tax rate in half for the next 10 years.


It's already been tried for 12 years (Reagan, Bush Sr.) but it resulted in recession.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It's already been tried for 12 years (Reagan, Bush Sr.) but it resulted in recession.


Before this housing bubble blew up and such the government took in more money then ever because of the tax cuts because so many more people were Working and paying into the system. Look it up that is not a falsehood at all. There are many sites that will say this. There was loads of money coming in.
And we could get this country back on solid ground if the FairTax was started right away.
But lets not get off on that topic. Lets stick to Health Insurance. Some I know don't agree so they like to all of a sudden change topics in mid stream but not this time. Lets stay on course.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> Flat out Deacon Mike, Do you think that this will reduced the deficit 10 years from now? Then, let's look at 15 years from now which is what I said. Keep in mind the first 10 years is from 2010 or 2011 depending on when the bill is actuated.


Flat out, I think this bill, as written, will have little if any impact on the deficit. They've written it to pay for itself, and it will, more or less.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> But lets not get off on that topic. Lets stick to Health Insurance. Some I know don't agree so they like to all of a sudden change topics in mid stream but not this time. Lets stay on course.


I was kind of hoping you would get back on topic by giving us some examples of what this health care bill dismantles.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's already been tried for 12 years (Reagan, Bush Sr.) but it resulted in recession.


Wrong. It worked for bringing in money, the problem was they were spending even more money. BTW, tell me how lower taxes leads to recession.

I noticed you completly ignored my example. At what point would YOU quit working? When the government was taking 50% of what you made? 75%? 98%?


----------



## redtx (Jun 8, 2002)

Well Arabian Night you are the one that brought up at auto insurance. What did you expect? There certainly seems to be plenty of competition in the insurance market in Texas, I get calls all week from agents but more competition would not be a bad thing. I don&#8217;t know of any federal law that would need to be changed to make that happen though. Didn&#8217;t need one for auto insurance the insurance companies are still regulated by the Texas Department of Insurance like they have been for 90 years or so. The only thing that did change was all drivers were required to get proof of financial responsibility in 1981. After that we started to get more insurers crowding into the market. Makes you think. And yes I am old enough to have been driving when the law went into effect.

And watcher the type of policies you describe, not covering cancer, pregnancy, etc, are being sold in Texas there is no minimum medical coverage requirement in this state.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Wrong. It worked for bringing in money, the problem was they were spending even more money. BTW, tell me how lower taxes leads to recession.


It probably wasn't responsible for the recession, but it didn't do anything to prevent it either. Here is a compelling argument demonstrating that there's really no correlation between tax rate and economic growth.

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html



watcher said:


> I noticed you completly ignored my example. At what point would YOU quit working? When the government was taking 50% of what you made? 75%? 98%?


I wouldn't quit seeing patients even if I wasn't being paid at all. I was the fire chief in a volunteer fire district, donated service to a local free clinic drawing blood samples, and taught CPR for free all over southern California.

Even in my paid profession, I was very active in the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE). Even in that kind of organization, it has it's benefits.

I believe that you eventually reap what you sow, but even when it doesn't seem that way I like to think that I've left this world a little better place than I found it.


----------



## LandRover (Jan 24, 2008)

watcher said:


> Look at where all the money for the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty" came from. It came from the tons of money pouring into the US treasury after that well known right wing President JFK cut taxes. Look at the amount of money coming into before the tax cut and after. It is a historical FACT the lower the tax rates, to a point of course, the more money comes into the government due to the increase in the economy due to people being willing to do what it takes to earn more money.
> 
> Look at it this way. Say you normally work a 40 week for $50/hr. Would you work an extra 10 hrs a week to an extra $500? Now would you work those extra 10 hrs if you only got to keep $450 of the $500? How about if you got to keep $300? How about if you only got to keep $200? What if you only got to bring home $100?
> 
> ...


Overly-simplistic and naive view which doesn't account for changes in the global economy, or what effects decades of weak investment has had on America.

The reality is we made tax cuts which mostly went to a few exceptionally wealthy people who created jobs - overseas.

The small tax breaks given to average people went on buying cheap Chinese manufactured goods, on foreign-made SUVs and filling those SUVs with imported oil. 

Not to say that you shouldn't over tax people, but this myth that tax cuts solve everything does work any more, if it ever really did in isolation.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Deacon Mike said:


> Flat out, I think this bill, as written, will have little if any impact on the deficit. They've written it to pay for itself, and it will, more or less.


 Wow how this misinformation from the currant administration has got peoples in a haze. 
It Is Not in anyway shape or form deficit neutral. That is so much smoke and mirrors coming from Obama's side.
They way they speak you would think it is but not until they collect Five Years of Taxes First~! Then the plan kicks in. Wow how creative is that?
And that is how they come up with this "mystical" vision of deficit neutral.
Just smoke and mirrors and not telling how they arrive at that conclusion.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Wow how this misinformation from the currant administration has got peoples in a haze.
> It Is Not in anyway shape or form deficit neutral.


Actually, I think it's more deficit neutral than they let on. You see, right now there is a lot of bad debt coming out of the medical industry. For example, let's say that someone gets an x-ray and doesn't pay the $200 bill for it. The x-ray clinic will eventually claim a $200 write-off for the bad debt, resulting in probably a $50 to $100 savings in taxes. If we can get everyone contributing to the cost of their health care then the government won't have to give those tax credits. That's going to add-up to a lot.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I was kind of hoping you would get back on topic by giving us some examples of what this health care bill dismantles.


I posted it a few posts back I said I would post 3 and posted 4 things~!
No Choice, you will have to use ONLY what the government wants you to have. That is number one on the hit parade.
You didn't respond when I posted Obama himself saying 300+ million in CUTS to medicare. that is number 2 in the ways it is dismantled.
And many more as millions and million hit the medical clinics there Will Be Waiting lines.
I can go right now to my knee doctor and say I think it is about time to get my other knee done.
And do you know what the time limit would be Less Then Two Weeks.
Or I could also go in and say it is time to get the other knee "scoped" then we can wait awhile yet before I need to get it replaced. And the wait timer Less Then One Week~!
None Of that will take place if this confounded health bill as written turns into law of the land. 
And if you want more things that will be dismantled i will be happy to post a host of others, including the elimination of the Advantage medicare Programs that 25 million Seniors have now.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Actually, I think it's more deficit neutral than they let on. You see, right now there is a lot of bad debt coming out of the medical industry. For example, let's say that someone gets an x-ray and doesn't pay the $200 bill for it. The x-ray clinic will eventually claim a $200 write-off for the bad debt, resulting in probably a $50 to $100 savings in taxes. If we can get everyone contributing to the cost of their health care then the government won't have to give those tax credits. That's going to add-up to a lot.


Yuppers that is it Tax The Rich and the Middle Class to pay for it,,,, sounds like a plan. NOT. No new hires, more lay offs no company to expand and hire new workers. Yuppers Tax Tax tax that is the way to really sink this country even at a faster rate then it is now.
We need Lower taxes not higher ones to get the country working again.
This will just make things worse. (If they can get any worse then they are now that is.)


----------



## Tim1257 (Feb 20, 2006)

I just hope it works better than the federal government's war on poverty and throwing money at education to make it the best in the world. I bet there will there will still be fat kids when the Obama's exit the White House and if I live to a 100.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> t.


 I would like a nice answer to this nevada.
You are on a "Homesteading" board.
A Board that is for people to live as they want without any government interference. They want the Government to "stay out of their lives"
Yet in your post you want the government to control a persons Health Care and even more things?
Why are you on such a independent thinking and living board like this is in the first place then?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

There was a Florida congressman who said he won't vote for the bill unless ileagal imagrants get to buy into the govement run insurance. he said he has been told they won't be able to. so if they don't have proof of insurance does that mean they don't get any more free medical here.
is cutting them off how congress expects to save all that money?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I think it's more deficit neutral than they let on. You see, right now there is a lot of bad debt coming out of the medical industry. For example, let's say that someone gets an x-ray and doesn't pay the $200 bill for it. The x-ray clinic will eventually claim a $200 write-off for the bad debt, resulting in probably a $50 to $100 savings in taxes. If we can get everyone contributing to the cost of their health care then the government won't have to give those tax credits. That's going to add-up to a lot.
> ...


I don't think you understood my post at all. Please, read it again and see if you can get what I'm saying.


----------



## 65284 (Sep 17, 2003)

dogrunner said:


> Why is tort reform such a huge thing for conservatives? I personally am annoyed that there in not something in the current bills dealing with it, but the CBO has said that malpractice lawsuits take up between 1-3% of health care costs. We could outlaw them altogether and sorry but the 1-3% savings really amounts to nothing. So why is this the end all be all to the conservatives? In the last 20 years malpractice lawsuites as well as monetary awards from them have dropped 50%, did I miss the corresponding drop in health care costs? Nope, because this is a non-issue when the actual numbers are looked at. And the R's are always saying they respect the CBO's numbers on these things, so lets get an explanation for this then.


You seem to be overlooking or ignoring the huge cost of the not really needed screenings, tests, scans, x-rays doctors order for patients in an attempt ot cover their behinds and stave off some of these malpractice suits.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> I would like a nice answer to this nevada.
> You are on a "Homesteading" board.
> A Board that is for people to live as they want without any government interference. They want the Government to "stay out of their lives"
> Yet in your post you want the government to control a persons Health Care and even more things?
> Why are you on such a independent thinking and living board like this is in the first place then?


Not everyone. Some need help, like in this thread.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=345090


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

65284 said:


> You seem to be overlooking or ignoring the huge cost of the not really needed screenings, tests, scans, x-rays doctors order for patients in an attempt ot cover their behinds and stave off some of these malpractice suits.


That's not the reality. We have tort reform in Nevada but the outrageous testing persists. Evidently the testing is profit oriented. Who didn't see that one coming?


----------



## redtx (Jun 8, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> I posted it a few posts back I said I would post 3 and posted 4 things~!
> No Choice, you will have to use ONLY what the government wants you to have. That is number one on the hit parade.
> You didn't respond when I posted Obama himself saying 300+ million in CUTS to medicare. that is number 2 in the ways it is dismantled.
> And many more as millions and million hit the medical clinics there Will Be Waiting lines.
> ...




SO since providing the people who PAY for your health care the same access to that health care you have would inconvenience you are against health care reform. That seems sad and ignorant to me. 

Look the fact that the real push for health care reform is coming out of the business community seems to be over looked, the simple fact is we just canât afford to keep subsiding the under and uninsured.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Deacon Mike said:


> Flat out, I think this bill, as written, will have little if any impact on the deficit. They've written it to pay for itself, and it will, more or less.





arabian knight said:


> Wow how this misinformation from the currant administration has got peoples in a haze.
> It Is Not in anyway shape or form deficit neutral. That is so much smoke and mirrors coming from Obama's side.
> They way they speak you would think it is but not until they collect Five Years of Taxes First~! Then the plan kicks in. Wow how creative is that?
> And that is how they come up with this "mystical" vision of deficit neutral.
> Just smoke and mirrors and not telling how they arrive at that conclusion.


The "misinformation" that you post of comes from the CBO. not the administration. From the CBO's website



> CBOâs mandate is to provide the Congress with:
> 
> * Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and
> 
> * The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.


Again, read the report. They state their assumptions and clearly give the results. It's not a budget buster in the out years. You really don't know what your parroting, er talking about.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

I just wonder how MANY have actually read the bill all the way through...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

People posting here or the politicians supporting it?

My guess is few if any have read it....

It is how we end up with less and less freedoms and more and more debt.

But it is what the American people seem to want,to be slaves.

Americans aren't very free thinking.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

People here....Shouldnt we really know what we are for or against? Why has the time it would take to read this thing all the way through. To understand the legalese of it? I wish I COULD read it all AND understand it...


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I've read a couple of versions of the bill, enough to know what their goals are. It is obvious that Obamacare is about control and political power, and has nothing to do with improving access to healthcare. At this point I don't need to read through the latest version to know I don't trust them with passing a leash law, let alone healthcare reform.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

The guy at work that read it - took him 50 hours when it was only just over 2000 pages, not the current 2700 pages. So, if you read at a normal speed and have about a week or so.....

At least one person has read it. (he's a contract/subcontract admin, so at least he should understand most of the language). He said it has all that is talked about here, in it.

But, since this changes like oil on water, reforming and changing and nothing solid - who knows what it says now.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

suzfromWi said:


> People here....Shouldnt we really know what we are for or against? Why has the time it would take to read this thing all the way through. To understand the legalese of it? I wish I COULD read it all AND understand it...


Per Pelosi, AFTER it is passed, we will know what is in it. Amazing how some people ignore her statement and keep cheering for this anyway. Won't it be fun when they yell "SURPRISE" and we have a million other earmarks in the bill no one was expecting, much less supportive of?


----------



## LandRover (Jan 24, 2008)

beccachow said:


> Per Pelosi, AFTER it is passed, we will know what is in it. Amazing how some people ignore her statement and keep cheering for this anyway. Won't it be fun when they yell "SURPRISE" and we have a million other earmarks in the bill no one was expecting, much less supportive of?


EVERYONE has the opportunity to read it should they choose.

We've been going at this for a year now, 99% of it wide in the open - how much time is adequate? 

She obviously means this in terms of public awareness because most people rely on simple soundbites and have been put off by the intense message of fear being put out by those who oppose the bill. You're just trying to put an negative spin on things. 

It's the sort of attack we'd be seeing whatever the Democrats did, and I'm sure we'll see it on every planned legislation and even the vast majority of appointments. It's all about sort-term political gain and not America's interests.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Amazing how some things never seem to change. We all seem to agree
that there is a problem in this country with hc delivery but we can never
seem to agree on solutions. I think its like Ralph Nader says, "There are
solutions to our problems, and many of them are quite simple." But with
hc lobbyist "swarming like locusts" in DC (as the radio just this minute 
stated) our Representatives are likely to NOT find these simple solutions.
When Clinton tried hc reform back then the hc lobbyist started the biggest
lobbying campaign in history and suddenly we couldn't find the solutions then
either. We desperately need hc reform but will never get in until we get 
Campaign Finance Reform!


----------



## 65284 (Sep 17, 2003)

Some questions and a thought or two about health care. I don't know a bit more about this than anyone else, but here's what my intestines are telling me.

First I keep hearing the figure of 30-40 million being tossed about as the number of people without ins. Does this include illegals and their "anchor kids", if so why are they included? I can't even remotely begin to comprehend why we should be responsible for or even care about health care for them.

Almost everything I've heard or read about this monstrosity indicates that there will be "assistance" for those impoverished po folks who can't afford to pay.

One doesn't have to be a MENSA member to figure out what that means. Uncle sugar is going to foot the bill. The workers/producers of this country are going get another financial kick in the gut to pay for ins for parasites that don't won't work. 

And, I fear some of these people that work but can't afford ins. for themselves will find they make too much to qualify for assistance and still won&#8217;t be able to afford insurance.

This abomination is nothing more than a grab for power/control. I doubt the Dems driving the issue care really care about the health issues of the uninsured. 

How can even the dumbest of their faithful constituents believe that some politician who doesn't know they exist, other than as a number, actually care about their health ins woes. 

This is nothing more than an attempt to deliver he ultimate goody bag to some voters in an attempt to achieve perpetual control/power.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

65284 said:


> Some questions and a thought or two about health care. I don't know a bit more about this than anyone else, but here's what my intestines are telling me.
> 
> First I keep hearing the figure of 30-40 million being tossed about as the number of people without ins. Does this include illegals and their "anchor kids", if so why are they included?


 Yes they are. Well one should be answering that this. That is the liberal mindset.
The True number is around 5 million and that is it.
And you can find that out by doing some google searches.
Even the college students that feel they are "invincible" and don't want to get health insurance are included in the high number. As they work part time.~! Sure Some do granted, but the majority don't even want to bother with health insurance issues. And they are included as those not having insurance.
Oh yes and even those that are just between jobs are also included
All this info is on the net.
but don'r go to the mass media sites or the left leaning ones to get the info and that is a fact.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> The True number is around 5 million and that is it.
> And you can find that out by doing some google searches.


Help me out here with a reference.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Help me out here with a reference.





> Citing that research and other census data, PRI President Sally Pipes argued in a widely circulated 2008 opinion piece that only 8 million peopleâjust under 3 percent of the U.S. populationâare *"chronically uninsured*."


Geesh so I was off by 3 million. Hmmmm


> Still, even the 46 million figure currently cited by Democrats has one major hole of its own. They rely on Census Bureau data:


 But just look at what the Censaus bureau it self says:


> But the Census Bureau's surveyâwhich found about 15 percent of the U.S. population uninsuredâis the largest and most regular survey, said Karyn Schwartz, a senior policy analyst at the nonprofit and nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation





> Nearly 6 million were what Blue Cross called "short-term uninsured," meaning people who are either between jobs or are just entering the work force. Many of the remainder were low-wage workers in firms with fewer than 10 workers, who could obtain coverage if the government offered tax credits for small businesses or grants to states, while others are illegal immigrants, it said


 And there are more sites one can look at if one just wants to use Google.com, and learn what is not being reported by the left, and how they manipulate facts and figures around to suit their side of story and things.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Here's a Good article about what the HC bill looks like to others.http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20934


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

beccachow said:


> per pelosi, after it is passed, we will know what is in it. Amazing how some people ignore her statement and keep cheering for this anyway. Won't it be fun when they yell "surprise" and we have a million other earmarks in the bill no one was expecting, much less supportive of?


+1000


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Geesh so I was off by 3 million. Hmmmm
> 
> But just look at what the Censaus bureau it self says:
> 
> ...


You don't have a link?


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You don't have a link?


Lot of times, when I'm trying to look for a source, I copy a sentence by highlighting it then right click and choosing "copy" then go this site, http://www.google.com and pasting it into the box. That way, I can find the source of the quoted sentence. . Just trying to help you out, so you don't have to wait around for other people to post links for you.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Help me out here with a reference.


 Sorry.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

7thswan said:


> Here's a Good article about what the HC bill looks like to others.http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20934



Interesting to see, but what caught my eye the most - upper right hand side, the count down to when Obama leaves office.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

zong said:


> Lot of times, when I'm trying to look for a source, I copy a sentence by highlighting it then right click and choosing "copy" then go this site, http://www.google.com and pasting it into the box. That way, I can find the source of the quoted sentence.


 True,, as that is what I did to "find" it again. 
But sheesh there are many sites other then the one I quoted from telling the same info,m if people would only use google.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

It's downright frightening to me how many people admit to not having read the bill, will rail against the power that insurance companies have over their health care and yet are willing to give the *federal government*  that power over their lives.

Here's another issue: although it's only come up in recent discussions, the bill also contains reforms for the student loans program. How many of you knew that? And if you didn't know _that_, what else might be in this bill that you don't know but that could impact your life?

That is NOT responsible citizenship, nor the way to keep the power of governance in the hands of the people. But it IS an almost certain way to lose your freedoms and the freedoms that your children and grandchildren are *entitled* to. 

Health care is not a right. Liberty and freedom are.

ETA: BTW, man cannot grant freedom, they can only take it away.


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

Rural Alaskans have a well-earned reputation for being fiercely independent. That's why we choose the hard work it takes to live here and the very idea of the federal government having anything to do with my health care just jerks my chain.
I work hard to keep me and mine healthy and safe. I've studied and used herbal medicine for years, provide nothing but wild or homegrown and organic foods for my family and I can't remember the last time I was sick. I've been to the doctor once in 25 years and I save for an emergency. To be told I MUST buy health insurance or pay a fine, well, I just won't do that.
I thought Congressman Rogers from Michigan had an interesting take on the thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

LandRover said:


> EVERYONE has the opportunity to read it should they choose.
> 
> We've been going at this for a year now, 99% of it wide in the open - how much time is adequate?
> 
> ...


Well.... has Pelosi read the bill? Why is only 99% available? From what I've heard even the lawmakers do not understand the bill. Why are they voting on something they haven't read and do not understand? If this thing passes we're headed towards tons of unintended consequences. 

You cannot give up only a little bit of your freedom.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It probably wasn't responsible for the recession, but it didn't do anything to prevent it either. Here is a compelling argument demonstrating that there's really no correlation between tax rate and economic growth.
> 
> http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html.




The logic fails in real life. If this so then why does the government cut taxes on things it wishes to encourage and raise taxes on things it wants to reduce the use of?





Nevada said:


> I wouldn't quit seeing patients even if I wasn't being paid at all. I was the fire chief in a volunteer fire district, donated service to a local free clinic drawing blood samples, and taught CPR for free all over southern California.
> 
> Even in my paid profession, I was very active in the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (Ache). Even in that kind of organization, it has it's benefits.
> 
> I believe that you eventually reap what you sow, but even when it doesn't seem that way I like to think that I've left this world a little better place than I found it.


So you are willing to work even if the government takes 90% of your wages? And would have done so from the time you got your degree?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

LandRover said:


> Overly-simplistic and naive view which doesn't account for changes in the global economy, or what effects decades of weak investment has had on America.
> 
> The reality is we made tax cuts which mostly went to a few exceptionally wealthy people who created jobs - overseas.
> 
> ...



Better check again. The Reagan tax cuts were accross the board.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Someone answer this question. If the bill is so great then why does the members of congress see the need to specifically exclude themselves from it?

Sounds to me like all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others to me.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> It's downright frightening to me how many people admit to not having read the bill, will rail against the power that insurance companies have over their health care and yet are willing to give the *federal government*  that power over their lives.
> 
> Probably 'cause people know what they will get withthe Feds taking over--health
> care! With the current "pay or die" system very few people I know can
> ...


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> Better check again. The Reagan tax cuts were accross the board.


Off topic, but Reagan _raised _taxes.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

pcwerk said:


> Txsteader said:
> 
> 
> > It's downright frightening to me how many people admit to not having read the bill, will rail against the power that insurance companies have over their health care and yet are willing to give the *federal government*  that power over their lives.
> ...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Nobody's head is in the clouds. We're _all_ agreed on the need for reform.


I doubt it. I suspect that's become a popular republican line because it's an attempt to make people think that republicans will take care of health car reform in their own good time if democrats drop their health care proposal. But I don't believe that republicans want health care reform at all.

This comes up all the time in GC. When push comes to shove the republicans finally exclaim that there's nothing wrong with our current system, and since our health care system is the best in the world we should leave it alone. In other words, they don't really believe we need reform and they don't want to change anything -- ever.

This wouldn't be so obvious if it weren't that this was the exact same line republicans used 17 years ago. Republicans told us that we needed reform in 1993 but that the democratic plan was the wrong way to go. The proposal ended on the republican promise that they would reform health care their own way. 17 years passed without reform even being brought up again.

It's obvious that republicans had no intention of reforming health care back in 1993. That promise was only intended to get democrats to drop their proposal, and it worked. But it was a false promise back in 1993, and it's still a false promise today.

I'm sorry for doubting your word, but the evidence points elsewhere.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> But I don't believe that republicans want health care reform at all.


Go back to the Clinton era when the Republicans then were opposed to his plan. At that point they were supporting many of same things in current bill. Right now its all about playing politics and they think there is political advantage of just saying no and blitzing the air waves with their ads. Once elected you would see a very simular pro-corporation health care bill by Republicans to current one. Remember Mitt Romney signed a very simular bill into effect as governor of Massechusettes. The new Mass senator taking the former Kennedy seat VOTED FOR IT! 

The real problem is whether Demos or Repus that reform health care, it will cost the American public a huge price for only a few improvements. It will however greatly benefit the corporate health care system costing them only few concessions. As long as we have a corporate controlled congress, we wont ever get an even break, it will always be in their favor.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I doubt it. I suspect that's become a popular republican line because it's an attempt to make people think that republicans will take care of health car reform in their own good time if democrats drop their health care proposal. But I don't believe that republicans want health care reform at all.


I don't either. 
When Republicans controlled the White House and/or Congress for _17 years_, nothing more happened to the health care issue than health savings accounts. (Which, if you've ever had one, you already know are a joke)
I highly doubt that now they're going to suddenly do something. Not when they've already had 17 years and did diddley squat. :flame:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I ask again, if the plan is so great why don't congress want to force their families onto the plan?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

How is their choosing to opt out _any different_ than anyone else's choosing to opt out??


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> How is their choosing to opt out _any different_ than anyone else's choosing to opt out??


Best I've heard, no one else gets that choice under the current bill attempting to be rammed through.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I just had to come back and post this. How strange and ironic and possible hypocritical a lot of the same people who are demanding the government care for them and protect their health by providing at least the means of getting health care insurance are at the same time demanding the government stop preventing the sell of raw milk which is KNOWN to be dangerous to people's health.

Which is it people do you want the government controlling your lives or not?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I just had to come back and post this. How strange and ironic and possible hypocritical a lot of the same people who are demanding the government care for them and protect their health by providing at least the means of getting health care insurance are at the same time demanding the government stop preventing the sell of raw milk which is KNOWN to be dangerous to people's health.
> 
> Which is it people do you want the government controlling your lives or not?


I don't want the government to control my life. I just want affordable health care insurance.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

How will this bill make it affordable?

You will now be forced to buy health insurance?

Or do you mean you will be one of those people too poor to pay and so have others pick up the bill???


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't want the government to control my life. I just want affordable health care insurance.


:hysterical:

You are kidding, right? Because that statement is nothing but bizarre, considering the power you're willing to give the government. The FEDERAL government.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> How will this bill make it affordable?




Removing health care insurance from the corporate profit picture.
Administrating for the same 3% overhead that it takes to administrate Medicare.
Imposing the same prices for services that Medicare gets.
Larger collective pool of subscribers, allowing a better bargaining position.
Ability to use the existing Medicare provider network infrastructure.

In addition, subscribers will personally save money because they won't lose insurance if they get laid-off or change jobs, and they won't get canceled if the come down with something expensive.

So how will private insurance save us money? :smiley-laughing013:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> You are kidding, right? Because that statement is nothing but bizarre, considering the power you're willing to give the government. The FEDERAL government.


The power to provide health care coverage?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

The proposed program will force people to buy PRIVATE health insurance...there is no gov. option is there???

Except for po' folks who will simply have others pick up the tab through the fedgov. raising taxes...

Also could you provide evidence of where the insurance companies cannot raise premiums?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> The proposed program will force people to buy PRIVATE health insurance...there is no gov. option is there???


There is no public option in the senate version, which will be voted on by the house soon, but there will more than likely be a public option in the reconciliation bill.

How about an answer to my question as to how private insurance companies can lower the cost of health care coverage?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

SO you are putting your hopes on something that is not actually even being proposed,that is a fedgov. run healthcare program???

You are the one supporting private health insurance by supporting the proposed reform,it is simply going to force everyone to buy PRIVATE health insurance...

What a great boon for the evil health insurance companies....LOL

I simply do not care,I won't be paying for ANYTHING to do with it....I am po'.

Others are picking up my tab....:bouncy:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Best I've heard, no one else gets that choice under the current bill attempting to be rammed through.


Best you've heard? Based on what?
_Every_ version of this that I've read, consumers will retain the right to opt out. :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> You are kidding, right? Because that statement is nothing but bizarre, considering the power you're willing to give the government. The FEDERAL government.


And _you_ prefer that power to reside in the hands of a corporate, profit-driven entity. 
I'm not seeing how that's preferable, actually.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> Best you've heard? Based on what?
> _Every_ version of this that I've read, consumers will retain the right to opt out. :shrug:


Opt out???

The bill requires everyone to have health insurance or pay a fine...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> And _you_ prefer that power to reside in the hands of a corporate, profit-driven entity.
> I'm not seeing how that's preferable, actually.


Again,the bill requires everyone to buy private health insurance...there is no gov. run option except in some people's minds...



> Under the Democrat plan, which right now is being lead by President Obama in what is essentially the bill compiled by the Senate Finance Committee, the entire health care system would be overhauled. Congress would make the following changes to the insurance industry:
> 
> 1. Legislate the elimination of preexisting conditions so that everyone can get health insurance regardless of their health status;
> 2. Create state based insurance exchanges where individuals and small businesses can come together to purchase insurance in a more open and competitive marketplace;
> ...


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

No, there's not a public option, more's the pity. 
But you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, now. 

Either the government is in charge, OR the insurance companies. It can't be both. Currently the health insurance companies are in charge. 
And look how well that's been working.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

The fedgov. is mandating everyone buy health insurance...from private companies....

As to your desire for socialised healthcare,good luck with that.LOL


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

So far as the bills, which one are you talking about? 
There was the Senate bill, that was passed at Christmas.... (It has a mandate, but there were numerous exemptions that people could use to opt out, including religious objections). There's the House version, _and_ there is also the currentl "reconciliation bill" ...

So far as "socialised healthcare" with any kind of luck, we'll be dragged into the _20th_ century whether we like it or not. lol


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I don't care which - if it's good enough for the American public - it's good enough for them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Again,the bill requires everyone to buy private health insurance...there is no gov. run option except in some people's minds...


Please, let's be fair to those who aren't aware of the process.

First, it's important to keep in mind that the house wants a public option while the senate does not. This entire process depends on deal making between house and senate members.

The basic strategy is to get house members to vote on passing the senate bill (with no public option). Once passed, the house will send a reconciliation bill (with a public option) to the senate to be voted on. The senate version passing the house in contingent on commitments by senators to support the reconciliation bill. That deal making to get house and senate committments for support is going on right now.

So here is the process:



House passes the senate version.
Obama signs the senate version into law.
House sends the senate a reconciliation bill.
Senate passes the reconciliation bill.
Obama signs the reconciliation bill into law.
So senators are promising the house members *something* to get then to pass the senate version. That *something* is most likely a public option.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Removing health care insurance from the corporate profit picture.
> Administrating for the same 3% overhead that it takes to administrate Medicare.
> Imposing the same prices for services that Medicare gets.
> Larger collective pool of subscribers, allowing a better bargaining position.
> ...


And exactly how are those insurance companies going to manage to stay in business with those restrictions?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I see a side effect coming if this bill and it's "Nevada stated" rules come into being.

A lot of folks that are working just for the insurance coverage, now will not need to do that, can OPT OUT of working, and still get the insurance and now the government will cover it, and they can go anywhere in US and be insured.

How sweet is that?


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

ErinP said:


> And _you_ prefer that power to reside in the hands of a corporate, profit-driven entity.
> I'm not seeing how that's preferable, actually.


You'd rather have it run by someone who doesn't care if the business is viable? Someone that cannot operate in the black at all, thus putting the entire program's long-term chances for survival at approximately zero? Like it or not, some modicum of profit is necessary in any business. Even for a non-profit business, break-even is required.

R


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> And exactly how are those insurance companies going to manage to stay in business with those restrictions?


They won't have those restrictions. That's what to expect from a public option. Staying in business is the private insurance companies' problem, not ours.

I'm reminded of a time when I used to buy wholesale telecommunications gear from GTE in southern California. One time the GTE asset manager wanted way to much for a pallet of used gear. I asked, "How can I make a living if you're going to charge that much?" He replied, "I don't have any idea how you're going to make a living. That's your problem. I just need to get top dollar for the assets."


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Best you've heard? Based on what?
> _Every_ version of this that I've read, consumers will retain the right to opt out. :shrug:


Have you read the bill??? The Senate version includes the mandate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126165317923104141.html



> The 10-year $871 billion measure would expand Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, and create new tax subsidies to help lower- and middle-income families *comply with a mandate to purchase insurance. That mandate would be enforced by a financial penalty of up to $750 for any individual who fails to get coverage.*


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> They won't have those restrictions. That's what to expect from a public option. Staying in business is the private insurance companies' problem, not ours.
> 
> I'm reminded of a time when I used to buy wholesale telecommunications gear from GTE in southern California. One time the GTE asset manager wanted way to much for a pallet of used gear. I asked, "How can I make a living if you're going to charge that much?" He replied, "I don't have any idea how you're going to make a living. That's your problem. I just need to get top dollar for the assets."


Good grief. 

How is a private company going to stay in business when the government tells them how much profit they are allowed to keep? Because, in this instant, insurance companies will be required to reinvest 80% of their profits into health care.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> I don't care which - if it's good enough for the American public - it's good enough for them.


If _what_ is?

Private health insurance? Because that's what anyone who wants insurance is _still_ going to have... Just like they do now.

(The debate is whether people should be forced to have insurance or not. Whether people wanted it or didn't want it, there is no public option in any of the currently viable versions. Sorry Nevada...)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> How is a private company going to stay in business when the government tells them how much profit they are allowed to keep?


How was I supposed to say in business when GTE wanted too much for their used gear?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> Have you read the bill??? The Senate version includes the mandate.




Yes. 
Did you read my post??



> (It has a mandate, but there were numerous exemptions that people could use to opt out, including religious objections).


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

From what I can see of it there will be a bonanza for the insurance companies. They will force the younger people to buy it, knowing they won't be using it.. The insurance companies will see a nice increase in their profits..


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

WindowOrMirror said:


> You'd rather have it run by someone who doesn't care if the business is viable? Someone that cannot operate in the black at all, thus putting the entire program's long-term chances for survival at approximately zero? Like it or not, some modicum of profit is necessary in any business. Even for a non-profit business, break-even is required.
> 
> R


This is a philosophical issue. 

You think whether people live or die should be determined by whether they can improve the bottom line on a balance sheet. 

I think it's part of the right to *life*, liberty and pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Ambereyes said:


> From what I can see of it there will be a bonanza for the insurance companies. They will force the younger people to buy it, knowing they won't be using it.. The insurance companies will see a nice increase in their profits..


Yup...do people REALLY think either of the two parties care about people???

This was thought up by big business as always,we live in a society where the best interests of the nation are considered to be the same as the best interests of big business.

Only fools think either of the two parties care about people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ErinP said:


> The debate is whether people should be forced to have insurance or not. Whether people wanted it or didn't want it, there is no public option in any of the currently viable versions. Sorry Nevada...


Wait and see. I'm still holding out hope.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

This has nothing to do with caring or not caring, really.

It has everything to do with which one better protects the lives of the American citizen. We already know Plan A (that of insurance company controlled health care) doesn't work worth a hang. :grump:

So let's try Plan B.


And I hope you're right Nevada. However, I'm not holding my breath. Until then, I'm not going to argue the merits (or detriments for that matter) of something that's not even on the radar...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Wait and see. I'm still holding out hope.


Hopeychange????

LOL

Of course if it doesn't happen you will still support the same party...right?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> This has nothing to do with caring or not caring, really.
> 
> It has everything to do with which one better protects the lives of the American citizen. We already know Plan A (that of insurance company controlled health care) doesn't work worth a hang. :grump:
> 
> So let's try Plan B.


What is plan B???

You mean fedgov. forcing people to buy private insurance...:shrug:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't want the government to control my life. I just want affordable health care insurance.



This isn't going to help. Insurance prices are linked to health care cost, not the other way around. As health care cost go up insruance cost will follow. You could demand insurance companies cover every man, woman, child, dog, cat and cow in the US and it will not cut the cost of insurance when medical care cost goes up.

Answer me this, if this is so good then why isn't congress going to be using the plan?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> This isn't going to help. Insurance prices are linked to health care cost, not the other way around. As health care cost go up insruance cost will follow.


Not really. Insurance companies tell providers what they'll take for a service. It's been that way for a long time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Hopeychange????
> 
> LOL
> 
> Of course if it doesn't happen you will still support the same party...right?


Here you go. This is found in the reconciliation bill. It looks like a public option to me, but then I'm a democrat so I'm told I don't understand these things very well.

******
Subtitle B&#8212;Public Health Insurance Option

SEC. 221. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.&#8212;For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the &#8216;&#8216;Secretary&#8217;&#8217 shall provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (in this subdivision referred to as the &#8216;&#8216;public health insurance option&#8217;&#8217 that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle. In designing the option, the Secretary&#8217;s primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF
(see page 1167)


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The power to provide health care coverage?


How about the power to force you to buy something which you may not want or need?

BTW, if its such a good thing why doesn't your congressman want to be included in on it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There is no public option in the senate version, which will be voted on by the house soon, but there will more than likely be a public option in the reconciliation bill.
> 
> How about an answer to my question as to how private insurance companies can lower the cost of health care coverage?


I didn't see it but there is very little an insurance company can do because they only pay the cost of the item provided. If you want to cut insurance cost of health care coverage you must first cut the cost of health care.

How do you feel about the fact congress thinks the plan is SO GOOD they are exempting themselves from it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> And _you_ prefer that power to reside in the hands of a corporate, profit-driven entity.
> I'm not seeing how that's preferable, actually.


How about the fact that a private company must answer to the shareholders and can be sued if they screw up. Neither of those apply to the government.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> BTW, if its such a good thing why doesn't your congressman want to be included in on it?


She is. My congressperson is Shelley Berkley. The voting record shows that she voted for it.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

Nevada said:


> She is. My congressperson is Shelley Berkley. The voting record shows that she voted for it.
> 
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml


No, I think he/she was referring to the fact that our Gov officials are exempt from having to be under the same "health Care" as the rest of the American populous. As it currently stands they have an out. Where as the rest of us do not. 
It *should* be whats good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Firethorn said:


> No, I think he/she was referring to the fact that our Gov officials are exempt from having to be under the same "health Care" as the rest of the American populous. As it currently stands they have an out. Where as the rest of us do not.
> It *should* be whats good for the goose is good for the gander.


They give themselves something better.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

what _are_ you people talking about???

The only thing that is being required is that people have to carry some kind of insurance (and some of the versions allow people to opt out for various reasons). 
If Congressmen have insurance via their employer (like most of America) then they aren't doing _anything_ different than anyone else.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> How about the fact that a private company must answer to the shareholders and can be sued if they screw up. Neither of those apply to the government.


The only reason shareholders get involved is when _profits_ have been affected. :shrug:



I already addressed this. 

You obviously think whether people live or die should be determined by whether they can improve the bottom line on a balance sheet.

I think it's part of the right to *life*, liberty and pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

ErinP said:


> T...I think it's part of the right to *life*, liberty and pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.


The secret to the prolonging of life consists of not doing those things that shorten it. It has little to do with profit. 

Your right to life is absolute... given by the Creator. We should recognize that right and not do anything that will artificially shorten an individuals life intentionally. This does not mean that it is everyone's 'right' to live a full and happy 100 years on this earth.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

National ID Card is Part of the Health Care stuff.
That should make you all happy.



> Here comes the ID card....and boy, are they gonna use it for everything!
> Quote:
> 5 ââ(D) enable the real-time (or near real-
> 6 time) determination of an individualâs financial
> ...


http://www.endtimesroundtable.com/ETRT/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4102&p=26751
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

WindowOrMirror said:


> The secret to the prolonging of life consists of not doing those things that shorten it. It has little to do with profit.
> 
> Your right to life is absolute... given by the Creator. We should recognize that right and not do anything that will artificially shorten an individuals life intentionally. This does not mean that it is everyone's 'right' to live a full and happy 100 years on this earth.


 True and has nothing to do what so ever with a health care Provided by and mandated by the Government. Which is then a cradle to Grave Nanny State~! And that is not what the USA is all about.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> True and has nothing to do what so ever with a health care Provided by and mandated by the Government. Which is then a cradle to Grave Nanny State~! And that is not what the USA is all about.


Says someone who HAS government provided health care. 



> The secret to the prolonging of life consists of not doing those things that shorten it.


Really? :hrm:
And how exactly _does_ one prevent a ruptured appendix? 
How about nonHodgkins lymphoma? 
Or Type I diabetes?
Congenital heart defects? 

There are _millions_ who would love to hear the answers... Please share!


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

No, you're right. The USA is clearly about big business and capitalism and not taking care of it's people. Long live the good ol' USA.

Insurance costs have nothing to do with health care costs, and health care costs have nothing to do with the actual costs of goods and services.

I used to consult for big pharma. It's disgusting. Your hard-earned dollars, whether they are being paid for by taxes, by your employer, or out of your own pocket for your health care are largely going to line the pockets of people who have more money than they need, and didn't do a ---- thing to get there. It's a modern day aristocracy, controlled by the rich and the gap is widening. 

The sad thing is, we're so busy screaming "socialism" that we don't see it - the opponents of taking care of our people have been sold a line hook line and sinker by the very people who are controlling the situation from the top.

Capitalism and free marketry don't really exist anymore - and it's not Obama's fault - it's been that way since the big conglomerates became legal and started to control everything. The consumer is a pawn.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The word tax appears 156 times, penalty 198 times in this bill and if that don't make you mad type in "end of life" and read the 9 results you come up with!!!!
It sure goes to show some people that "death Panels" that were brought up a while back sure was the truth.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Says someone who HAS government provided health care.


 How nice of you to start to make this a Personal Post about me. Thanks a lot as that is a sure way to get this either moved Or Locked~!!!!!

And besides so what if I am on SS???
What does that have to do with how I feel about what is good for the country????


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

It isn't a personal post about you. 
Just pointing out the utter irony of someone _complaining_ about government health care, yet happily _receiving_ it.

It's a double standard, pure and simple. 
It's OK for _you_ to get gov't health care, just not for anyone else. 

You're not the first to say this, just the most recent in this particular thread. It's very easy for those on Medicaid/Medicare to say that gov't health care is bad for the country. 
You aren't swimming with the sharks, like the rest of us.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> And exactly how are those insurance companies going to manage to stay in business with those restrictions?


By increasing premiums across the board.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> They won't have those restrictions. That's what to expect from a public option. Staying in business is the private insurance companies' problem, not ours.
> 
> I'm reminded of a time when I used to buy wholesale telecommunications gear from GTE in southern California. One time the GTE asset manager wanted way to much for a pallet of used gear. I asked, "How can I make a living if you're going to charge that much?" He replied, "I don't have any idea how you're going to make a living. That's your problem. I just need to get top dollar for the assets."


Thanks for bringing a single payer system to mind. Do you remember when there was only Ma Bell? If not find an old timer who does and have them tell you about the good old days. The days when you only made long distance calls in emergencies because of the cost. The days when if someone had a second phone, not second line but a second phone, they were something because of the cost involved? Why did prices drop? Because there became more than one option.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> It isn't a personal post about you.
> Just pointing out the utter irony of someone _complaining_ about government health care, yet happily _receiving_ it.
> 
> It's a double standard, pure and simple.
> ...


 I have never said Leave it alone.
I have Always said Do Something~!
But not this way. 
Not what is in the bill as written
Heck do think I like the "Donut Hole" that is currently in the Drug Program???
I am not taking a good medicine that would help my Severe RA condition because of that Donut Hole~!!!
I would be in that Hole in 3 Months time and then $3,600 Out Of My Pocket~! Before getting covered again.

Do you think I like that?????


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

OK
Do what exactly?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Thanks for bringing a single payer system to mind. Do you remember when there was only Ma Bell? If not find an old timer who does and have them tell you about the good old days. The days when you only made long distance calls in emergencies because of the cost. The days when if someone had a second phone, not second line but a second phone, they were something because of the cost involved? Why did prices drop? Because there became more than one option.


No health insurance anywhere in this country is less expensive than Medicare. Nothing.

And just for the record, I didn't bring up single payer.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> OK
> Do what exactly?


 Start letting ALL insurance companies write polices across State lines.
That is Called Competition.
Put a limit on Tort Reform for a 2nd thing.
And Reverse the bill that says Drug Companies can Have another 3 years on their patent Before Generic ones are made.
OH maybe you did 't hear about that???~! Well Obama did just that a few weeks ago.
Nice of our president Keeping Cheaper Generic Drugs from hitting the market for 3 years longer so the Drug Companies can Make More Money~!!!!!!!
FOLLOW the Money Trail that is all you have to do, and get your eyes opened up as to what is really happening.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not really. Insurance companies tell providers what they'll take for a service. It's been that way for a long time.


No you are thinking of medicare.

If its so good then why is congress not including itself?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> She is. My congressperson is Shelley Berkley. The voting record shows that she voted for it.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Congress members are specifically excluded from the plan. IOW, the peons of the nation will be tossed into "the system" but the 'great leaders' won't have to deal with such things.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And besides so what if I am on SS???
> What does that have to do with how I feel about what is good for the country????


The question isn't if you're on Social Security, because that question is not relevant to the discussion. The question is whether you're on Medicare; a government administrated health care program. I'm curious to know why you seem so against government administrated health care yet participate in a government plan. I'm also wondering how you like it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> No you are thinking of medicare.


Nope. Private insurance pays on a schedule too. That's where medical discount programs come from.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Being it only pay any better then a HMO does, 80/20 so it is not that great. If you think so just wait till you are on it.
And with clinics now Stopping taking in new Medicare patient, one just has to worry whats next to come.
And read my other post on the Donut Hole, and hows our nice president slipped a bill through giving the drug companies an extra 3 years before generic ones can come on the making drug prices to stay high as they are in the hip pocket of the government.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> The only reason shareholders get involved is when _profits_ have been affected. :shrug:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I rather it be determined by company who can be sued and its leaders can possibly face jail time than by a government which can not be held responsible for any action it takes.




ErinP said:


> I think it's part of the right to *life*, liberty and pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.


But you think part of it is to have someone rob you of the fruits of your labor and give them to another person is what our founding fathers were thinking of when they fought for their freedom? 

If this is such a good thing then why is congress exempting itself from it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No health insurance anywhere in this country is less expensive than Medicare. Nothing.
> 
> And just for the record, I didn't bring up single payer.


So if this plan is so good then why isn't congress going to be included?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I rather it be determined by company who can be sued and its leaders can possibly face jail time than by a government which can not be held responsible for any action it takes.


This is the way it's been for decades. And we already know it does NOT work this way. :shrug:



> If this is such a good thing then why is congress exempting itself from it?



They AREN'T. If everyone is required to possess health insurance, and they are _going_ to have health insurance, how is it that they're exempt?? 
And yes, I think every member of a modern, democratic society should have equal access to needed health care. It should be just as much a right as voting, or not starving. That should be part of what "civilized" _means_.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Start letting ALL insurance companies write polices across State lines.
> That is Called Competition.


This is what happened with banking. They all moved to DE where the regulations are minimal. 
It was an absolute _disaster_. I really don't want to see such a thing happen with insurance.


> Put a limit on Tort Reform for a 2nd thing.


I realize you're one of those who doesn't believe it, but that would have little to no effect on costs.


> And Reverse the bill that says Drug Companies can Have another 3 years on their patent Before Generic ones are made.


Again, this has _very_ little do with the actual costs of health care in this country. 


We're back to square one. :shrug:


----------



## eggman (Mar 4, 2007)

I am curious about something. I am hearing that it is imperitive that this healthcare bill be signed now before Easter because 45,000 people a year are dieing and people are suffering needlessly because they don't have healthcare. But these people (even if the bill is signed tonight) have to wait 4-5 years to get thier healthcare. That means that we are willing to let 180,000-225,000 people die. If the bill passes this week what is the hold up?


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> I rather it be determined by company who can be sued and its leaders can possibly face jail time than by a government which can not be held responsible for any action it takes.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, this really cracked me up. 

It's going to keep cracking me up.

If you think that the insurance companies can be successfully sued and that the money isn't just going to be shifted around to other large companies, you are *really* missing what is going on here. Some pansy will take the fall, sure, just like Enron-boy did, and we'll all go happily back to sleep pretending that everything is a-ok.

Competition is gone - there is no such thing - across state lines or not. The incestuousness of big business ensures that the prices will stay exactly where they are, if not increase, once they have us more over a barrel.

And government is held responsible. Every 4 years you have a vote. I'm sure you exercise it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> This is what happened with banking. They all moved to DE where the regulations are minimal.


 It would still be regulated for pete's sake, that is not the point. The States are controlling that. Just let companies write policies across states lines and get competitive just like the Auto insurance companies are now. And they sure as heck are going good and have very competitive pricing~! And still being regulated at that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

wannabefarmwife said:


> *Competition is gone - there is no such thing - across state lines or not.* The incestuousness of big business ensures that the prices will stay exactly where they are, if not increase, once they have us more over a barrel.


 Lets not paint with such a broad brush.
What about the Auto Insurance Companies?
They are Very Competitive in pricing, very competitive and why is that? Because of Competition~! Price fighting between all of them. Have you not listened to ads on TV? No buy me sand save X amount, no come and buy our brand B and get a better deal in pricing. No buy brand C we are better then brand B and so on.
And it will work the same way in the health insurance


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

eggman said:


> I am curious about something. I am hearing that it is imperitive that this healthcare bill be signed now before Easter because 45,000 people a year are dieing and people are suffering needlessly because they don't have healthcare. But these people (even if the bill is signed tonight) have to wait 4-5 years to get thier healthcare. That means that we are willing to let 180,000-225,000 people die. If the bill passes this week what is the hold up?


 No that is not the Real reason At All.
The Truth of the matter IS this:
They Have To Pass it Now, before Easter Vacation when all the people in congress and the house, come back to their own States and get a EAR FULL again from the 85% of the population that Does Not Want this Bill as Written to Pass! 
Lets get out the truth as to why they are forcing the bill down the throats of the American people and not wanting the American People to have their way.
And the longer they wait the Lower president Obama's approval rating goes~!
And the madder the American people get because Washington is NOT listening to them.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> They are Very Competitive in pricing, very competitive and why is that? Because of Competition~! Price fighting between all of them. Have you not listened to ads on TV? No buy me sand save X amount, no come and buy our brand B and get a better deal in pricing. No buy brand C we are better then brand B and so on.
> And it will work the same way in the health insurance


A. I don't watch television, for a reason.

B. You don't have to have auto insurance. Health insurance is slightly more necessary, more expensive to provide, and much easier to gouge and price fix.

C. The consumer doesn't typically buy health insurance, the employer does. This means that there is no reason for health insurance premiums to go down, as most employers don't give a crap what you have to pay. If you are self-employed, or unemployed, competition or not, the prices are horrifying.

D. Health insurance advertises as well, and if you'll notice there aren't ads based on price because it's generally considered distasteful to compete on price in the health insurance world. That's why you see "caring" as the #1 message that they are trying to get across. It's bogus, but that's neither here nor there. 

I don't think it's the silver bullet that you're hoping for. I'm not necessarily saying a state run system is either - far better to break up the conglomerates and allow real competition to occur. I have a feeling that our founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they knew what Capitalism had turned into.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Being it only pay any better then a HMO does, 80/20 so it is not that great. If you think so just wait till you are on it.
> And with clinics now Stopping taking in new Medicare patient, one just has to worry whats next to come.
> And read my other post on the Donut Hole, and hows our nice president slipped a bill through giving the drug companies an extra 3 years before generic ones can come on the making drug prices to stay high as they are in the hip pocket of the government.


In the first place I take care of an 84 year-old woman, so I know precisely what the Medicare deal is. She was on Medicare until this month, when we got her on an Medicare Advantage HMO plan.

The premium for the HMO is simply maintaining Medicare Part A & B, she pays nothing more except service copays. She drops Medicare Part D because prescriptions are part of the HMO. That means her premiums are about $25/month less than they used to be. Here are examples of what she copays for services.

Primary Care Physician - $10
Specialist - $20
24/7 Urgent Care Center - $25
Lab - $5
X-Ray - $5

If you doubt what I say, visit the Southern Nevada Senior Dimensions web site.

http://www.seniordimensions.com/body.cfm?id=555578

By the way, if you're being bugged by the Medicare Part D doughnut hole then you're taking name brand drugs with no domestic generic. Look overseas and save yourself a bundle. That's what I had to do for my friend's Evista. But next month we start getting it from the HMO.

For example, Plavix is about $100/month, which is expensive enough to take you half way to your annual doughnut hole. But you can get a generic for Plavix from overseas for around $30/month. That's about the same cost as the name brand copay, but it won't beat-up your monthly premium (Plavix will raise your Medicare Part D premium by maybe $30 to $40/month). And if your buy it independently it won't ever count towards your doughnut hole. Ge the picture?

Come-on. You can outsmart Medicare, can't you?


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> So if this plan is so good then why isn't congress going to be included?


They've always been exempted and had their own plans. This is no different, and honestly, that doesn't bother me in the least. I've long since given up thinking that anyone in government, repub or democrat, really represents me.

I wish we could go back to the time that these positions were temporary, and people actually had to work for a living between gathering to vote...then we actually had a representative republic.


----------



## Firethorn (Nov 1, 2004)

ErinP said:


> what _are_ you people talking about???
> 
> The only thing that is being required is that people have to carry some kind of insurance (and some of the versions allow people to opt out for various reasons).
> If Congressmen have insurance via their employer (like most of America) then they aren't doing _anything_ different than anyone else.


You really need to read the bill or at least the points of the bill. Then come back and talk about what we are talking about. Your wrong in your simplification.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

OK...
WHICH bill?

Because as well as I can see, of the three that are currently being discussed all require participation in an insurance pool to some extent or another. 
If Congress is participating in a pool (which they currently ARE, as are most employees in this country who are in an employer-sponsored pool) then they are _not_ exempted. :shrug:


----------



## notenoughtime (Aug 13, 2007)

I wanted to put my 2 cents in here and started writing but it is all so complicated on the docs side with insurance. I can tell you with all honesty that the insurance companies do call the shots. From what they pay to what treatment you can get. A doc has to accept what they pay if he is a contracting physician with the insurance company. And some insurance companies will not even tell you how much they pay until the claim is processed. Talk to a doc in solo practice that has to work the business side of it with the medical and you will have a completely different view. In fact there may be a lot less in medicine before this is over. With what a medical degree education cost, cost of a home and family they honestly won't be able to afford it. (if they get student loans). It is really sad because they have to love medicine and care to go through what they do to get their degree. I also think that this is really where they need to start, regulating the insurance companies. Someone is making the money and it is not the docs.....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

notenoughtime said:


> I wanted to put my 2 cents in here and started writing but it is all so complicated on the docs side with insurance. I can tell you with all honesty that the insurance companies do call the shots. From what they pay to what treatment you can get. A doc has to accept what they pay if he is a contracting physician with the insurance company. And some insurance companies will not even tell you how much they pay until the claim is processed. Talk to a doc in solo practice that has to work the business side of it with the medical and you will have a completely different view. In fact there may be a lot less in medicine before this is over. With what a medical degree education cost, cost of a home and family they honestly won't be able to afford it. (if they get student loans). It is really sad because they have to love medicine and care to go through what they do to get their degree. I also think that this is really where they need to start, regulating the insurance companies. Someone is making the money and it is not the docs.....


Thanks for posting that. I was trying explain that earlier but no one was listening.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Come-on. You can outsmart Medicare, can't you?


No I can't.
The drug for my RA is the Level 4 drug~!
So no getting any kind of that type out of the country.
And at $1,700 a month it would not take long at all to get to that Donut hole.
Besides i have to have 3 shots at the Start. The very first month, I may even Go into the donut hole the very first month~! Then it is one shot OH I had better not say shots.
The drug is given by IV~! So I HAVE to go in to a clinic.
The "other" drugs I have been on I was able to do it myself.
But they "stopped Working" so now there is only one left at this point in time for me to take.
Oh there are others out there, but must be taken along with another High Powered drug called Methotrexate... Which I am deathly allergic to. As that drug nearly killed me 5 years ago. With the stoppage of my kidneys and liver~! 3 days in ICU is NOT FUN.
BTW I was NOT on Medicare at that time.
I was on my employer's group insurance policy. Through the Cobra Law.
They Paid everything but the $2,500 Deductible,,, and I am SURE that hospital bill was over 100K~! Besides 3 days in ICU another 5 days spent in regular care.
That alone should tell you just how sick I was the amount of time I spent in the hospital


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> No I can't.
> The drug for my RA is the Level 4 drug~!
> So no getting any kind of that type out of the country.
> And at $1,700 a month it would not take long at all to get to that Donut hole.
> ...


Remicaid?

Imagine what it would be like if you _didn't qualify_ for Medicaid/Medicare. That's the predicament a friend of mine is in. 
Her RA is _literally_ bankrupting her. 

She lost her insurance in a divorce and she can't get a new policy because of course she has a pre-existing.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Remicaid?
> 
> Imagine what it would be like if you _didn't qualify_ for Medicaid/Medicare. That's the predicament a friend of mine is in.
> Her RA is _literally_ bankrupting her.
> ...


 No,, a newer one then that, Orencia.
Remicade has to be taken along or should be with Methotrexate~~! Can't do that~!!!
So I am not taking ANY RA drugs now,,,, SO I am BACK to just OTC Ibuprofen and Tylenol Arthritis. Which I had been doing for 25 years at the rate of 25 a DAY. Have not been up to that amount yet. But I can't afford to go back the Strong RA Meds`!!!
So Medicaid / Medicare does not even come in the picture for my RA~!!!!
So THAT is how well the Government Health Care system is working for me~!!!!! And it will only get worse if this health care bill gets passed and with that, the Advantage programs are Stopped~!!!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

There's an interesting argument that the government puts forth on the student loan issue that's included in the health care bill.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/86915-student-lenders-protest-nationalization-effort
Emphasis mine.


> &#8220;There&#8217;s simply no reason to keep pumping taxpayer dollars into a broken system *when the federal government can provide the same low-cost federal loans more reliably for students and at a lower cost for taxpayers*,&#8221; a committee release intended to challenge the lending industry&#8217;s main arguments states.


Of course the government can provide it for less, especially when they force competition (private companies) out of business. Apply that logic not only to student loans, but health care, housing, etc. and you begin to see a pattern. 

Obama is on record saying that his goal is single-payer health care. It doesn't matter what he says now when questioned by the media, he & other progressives ARE pushing for single-payer. This health care bill, if enacted into law, will force private insurers out of business (how can they stay in business when they're mandated to return 80% of their profits to health care, ensure pre-existing conditions, etc?). 

Can you begin to see a pattern? And what happens when government is the source for all our needs? We become Venezuela. They may have health care (I'm not familiar with that issue) but they don't have freedom of speech......or freedom, period. Dissenters get 'disappeared'. 

IMO, this is a dangerous path we're about to go down, if this bill passes, because it won't stop with health care.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Just a side note....as we talk about the cost of healthcare and whether we can afford a federal program of such magnitude, anybody else notice Social Security went broke today?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Just a side note....as we talk about the cost of healthcare and whether we can afford a federal program of such magnitude, anybody else notice Social Security went broke today?


 Yes, and another great run Governmental Program.. And people want to put their lives in the hands of these same people?????


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> No,, a newer one then that, Orencia.
> Remicade has to be taken along or should be with Methotrexate~~! Can't do that~!!!
> So I am not taking ANY RA drugs now,,,, SO I am BACK to just OTC Ibuprofen and Tylenol Arthritis. Which I had been doing for 25 years at the rate of 25 a DAY. Have not been up to that amount yet. But I can't afford to go back the Strong RA Meds`!!!
> So Medicaid / Medicare does not even come in the picture for my RA~!!!!
> So THAT is how well the Government Health Care system is working for me~!!!!! And it will only get worse if this health care bill gets passed and with that, the Advantage programs are Stopped~!!!


She's got RA. She takes 5 mg prednisone each day for it. She saw a rheumatologist once but he said to just keep doing what her internist said to do.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And so it starts~!
Even more places are dropping out of the Medicaid program because of the CUTS. Just wait till the REAL Cuts start to show up when this health care wing ding program gets up and rolling.
*



With Medicaid Cuts, Doctors and Patients Drop Out

Click to expand...

*


> In Flint, Dr. Nita M. Kulkarni, an obstetrician, receives $29.42 from Medicaid for a visit that would bill $69.63 from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. She receives $842.16 from Medicaid for a Caesarean delivery, compared with $1,393.31 from Blue Cross.
> 
> If she takes too many Medicaid patients, she said, she cannot afford overhead expenses like staff salaries, the office mortgage and malpractice insurance that will run $42,800 this year. She also said she feared being sued by Medicaid patients because they might be at higher risk for problem pregnancies, because of underlying health problems.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/health/policy/16medicaid.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Obama did say he MIGHT have to raise the rates... Well lets wait on that one He has lied so much one can't tell if anything he says now will ever come to be.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And so it starts~!
> Even more places are dropping out of the Medicaid program because of the CUTS. Just wait till the REAL Cuts start to show up when this health care wing ding program gets up and rolling.
> 
> 
> ...


Your problem is with health care reform is physician salaries?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> She's got RA. She takes 5 mg prednisone each day for it. She saw a rheumatologist once but he said to just keep doing what her internist said to do.


You think rheumatologists are ignorant and paid too much?


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The question isn't if you're on Social Security, because that question is not relevant to the discussion. The question is whether you're on Medicare; a government administrated health care program. I'm curious to know why you seem so against government administrated health care yet participate in a government plan. I'm also wondering how you like it.


Well, I can answer this. I'm not on a government administered plan but my children are.

My son has commercial insurance through my work. He also has Medicare and Medicaid. He's a disabled adult who was disabled before age 20 and has SS based on my husband's work history. That makes him eligible for Medicare.

Medicare (and Medicaid) often pays providers less than their cost. The terribly limit the care they'll pay for. For example, if a patient has a mental health problem Medicare will pay for counseling only if there is a psychiatrist on staff. That means you're likely to only be able to receive care at hospitals or in clinics. Those are often not the places where you'll receive the best care (or even decent care around here).

Medicare and Medicaid make you jump through hoops to get medication. I have a friend whose disabled child has Medicaid. He had to get prior approval for an antibiotic he needed urgently. It took a week. Risked his life.

Medicaid in IL won't pay for neuropsych testing. Medicare doesn't have dental coverage. Medicaid doesn't have dental coverage for adults. Fewer and fewer providers are taking either programs anymore because of payment delays and low reimbursement.

One of the ways the government plans to "save" money is by reducing reimbursement even more and require providers to take on higher case loads. ooooh, just the way to get better quality.

Medicare has huge gaps in coverage. My husband is retired. He has a combo of Medicare, Medigap, and coverage through the VA. He still has to pay for a lot of his medications. There are many places that don't take his insurance. 

This government plan, if enacted, will provide less coverage at a greater cost. Most people will hate Medicare style coverage. 

Arabian Knight, you do realize that it costs providers more than $29.63 to see a patient, right? My medications cost far, far more than $1500/month. Heck, my narcolepsy medication alone costs $2500/month. My seizure meds cost about $400. I take ten or 15 different medications.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> You think rheumatologists are ignorant and paid too much?


No. Rheumatology is a perfectly respectable profession. The fact that he agreed with her course of treatment is not a put-down, it only confirmed that the treatment was reasonable.

Really Bob, you need to chill-out.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> No. Rheumatology is a perfectly respectable profession. The fact that he agreed with her course of treatment is not a put-down, it only confirmed that the treatment was reasonable.
> 
> Really Bob, you need to chill-out.


:hysterical:

So what you're saying is that people who aren't rheumatologist aren't respectable or reasonable?


(gets a little silly doesn't it?)


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

What will happen if a person becomes eligible for Medicare but is unable to find a doctor who accepts it, if this bill is passed? My DD works in billing and said drs are dropping out like flies. The Medicare website only lists one GP for my area (within a reasonable driving distance)!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Yes, and another great run Governmental Program.. And people want to put their lives in the hands of these same people?????


_You_ did. :shrug:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

I am still trying to figure out where in the bill it states that they will lower premium costs and keep care good. Most of what I read sounds like there will be more expenses added with all the new regulations and new agency that have to be paid for with tax money... What am I missing? 

The docs around our area are also dropping out of medicare right and left!! Lots of medicare patients are left having to drive 60 miles to see a doc..


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

At the cancer center where I work per diem. The oncologist's wont accept medicaid nor medicare. The flop them over the the hospital who gives the treatment. The private practice oncology doc's dont get paid enough to treat them. What do you think is going to happen when this bill passes? 
The drugs alone cost thousands of dollars and the reimbursment is in the low 100's. 
It's just shifting the burden to the hospitals more and more. So you are going to end up with hospitals closing due to being unable to continue to lose money on the drugs. 
And if you think you are going to get the drug companies to lower the prices your kidding yourself. If you institute something like that they are just going to stop developing drugs for the US. Go where the money is. 

So what is the fix?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

TJN66 said:


> If you institute something like that they are just going to stop developing drugs for the US. Go where the money is.


Where is that? The USA is the last major industrialized country without some sort of government controlled national health system and price controls on drugs. So where exactly are the drug companies and high dollar doctors threatening to go to? Open a clinic in some backwater dictatorship where the local dictator wants a cut of the profits but will let you do anything you want in way of treatment??? Wait... they already sell same drugs we get here in third world countries for fraction of the asking price here. So where are they going that has all this money? Mars?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Another facet of the healthcare bill, if anyone is still interested...

Under the Senate Bill, primary care physicians will see reimbursement go up. Specialists will see reimbursement go down.

Taking a look at the Law of Unintended Consequences, this means primary care medicine gets a boost, but specialists, especially those in low income or *rural* areas, will become as rare as hen's teeth.

By that definition alone, the quality of care that many people will recieve is going to drop. Rheumatologist? No, your primary care doc can take care of that. Broken arm? Nope, no ortho handy, we'll just have to set that here. Ob/gyn? Ya gotta be kidding! That guy left town years ago! Psychiatrist? Not around these parts.

U.S. medicine operates at the highest technological level in the world. Bleeding edge, not cutting edge. Period. End of argument. There are things coming on the molecular horizon that are simply more wondrous than a science fiction writer could envision.

But if we decide the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, we will enact this bill. Not that it will work, it won't...not without serious healthcare rationing. We can kiss goodbye to the best and brightest entering medicine - they'll go where the money is.

At the end of the day, what will we have accomplished? And will it be worth it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> At the end of the day, what will we have accomplished? And will it be worth it?


If it saves lives and alleviates suffering, then yes it will be worth it.

You see, all the cutting edge technology in the world can't help you if you have no access to it. It's true that American doctors are able to help some people using new and wonderful procedures, but there are also people in this country who die from simple infections because they can't afford to see a doctor. We need to bridge that gap.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> If it saves lives and alleviates suffering, then yes it will be worth it.
> 
> You see, all the cutting edge technology in the world can't help you if you have no access to it. It's true that American doctors are able to help some people using new and wonderful procedures, but there are also people in this country who die from simple infections because they can't afford to see a doctor. We need to bridge that gap.


You're still trying to mislead people, Nevada. If they died from a simple infection, then they didn't bother going to the ER because they would have been cared for if they had. There have been health care workers even on these boards who attest to the fact that ERs do not turn people away.....CANNOT turn people away.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

you're not understanding his point.

Those of us who are uninsured, or pay 25-40% of our take home income on just the insurance premiums, DON'T GO to the ER or doc unless someone is _obviously_ dying. Otherwise, we don't get medical care because we know WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. 

Consequently, a lot of people wait until it's entirely too late because they kept putting it off and putting it off.


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

This might have already been posted here -- I'm at work and don't have time to read through the whole thread.

Kathleen

An Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Frazer, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN)

Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh.. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued! (Papers please!)

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)

Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records. (I guess so they can 'deduct' their fees)

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)

Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.


Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Fraser, MD

Dear Reader,

I urge you to use the power that you were born with (and the power that may soon be taken away) and circulate this email to as many people as you can reach. The Power of the People can stop this from happening to us, our parents, our grandparents, our children, and to following generations.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> You're still trying to mislead people, Nevada. If they died from a simple infection, then they didn't bother going to the ER because they would have been cared for if they had. There have been health care workers even on these boards who attest to the fact that ERs do not turn people away.....CANNOT turn people away.


If it gets into the blood stream before starting treatment, going to the ER may not save you.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

thanks for that BlueJuniperFarm.... 
Some folks will not see it as their eyes are closed.

But, you may want to post it on an appropriate thread in Political forum, cause many there would like, and many not like to see it.

Angie


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

BlueJuniperFarm said:


> Respectfully,
> 
> Stephen E. Fraser, MD


http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/frazer.asp


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> thanks for that BlueJuniperFarm....
> Some folks will not see it as their eyes are closed.
> 
> But, you may want to post it on an appropriate thread in Political forum, cause many there would like, and many not like to see it.
> ...


1. It was not a letter to a congressman.
2. It was circulated early last year.
3. It refers to an older version of the bill.
4. Many of the points have been shown to be in error.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/frazer.asp


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

This whole thing has me questioning why I worked so hard all my life, taking care of my family without leaning on the gov.!! Now I'm supporting way to many and having to short my family. With this bill it will only get worse.. Sorry guys but I want to be able to take care of my own first and foremost.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Nevada said:


> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/frazer.asp


Rats! Beat me to it! lol 
(Snopes is your friend, guys. Anytime you get a mass email like this, _always_ run it through snopes to verify whether it's legit or not.)

Here's an actual article that debunks the email


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> This whole thing has me questioning why I worked so hard all my life, taking care of my family without leaning on the gov.!! Now I'm supporting way to many and having to short my family. With this bill it will only get worse.. Sorry guys but I want to be able to take care of my own first and foremost.


That's always the last argument of the right; that there won't be any medical resources left for them or their families. If course that argument is offset by the claim that there are very few uninsured people in this country.

If the republican claim that only 5 million are uninsured, then providing those few people with medical care won't be any burden at all. If the democrats are correct that 45 million are without insurance, and that this reform bill will cover about 30 million of them, then the burden will be 10% over what it is today. So with 10% additional load being the worst case, do you really believe that's enough extra workload to bring down the system?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Rats! Beat me to it! lol
> (Snopes is your friend, guys. Anytime you get a mass email like this, _always_ run it through snopes to verify whether it's legit or not.)
> 
> Here's an actual article that debunks the email


It won't matter. The fact that it's untrue won't phase them in the least. This isn't about being right, it's about winning. But I've got news for the right; they're going to lose this one. Health care reform is a freight train that's coming through, and no one can stop it now.


----------



## Betty Jean (Jan 7, 2009)

And many, many of those points are in the recent Reconciliation version of the bill. 

For example, Section 312 (begining on page 144) dictates the employer requirements to pay 72% of the premium for individual coverage and 65% of family coverage for all employees. 

Where I work, that means the private option will no longer be offered, as the company can't afford it. So much for the cliams that if we like our current coverage, we can keep it. Not so. 

And some points that were not mentioned above: 

Section 224 (begins on page 125) provides for "Innovative Payment Mechanisms" so that medical providors can get paid more if they have an ethnic patient population, becuase the government wants this bill to "reduce racial/ethnic disparities" in health care.

Section 1221 (begins on page 411) is one of many sections that provide lots of tax money and special services to beneficiaries who are "non-English proficient", in this section $16,000,000 per year for interpreters. 

I didn't jot down the section number, but this bill provides coverage for ANY child born in the United States, from day one. 

Soooo, now we get to pay for that social justice we've heard so much about. It is only fair, I suppose, if the typical non "ethnic" American has to go to the back of the health care bus, since the few docs that are left will gravitate to the patients that will trigger that lovely "innovative payment mechanism".


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Where is that? The USA is the last major industrialized country without some sort of government controlled national health system and price controls on drugs. So where exactly are the drug companies and high dollar doctors threatening to go to? Open a clinic in some backwater dictatorship where the local dictator wants a cut of the profits but will let you do anything you want in way of treatment??? Wait... they already sell same drugs we get here in third world countries for fraction of the asking price here. So where are they going that has all this money? Mars?


Oh please. There are no other countries in the world that invent medicines and protocols? France, England, Germany? None of those do anything in the invention of medicines correct? They will go where the money is. If it isnt here then thats where they will go. Do you even realize that most of our protocols come from overseas? Talk to your local drug rep. like I have many times. It's a real eye opener.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> That's always the last argument of the right; that there won't be any medical resources left for them or their families. If course that argument is offset by the claim that there are very few uninsured people in this country.
> 
> If the republican claim that only 5 million are uninsured, then providing those few people with medical care won't be any burden at all. If the democrats are correct that 45 million are without insurance, and that this reform bill will cover about 30 million of them, then the burden will be 10% over what it is today. So with 10% additional load being the worst case, do you really believe that's enough extra workload to bring down the system?


You have got to be kidding, and no I am not a repub nor a demo.. The system is over loaded now, to few paying for to many. I am sick of paying for others, even with insurance going to the doc is just to expensive and with this joke of a reform it will only get higher.. The promise made was to make it more affordable and access easier, that does not look to be what's in the bill.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ErinP said:


> you're not understanding his point.
> 
> Those of us who are uninsured, or pay 25-40% of our take home income on just the insurance premiums, DON'T GO to the ER or doc unless someone is _obviously_ dying. Otherwise, we don't get medical care because we know WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.
> 
> Consequently, a lot of people wait until it's entirely too late because they kept putting it off and putting it off.


And you think that everything, your insurance premiums and medical costs, will be affordable under this bill? 

Can you answer this question......exactly how much are your premiums going to be lowered from this legislation? Is there anything in the bill that regulates medical costs? Or does Washington simply believe it will happen on it's own?


Nevada said:


> If it gets into the blood stream before starting treatment, going to the ER may not save you.


You said simple infection. One that's already gotten into the bloodstream isn't simple. By that point, a person would _know_ they need emergency help.

Again, you're trying to muddy the scenario. People aren't dying from lack of health care or lack of insurance because of a simple infection.

But, for the sake are conversation, let's say someone HAS insurance yet chooses to wait too long. Who's fault is that? How do you know that people who are supposedly dying from lack of healthcare simply chose to wait too long to seek help....not because they couldn't pay but because they didn't think the problem was serious enough? 

You paint a broad picture, saying that everyone who dies from 'lack of healthcare' is dying simply because they don't have insurance. That's not true and it's misleading for you to keep making that claim.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

TJN66 said:


> Oh please. There are no other countries in the world that invent medicines and protocols? France, England, Germany? None of those do anything in the invention of medicines correct? They will go where the money is. If it isnt here then thats where they will go. Do you even realize that most of our protocols come from overseas? Talk to your local drug rep. like I have many times. It's a real eye opener.



ALL of those countries have socialized health care and control their drug costs. 
Your argument isn't making any sense...



> And you think that everything, your insurance premiums and medical costs, will be affordable under this bill?


Yes I do. 
Under each incarnation of the bills, there have been stipulations and cost controls.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

From a strictly business perspective, if this bill passes, employer sponsored health insurance will cease to exist. Employers wouldn't be able to pay for it in prosperous economic times, much less in our current economic environment. That will for a short time leave individuals paying for private policies if they can. As this bill comes to full fruition over the next 4 years, virtually no working American will be able to pay the rising costs of private insurance. It will then be .gov insurance or pay the fine for having no insurance.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

There IS NO .gov insurance.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

Sigh..its about the patent. You patent the drug...you make huge amounts or revenue for years. Doesnt matter where you sell the drug..it matters about the patent and the years you have to be the only seller. Like I said..talk to your local drug rep. You'll get an education. What you think you know isnt true. It certainly opened up my eyes.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Erin - will you find the page/s and paragraph/s in this reconcillation proposed bill that shows how the cost control will lower your price? It might be something I need to know also.

The bill is online, so you can search it in .pdf

Thanks


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> If it gets into the blood stream before starting treatment, going to the ER may not save you.


Down in the Politics forum, I posted a thread about Natomi Canfield, the lady Obama was planning to use in his recent speech, as an example of someone who can't afford insurance, blah, blah, blah. The plan was for her to be on stage with him.

Except she couldn't make it to the speech. No, she didn't die, she was _hospitalized_, receiving chemotherapy treatments......even though she didn't have insurance. That sorta blows a hole in your stance about people dying for lack of health care or insurance, doesn't it?

I won't go in to the other questionable parts of her story.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

ErinP said:


> There IS NO .gov insurance.


How do you know that isnt the end game that the gov wants though? No one can know that unless they are in the "inner circle". Is anyone here privy to that info?

I would love to revisit this in a few years and see how it all shakes out.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> You said simple infection. One that's already gotten into the bloodstream isn't simple. By that point, a person would _know_ they need emergency help.


But the point is that people who can afford to see a doctor are less at risk for blood infections because they will seek help before the infection passes into the blood stream and becomes serious.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Um, Erin? I lived in Germany for a few years and paid into their plan. By the by, I paid 10.5% of my salary for "nationalized healthcare" and - lest I forget to mention it - my employer paid ANOTHER 10.5%!!! My out of pocket there was 30% higher than what I pay today to a "greedy insurance provider". By the by... I also had to carry SEVERAL private insurance "riders", obviously paid wholly by me, to ensure that my family got some small additions (like a private hospital room for critical care stays / ICU, specific dental procedures, an extra day in the hospital for procedures, agreement to be seen within a few weeks for larger tests, etc).

Using arguments that state that "other countries have this figured out" only work until you deal with those systems. Once you have, you realize a whole additional level of bureaucracy and inefficiency... and you realize that it is NOT better.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I said nothing of the sort. lol
I said they had a nationalized health care system where they also controlled drug costs. 

I fully believe you might be paying less here in the States. Especially if you're someone who is lucky enough to get insurance from their employer. 

I would _happily_ give my eye teeth to pay a mere 10.5% of my husband's salary for insurance, btw. 
Many of us are not so fortunate.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

Nevada said:


> But the point is that people who can afford to see a doctor are less at risk for blood infections because they will seek help before the infection passes into the blood stream and becomes serious.


How much is an office visit to an md? Here where I go its $70. Less if you pay cash and have no insurance. (No I dont agree with that set up.) So if you have an infection and think you need meds, you cant pony up the money to go the md and get treated _before_ you are so sick you might die from it? Way cheaper than waiting it out. That is what is called personal responsibility.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

ErinP said:


> I said nothing of the sort. lol
> I said they had a nationalized health care system where they also controlled drug costs.
> 
> I fully believe you might be paying less here in the States. Especially if you're someone who is lucky enough to get insurance from their employer.
> ...


So why doesnt your husband or you look for a job that offers health insurance?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TJN66 said:


> How much is an office visit to an md? Here where I go its $70. Less if you pay cash and have no insurance. (No I dont agree with that set up.) So if you have an infection, think you need meds. You cant pony up the money to go the md and get treated _berfore_ you are so sick you might die from it? Way cheaper than waiting it out. That is what is called personal responsibility.


But as a responsible society we have an obligation to the individual. To many people die each year needlessly, and infection is only one example.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

TJN66 said:


> How do you know that isnt the end game that the gov wants though? No one can know that unless they are in the "inner circle". Is anyone here privy to that info?
> 
> I would love to revisit this in a few years and see how it all shakes out.


I have _no doubt_ there are some Senators/Reps who want a nationalized health care system. (Keep in mind, "the gov" is nothing more than a collection of people who've been elected by their fellow citizens...) However, the bills currently being discussed have no such thing.

So far as "privy to that info"... Seriously?? 
There is absolutely _no way_ I can possibly keep up with all the conspiracy plots you might be imagining... :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

TJN66 said:


> So why doesnt your husband or you look for a job that offers health insurance?


You'd better _hope_ that isn't what happens. lol
Who will feed the rest of you if those of us in production ag. quit to find jobs with insurance?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But the point is that people who can afford to see a doctor are less at risk for blood infections because they will seek help before the infection passes into the blood stream and becomes serious.


No, the point is that ANYONE......even illegal immigrants!!!......can get health care when they need it. 

Your insistence that 45,000 people are dying every year for lack of health care is not true.

Even if it were true, it is NOT for lack of health care but because they made a choice to not seek medical care......not because they're being refused care!!!!!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

TJN66 said:


> How much is an office visit to an md? Here where I go its $70. Less if you pay cash and have no insurance. (No I dont agree with that set up.) So if you have an infection and think you need meds, you cant pony up the money to go the md and get treated _before_ you are so sick you might die from it? Way cheaper than waiting it out. That is what is called personal responsibility.


Personal responsibility is also not running up bills you can't pay. 
Not to mention, gutting it through something that you hope isn't going to be a big deal... 

It's mighty easy to grandstand quarterback...


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> No, the point is that ANYONE......even illegal immigrants!!!......can get health care when they need it.
> 
> Your insistence that 45,000 people are dying every year for lack of health care is not true.
> 
> Even if it were true, it is NOT for lack of health care but because they made a choice to not seek medical care......not because they're being refused care!!!!!


No, it's because _they can't afford it_. 
That's what this entire health care push is FOR!


----------



## Betty Jean (Jan 7, 2009)

Deleted.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> That's always the last argument of the right; that there won't be any medical resources left for them or their families. If course that argument is offset by the claim that there are very few uninsured people in this country.
> 
> If the republican claim that only 5 million are uninsured, then providing those few people with medical care won't be any burden at all. If the democrats are correct that 45 million are without insurance, and that this reform bill will cover about 30 million of them, then the burden will be 10% over what it is today. So with 10% additional load being the worst case, do you really believe that's enough extra workload to bring down the system?





Nevada said:


> But as a responsible society we have an obligation to the individual. To many people die each year needlessly, and infection is only one example.


I have a responsibility to my family first, than after that I give to charities. It is not up to the government to force my participation in a program for a large part of the population. When does the worker become overwhelmed by the non-worker? It is closer than you think..


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Betty Jean said:


> An obligation to the individual? To play nanny? To MAKE someone go to the doctor? And how, pray tell, is the "responsible society" supposed to monitor folks so they don't die "needlessly" from infections.. if they blow off going to seek treatment?


(Are people not reading??)

No. 
The purpose is to make services affordable enough to USE.

A lot of people can't afford to use a personal jet, so therefore that service is inaccessible to them because the cost is prohibitive.
However, we're talking about basic medical care. That should not be in the same league as a personal jet.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

ErinP said:


> You'd better _hope_ that isn't what happens. lol
> Who will feed the rest of you if those of us in production ag. quit to find jobs with insurance?


Hey..I was just asking. Jeez...I dont know what you do for a living. And just for the record...I think everyone should have insurance. Unfortunately this bill is not the way to do it. There are too many back room deals, too much that we the people it is going to affect without us knowing exactly what is in it. 
And as for my conspiracy plot ideas? Where do you come up with that? Because I ask questions and want factual answers. Good grief. I guess I'll roll over and play dead like everyone else and not give a rip about what happens to the country or my family.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> No, the point is that ANYONE......even illegal immigrants!!!......can get health care when they need it.
> 
> Your insistence that 45,000 people are dying every year for lack of health care is not true.
> 
> Even if it were true, it is NOT for lack of health care but because they made a choice to not seek medical care......not because they're being refused care!!!!!


Good! Maybe you can help this fellow member in need of medical care.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=345090


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ErinP said:


> (Are people not reading??)


They're reading just fine. They have to resort to being obtuse because that's all they've got.


----------



## Betty Jean (Jan 7, 2009)

Nevada said:


> Good! Maybe you can help this fellow member in need of medical care.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=345090



This is the advice you gave her, Nevada. It looks like you are saying she can get health care if she needs it. 

_This is not an emergency, but you need to get diagnosed with MS if you have it. I'm sure that your state social services department will be able to help you. It would be better if you could start the process with a hard diagnosis though. You might visit a free clinic for that, even if you have to travel to get to one. I know where to send you if you were in Las Vegas, but I don't even know what state you're in._


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Personal responsibility is also not running up bills you can't pay.
> Not to mention, gutting it through something that you hope isn't going to be a big deal...
> 
> It's mighty easy to grandstand quarterback...


Well..since I have worked in the health care field for 15 years I bet I have just a wee bit more insight to the problem than most. 

Your not going to get people to go. Most dont even with insurance. They dont want to know anything is wrong. They would rather wait it out until they are at deaths door. And for the ones that dont have insurance. You gut it out..treat it as best you can but know you are taking a risk of it all turning badly. Now the question...how are you going to stop that? You are not going to able to. 

And as for grandstanding..what is that supposed to mean? I can't express my opinion but everyone else can?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ErinP said:


> (Are people not reading??)
> 
> No.
> The purpose is to make services affordable enough to USE.


I asked this earlier......do you have any idea, even ballpark, how much your premiums will go down if this bill is enacted? 

If they reduce by, say, $10/month, will that be affordable to you?

I'm having a hard time finding information indicating exactly how much folks can expect their premiums to go down (aside from Obama's claim during his Ohio speech that employers will see premiums reduce by.......wait for it.......3,000%).

How do you know, with any certainty, that your premiums will be 'affordable'? Just because Obama said so?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> I have a responsibility to my family first, than after that I give to charities. It is not up to the government to force my participation in a program for a large part of the population. When does the worker become overwhelmed by the non-worker? It is closer than you think..


Your family? I'm willing to help your family or any other family if they need help.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I asked this earlier......do you have any idea, even ballpark, how much your premiums will go down if this bill is enacted?
> 
> If they reduce by, say, $10/month, will that be affordable to you?
> 
> ...


How much do you expect premiums to go down if we stay with private insurance with no reform?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

TJN66 said:


> Oh please. There are no other countries in the world that invent medicines and protocols? France, England, Germany? None of those do anything in the invention of medicines correct? They will go where the money is. If it isnt here then thats where they will go. Do you even realize that most of our protocols come from overseas? Talk to your local drug rep. like I have many times. It's a real eye opener.


So if the USA doesnt make life lucrative, what country are they going to go to? I keep asking, you keep evading. Or are they just going to give up medicine and go chase speculative money bubbles like the other big money boys?

I dont need to get that last 5 years on machines as an invalid, but kinda nice to get mundane things that exist like setting a broken leg at affordable cost. I think lot people taking lot of unnecessary drugs just cause they are PUSHED on tv and perks given to doctors by drug companies to push them.

Sorry but I just could care less about high dollar wonders. If drug companies went belly up tomorrow, I would be happy enough with medical technology as it exists today. Face it we dont have the economy to support continued big buck development of super high tech medical anything. You first have to have a big enough group of people that are wealthy enough to be able to afford your product/service without them going into lifelong debt. Pretending any insurance or government can somehow provide it free is a big lie. You cant really sell super expensive unless the average person can afford super expensive. Facts of life. The drug companies can develop treatments all they like, but without making it affordable to more than upper economic crust of society, its simply a no go. The same reason we all cant drive Maseraties or Rolls Royces.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

TJN66 said:


> Well..since I have worked in the health care field for 15 years I bet I have just a wee bit more insight to the problem than most.
> 
> Your not going to get people to go. Most dont even with insurance. They dont want to know anything is wrong. They would rather wait it out until they are at deaths door. And for the ones that dont have insurance. You gut it out..treat it as best you can but know you are taking a risk of it all turning badly. Now the question...how are you going to stop that? You are not going to able to.
> 
> And as for grandstanding..what is that supposed to mean? I can't express my opinion but everyone else can?


I didn't say grandstanding, I said grandstand _quarterbacking_. That is, it's mighty easy to tell people how to deal with it when you're not on the field.
Whether people go to the doc or not if they can afford it is a whole other issue. That's not what is in question here anymore than finding a good PT.

The issue is making health care available to everyone by getting the costs to where they're more affordable.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Just went online and searched through insurance plans for unaffiliated individuals. $185 to $600 / month for a family coverage plan with similar deductible and copay to what I have now. The lifetime and yearly limits were lower however (which is one reason I pay more today). 10% of your husbands salary must fall near to this range? And that's for FAMILY coverage.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> How much do you expect premiums to go down if we stay with private insurance with no reform?


I asked the question first. Wanna give a shot at an answer? I'm happy to see an answer from anyone supporting this bill.

What exactly is 'affordable'? Dollar amounts, please.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Your family? I'm willing to help your family or any other family if they need help.


You have that choice but with the mandated health care reform the choice is removed. With it the ones that work are forced to pay for the others. Choice is a wonderful freeing feeling. That's why I choose charities of my choice...


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

I cant wait until this passes. Everyone seems to think its the golden goose. Wait until it all shakes out and finds out the real truth. Im tired of trying to get others to even think outside their boxes. Hope everyone is ready for the fall out.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Just went online and searched through insurance plans for unaffiliated individuals. $185 to $600 / month for a family coverage plan with similar deductible and copay to what I have now. The lifetime and yearly limits were lower however (which is one reason I pay more today). 10% of your husbands salary must fall near to this range? And that's for FAMILY coverage.



Yep, it's "near that range." lol
We pay almost 30% of his income _just_ on insurance premiums.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Your family? I'm willing to help your family or any other family if they need help.


Really? 

Natoma Canfield could use your help.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But as a responsible society we have an obligation to the individual. To many people die each year needlessly, and infection is only one example.


The country is going to get into the spot that IL is in. IL will cover the children of people who could cover them with commercial insurance through their employers. They'll do this for families making $70,000. I'm not even sure if there's an upper limit on income.

This is stupid and bankrupting our state. The really maddening thing about this is that it can be a bear to get medicaid assistance for those with disabilities. We do not owe medical insurance coverage to people who choose a second, newer car, cell phones, large homes, cable TV, etc. We should help those who cannot help themselves like the disabled. We'd be better served to help/insist that low income people become prepared to enter the workforce.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TJN66 said:


> Well..since I have worked in the health care field for 15 years I bet I have just a wee bit more insight to the problem than most.


I did fire/rescue/ambulance work for 9 years. A lot of us here have worked in the health care industry.

But I have one more bit of insight. I buried my younger brother 17 years ago after he died with a blood infection. And yes, money was a factor.



TJN66 said:


> Your not going to get people to go. Most dont even with insurance. They dont want to know anything is wrong. They would rather wait it out until they are at deaths door.


That's true, and making affordable health care available to everyone isn't going to stop the problem altogether. People will still have the right to make decisions, and many are stubborn. But it would be nice for the cost of seeing a doctor to not have to be a factor.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> I asked the question first. Wanna give a shot at an answer? I'm happy to see an answer from anyone supporting this bill.
> 
> What exactly is 'affordable'? Dollar amounts, please.


Really, none of the plans that have been put forth are secretive. 

Here's a comparison of the House vs. Senate bills. Click here
And another.
Yet another

Probably the most current: Click here

So far as dollar amounts, that impossible to say. Considering how much insurance policies vary now, I'm going to bet that since we're continuing with insurance policy coverage, it'll continue to vary widely.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

TJN66 said:


> I cant wait until this passes. Everyone seems to think its the golden goose. Wait until it all shakes out and finds out the real truth. Im tired of trying to get others to even think outside their boxes. Hope everyone is ready for the fall out.


True and I bet not one of those will say oops I guess I was wrong.
Not going to hold my breath on that to happen.
But the stuff will hit the fan hard and splatter all over as this country sinks lower and lower and lower in debt because of this and other spending that O is doing.
History will repeat itself.
And we are on the same path as was taken in the 30's and early 40's that did not work then and will not work now.
Remember the Depression started slowly and with the same thing that this administration which made it last years longer.
History Is repeating itself no doubt about it.
And this Governmental health care debacle, if passed, will just sink us into a hole greater then what we can ever dig out of. Because it is just smoke and mirrors and very creative numbers play that make this a shell game that they say it is deficit neutral. Deficit neutral that is a Laugh and half.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> True and I bet not one of those will say oops I guess I was wrong.
> Not going to hold my breath on that to happen.


Like the way conservatives admit they are wrong? How about admitting that Iraq was a mistake.



arabian knight said:


> But the stuff will hit the fan hard and splatter all over as this country sinks lower and lower and lower in debt because of this and other spending that O is doing.


Yes, it will. But that's because we're in a deep depression, not because of health care reform. When I warned you about depression 5 years ago what did you think it would be like?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> I said nothing of the sort. lol
> I said they had a nationalized health care system where they also controlled drug costs.
> 
> I fully believe you might be paying less here in the States. Especially if you're someone who is lucky enough to get insurance from their employer.
> ...


They control costs by denying drugs, simple as that.

For something as simple as a strep throat, that's not a big deal. Instead of the zithromax pack a doc would normally prescribe (about $20-$30), they'll go the formulary and check what strep is normally sensitive to, say something like erythromicin ($4).

So why don't docs routinely prescribe the latter instead of the former?

1. Patient non-compliance. Erythro must be taken several times a day and patients forget. It must be taken for 7-10 days. Patients miss doses and do not take the drug for the needed length of time (this is how we breed superbugs). Zithro is once a day, for five days...patients are much better at drug regime compliance, ergo it is better for treating the infection.

2. Erythro will tear your stomach up. Nothing like have GERD and then throwing a bit of the dry heaves or explosive diarrhea in the mix.

As I said, not a big deal. Not really.

But let's suppose it's not an antibiotic you need, but chemotherapy. In socialized medicine, your outlook is bleak. British death rates for cancer are 38% higher than in America. Canada, with their best-in-the-world socialized medicine system has cancer death rates 16% higher than the U.S.

But I'm not a physician, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about...so how about some facts from a physican? A Stanford Med School professor, perhaps?

_

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rÃ´le in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher. 

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them. 

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

â¢Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent). 
â¢Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
â¢More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
â¢Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]


Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9] 

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naÃ¯ve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12] 

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries. 

Scott W. Atlas, M.D._

If you wish, here is the link with all of the cites:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I did fire/rescue/ambulance work for 9 years. A lot of us here have worked in the health care industry.
> 
> But I have one more bit of insight. I buried my younger brother 17 years ago after he died with a blood infection. And yes, money was a factor.
> 
> ...


I'm truly sorry for the loss of your brother. You say money was a factor in his death. Was he refused care?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But as a responsible society we have an obligation to the individual. To many people die each year needlessly, and infection is only one example.


Not according to the USSC. They have ruled an individual does not have a right to police protection and the police are under no obligation to provide protection to the individual (Town of Castle Rock, Colorado V. Jessica Gonzales). Now if a tax funded public agency such as the police are not obligated nor required by law to protect the individual then what makes you think there is an obligation for private industry to be forced by law to do so?


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> How about admitting that Iraq was a mistake.


Fine, Iraq was a mistake, but I'm not Sarah OR Abraham and I didn't throw Hagar and Ishmael out!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Never the history of the USA has the Government Forced its citizens to BUY something. Or by fined~!
And sure as heck better not happen now. Or if it does might as well flush the "land of the free", right down the porcelain facility.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Really, none of the plans that have been put forth are secretive.
> 
> Here's a comparison of the House vs. Senate bills. Click here
> And another.
> ...


I appreciate your effort, but those sites don't speak to the actual savings that individuals/families are going to supposedly see under this bill. 

My point is, how can you support something as intrusive and encompassing as this legislation when you don't really know how you'll benefit.....or even IF you will actually benefit at all.

Will you pay higher taxes because of this legislation? Would that offset any monthly savings you might see in your premiums?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> Scott W. Atlas, M.D.[/I]
> 
> If you wish, here is the link with all of the cites:
> 
> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649



And a counter, if you're interested:

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/08/06/facts-about-american-health-care-revisited/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I'm truly sorry for the loss of your brother. You say money was a factor in his death. Was he refused care?


No, he wasn't refused care. According to his wife they were having a difficult time financially. She saw him falling ill but he was concerned about being laid off from work (he was a blue collar worker in a factory) and didn't want to create any unnecessary medical bills. He actually worked on the same day that he went into the hospital.

He realized that he was in trouble at night. He awoke and told his wife that he couldn't move his legs. She called 911, but he died the next day of septic shock. He had no treatment at all for that illness before calling 911.

While he could have been seen, the cost of seeing a doctor was holding him back (that's according to his wife). The really ironic thing is that our father was a doctor, although my brother lived on Connecticut and my father lived in Florida. An untreated infection is a sad thing for a doctor's son to die from.

In cases like that it doesn't take much to tip the scales one way or the other. Affordable health care could have made the difference between life and death.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Never the history of the USA has the Government Forced its citizens to BUY something. Or by fined~!
> And sure as heck better not happen now. Or if it does might as well flush the "land of the free", right down the porcelain facility.


Mandatory insurance is the one provision that has support on both sides of the aisle. You can be very sure that it will be in the final bill.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Let it pass and Clean House of the Dem's and in 2010 R's will get around 60 seats maybe even more. And in 2012 even more R's come on board and Over Turn this no good for anybody health care stuff.
And that will be that.
There are already lining up with law suit after law suits in case the bill does get signed and be in the courts for years till over turned and done away with completely.
Let the Private Sector, and Competition get the cost down End Of Story.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> (Are people not reading??)
> 
> No.
> The purpose is to make services affordable enough to USE.



It won't because it can't. This will drive health care cost UP because more people will be using health care.

This is like saying we can cut our oil usage by requiring companies to sell cars for less so more people can afford them.

If you want to cut medical care cost you have to look at why things cost so much. The next time you go to the doc's office see if he will answer some questions for you. #1) How much per year does he and his staff pay for medical malpractice insurance? #2) What percentage of the test he orders are for "lawyer proofing", i.e. to have it on the record if he is sued? #3) How many and much does he spend on staff members whose job it is to deal with government and insurance companies? The odds are you will be shocked at how much money is wasted on this stuff.


I can tell you how to cut the cost of medical care, you won't like it because it makes people responsible. 

First, you remove direct billing and flat rate co-pays. You make people pay the doctor and then file their own insurance and have them pay a percentage of the bill. Once people start paying the bills and have an incentive via the percentage system they will start shopping for doctors. 

Second, you remove the ability of companies or groups from paying for any portion of an individual's insurance. You still allow members of a group to buy as a group but they must pay the entire bill themselves. You will be responsible for yourself and will pick a policy which fits you.

Third, you remove restrictions on what and where insurance companies can sell polices. Just as if you wish to buy a policy which doesn't require a GP reference before you can see a specialist you should be able to buy a policy which does not cover OB services.

Fourth, you reform the tort system. My opinion is we need to go to a loser pays system. The system we have now its cheaper for a company to pay a small claim than it is to go to court and pay legal fees. This and huge payouts have lead to lawyer lotto. A lawyer can take a case and if he wins he gets big bucks. If he loses he's not out that much. One winner will cover all the loser for a year. And for medical malpractice cases, and maybe other types, you allow an expert from both sides to be to answer questions from the jury members.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> No, he wasn't refused care. According to his wife they were having a difficult time financially. She saw him falling ill but he was concerned about being laid off from work (he was a blue collar worker in a factory) and didn't want to create any unnecessary medical bills. He actually worked on the same day that he went into the hospital.
> 
> He realized that he was in trouble at night. He awoke and told his wife that he couldn't move his legs. She called 911, but he died the next day of septic shock. He had no treatment at all for that illness before calling 911.
> 
> ...


But don't you understand that, even if folks have insurance, there will still be out-of-pocket expenses until they reach their deductible limits? So, in your brother's case, even if he'd _had_ insurance, there's no guarantee that the outcome would have been any different, if he'd had to pay out-of-pocket.

Can you see my point? 'Affordable' is a relative term. My fear is that too many people are supporting this legislation from misconceptions about what the actual outcome is going to be. I don't give a plugged nickel what Obama's propaganda says on TV, I'm hearing something totally different from people in the medical field and it's scaring the heck out of me. And it's not just what I'm hearing, it's what I'm seeing; doctors are FLEEING from Medicare/Medicaid. What good will it do for Obama to expand Medicaid if there are no doctors????????


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> And it's not just what I'm hearing, it's what I'm seeing; doctors are FLEEING from Medicare/Medicaid. What good will it do for Obama to expand Medicaid if there are no doctors????????


I'm not seeing that at all. I just found a medicare doctor for my friend. Go to medicare.gov and select "find a doctor". We've got lots in Las Vegas.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> But don't you understand that, even if folks have insurance, there will still be out-of-pocket expenses until they reach their deductible limits?


My out of pocket is somewhere around $7000/year. As we are very heavy insurance users it costs us a lot. I'm very happy with our coverage.

If this policy is like Medicare, and it sounds like it will be, there are huge gaps in coverage.

If this plan is so very wonderful why aren't lawmakers giving up their plan in favor of the plan they want to force upon us?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm not seeing that at all. I just found a medicare doctor for my friend. Go to medicare.gov and select "find a doctor". We've got lots in Las Vegas.


I'm happy for you. I don't live in Las Vegas. That site shows 1......ONE!!!.....GP within 50 miles of my home that (still) accepts Medicare. Gee, I wonder what his waiting room looks like. Forget that, I wonder what his appointment book looks like. 

When I talked to DD about this, she concurred....doctors are dropping out like flies. Have been for awhile and it's getting worse by the day.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Joshie said:


> My out of pocket is somewhere around $7000/year. As we are very heavy insurance users it costs us a lot. I'm very happy with our coverage.
> 
> If this policy is like Medicare, and it sounds like it will be, there are huge gaps in coverage.
> 
> If this plan is so very wonderful why aren't lawmakers giving up their plan in favor of the plan they want to force upon us?


Exactly.

Not everyone is going to get a cadillac plan. If you can only afford basic coverage, that's what you'll get....same as now. If you want better coverage, then you'd better start looking for a better paying job NOW.

As others have said repeatedly, this won't be the dream deal many are envisioning. There is no common sense in this bill. The numbers don't add up, there is too many vagueness in this bill. Obama's right, he hasn't explained it well enough.....every time he talks, he avoids specifics.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Joshie said:


> If this plan is so very wonderful why aren't lawmakers giving up their plan in favor of the plan they want to force upon us?


What plan would that _be_ exactly??



> This will drive health care cost UP because more people will be using health care.


You think the way to control costs is by keeping millions priced out of the market?!?! And you don't see any serious _moral_ issues with that?


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> There's an interesting argument that the government puts forth on the student loan issue that's included in the health care bill.
> 
> http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/86915-student-lenders-protest-nationalization-effort
> Emphasis mine.
> ...


You really need to educate yourself on the student loan issue. Since the Federal Government guarentees all those loans, why shouldn't they write them? The current system is a give away to the lenders.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Last I heard if they pass this bill they will still write in revisions. What will those revisions include? 

Seems like some people are looking at this fiasco as a type of lottery ticket, thinking they will win and their world will be perfect. When in reality the likelihood of a good outcome is very, very slim... But still they bet their last dollar on it.. Sad.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

Why should the student loans be included in a health care bill? I dont get it. That should be a seperate bill.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

TJN66 said:


> Why should the student loans be included in a health care bill? I dont get it. That should be a seperate bill.


Good heavens...



Student loans _aren't in_ the health care bill. 
They were mentioned as an example of how government influences competition in the marketplace.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Yep, it's "near that range." lol
> We pay almost 30% of his income _just_ on insurance premiums.


that's the cash income, not the house, the land use, and the cirtter keeping area, etc? From what I've read here and there in HT, you're hubby is like a farm keeper and you all live on the land and can use it.
So, if you had to pay for that at your local area rates for rent, of house, land, etc. And add the cash income to it - what would the percentage be?



And I asked for the specifics of "in this current posted 3/15/10 reconcillation proposed bill" (does that answer which bill specifically enough) how you are coming up with a reduction in cost. What page? Section? line? I've been ignored on the answer.

So I went and looked for myself (I've down loaded it so I can do searches)... there on page 119 it starts talking about payment, etc. And the secretary can adjust for location - so where you live will make a difference in your premiums - then there is the sliding scale, and about page 127 there is a little chart of the percentage amounts over Federal Poverty Level, how much of your Pay the preiums will be - this is percentage. 
But I've searched all kinds of words trying to find individual premium payments - it's not there.

Etc.

So, I'm willing to be convinced that there is a lowering of premiums, and still keep good coverage - if you can show me in the proposal by page, and line number/s where it specifically says so.

Thank you.
Angie


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Good heavens...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, you're misinformed. Student loan legislation IS included as a 'sidecar' on the health care bill.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/15/huge-student-loan-overhaul-tacked-onto-health-care-reform/

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/8...include-student-loan-and-healthcare-proposals



> The lending legislation would make the federal government the originator of student loans, essentially eliminating the private student loan industry. Under the proposed reform, private banks would still service the loans.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> So, I'm willing to be convinced that there is a lowering of premiums, and still keep good coverage - if you can show me in the proposal by page, and line number/s where it specifically says so.
> 
> Thank you.
> Angie


You don't think the public option is going to lower insurance premiums? (page 1167)


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

....for allowing this discussion. It's an important issue and I appreciate that you've allowed it to be discussed up here in CF.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> You don't think the public option is going to lower insurance premiums? (page 1167)


NO, show me where it says so.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> NO, show me where it says so.


I've never heard of legislation making guarantees on the impact of new programs. Where did you get such an idea? Can you give me an example of a performance guarantee in past legislation?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I would really love to see Erin's answer with pages and numbers. She's made the assertion that it will bring down her health care cost - I would like to see what she is basing this on. There must be a concrete bit of information in this current version being put forth. And since she does come back with the clever "what bill, or what version" type of comment, I've been very specific as to which one I'm talking about so there will be no wiggle room to avoid it by saying "which one".

So, the question still remains

In the 3-15-10 reconcillation proposed bill that was published via .pdf yesterday.... where, which page, line/s does it show that anyone's premiums, payments to doctors, or other specifics will be lower.?

Thank you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> I would really love to see Erin's answer with pages and numbers. She's made the assertion that it will bring down her health care cost - I would like to see what she is basing this on. There must be a concrete bit of information in this current version being put forth. And since she does come back with the clever "what bill, or what version" type of comment, I've been very specific as to which one I'm talking about so there will be no wiggle room to avoid it by saying "which one".
> 
> So, the question still remains
> 
> ...


The public option has a good chance of keeping costs down, most likely less, than just about any other provision.



It will provide competition.
It will provide a good bargaining position with Drs & hospitals.
It will make use of existing Medicare provider networks.
It will be administrated for close to the cost of Medicare administration (3%).


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I've never heard of legislation making guarantees on the impact of new programs. Where did you get such an idea? Can you give me an example of a performance guarantee in past legislation?


I don't have to, I'm asking you to prove your assertions with page/s and line/s in the current 3/15/10 proposed reconcillation health bill.


Thank you


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The public option has a good chance of keeping costs down, most likely less, than just about any other provision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No specifics, speculations


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> I don't have to, I'm asking you to prove your assertions with page/s and line/s in the current 3/15/10 proposed reconcillation health bill.
> 
> 
> Thank you


I don't know what to say. Lawmakers don't provide guarantees.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The public option has a good chance of keeping costs down, most likely less, than just about any other provision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A good chance???? You're supporting a 'good chance'??? You're willing to risk this amount of money on a 'good chance'??? 

And what if the savings don't materialize?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> You think the way to control costs is by keeping millions priced out of the market?!?! And you don't see any serious _moral_ issues with that?


You don't see any serious moral issues with making some people pay for others healthcare???


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> A good chance???? You're supporting a 'good chance'??? You're willing to risk this amount of money on a 'good chance'???
> 
> And what if the savings don't materialize?


You want accountability? Let's go back to when results were actually promised; like when we were told that the economy could be saved if we gave TARP money to the last administration. Was the economy saved?

You don't want accountability. You don't even care about accountability. You just want a republican in the White House.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I've never heard of legislation making guarantees on the impact of new programs. Where did you get such an idea? Can you give me an example of a performance guarantee in past legislation?


Isn't the point of this to make health insurance affordable to everyone?

If that isn't the goal,what is?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I don't know what to say. Lawmakers don't provide guarantees.


Then what is the point of a bill thats purpose is to lower healthcare costs that cannot guarantee it will do so???

Seems now when pressed upon the matter the proponents of this proposed program cannot or will not show where it will do what it is supposed to do..

Interesting to say the least.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You want accountability? Let's go back to when results were actually promised; like when we were told that the economy could be saved if we gave TARP money to the last administration. Was the economy saved?


Apparently so, since the GDP fell by 2.4% for the full year 2009, well below the 10% decline that defines a depression. Of course there are always some alarmist who run around fluttering their hands in the air and screaming we ARE in a depression, we ARE in a depression. But, the fact is, we were not and are not. GDP growth in the last quarter of 2009 was an extremely robust 5.9%. 
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/26/news/economy/gdp/


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> I would really love to see Erin's answer with pages and numbers. She's made the assertion that it will bring down her health care cost - I would like to see what she is basing this on. There must be a concrete bit of information in this current version being put forth. And since she does come back with the clever "what bill, or what version" type of comment, I've been very specific as to which one I'm talking about so there will be no wiggle room to avoid it by saying "which one".
> 
> So, the question still remains
> 
> ...


I posted five simplified links, comparing the various plans and giving examples of how pricing will change and whom it will affect. 

I also _already said_ it's impossible to say exact numbers as those are completely dependent upon specific individuals now. 
It's not hard to imagine that that will remain the same, especially in light of the fact that there is currently _no_ government-sponsored plan. 

Nevada posed a question which has yet to be answered:  How much do you expect premiums to go down if we stay with private insurance with no reform? 



> that's the cash income, not the house, the land use, and the cirtter keeping area, etc? From what I've read here and there in HT, you're hubby is like a farm keeper and you all live on the land and can use it.


Actually, no, that was based on _gross_ income, not take-home. 
However, if we take self-employment taxes out, and include going rate to rent a place like this it would only be about 24% of his total income. 
You're right. That sounds _so_ much better! 




> You don't see any serious moral issues with making some people pay for others healthcare???


No more so than making some people pay for others' education, or others' highway use, or others' fire department, or others' police protection, etc, etc, etc. 
Millions of people pay for services they have never, and often _will_ never, use. 

It's part of living in a civilized society. :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Then what is the point of a bill thats purpose is to lower healthcare costs that cannot guarantee it will do so???


What was the point of fighting a war on terror that didn't guarantee to make us safer?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Nevada said:


> What was the point of fighting a war on terror that didn't guarantee to make us safer?


For that matter, why didn't we know exactly how much it was going to cost, how long it would take us, how many people would be lost, and how many more troops would still be needed 9 years after it started?
Not to mention, we should have had an exact timeline for reconstruction of Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, at the very least... 


Right??


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What was the point of fighting a war on terror that didn't guarantee to make us safer?


Stick to the topic please,no need to muddy the waters


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Erin and Nevada - nice red herring tries by bringing in another subject. But that is NOT what this is about. It is a very well exercised red herring.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

The ONLY purpose of this bill is to make healthcare more affordable,yet when asked what would seem a simple enough question,the proponents can only obfuscate and attempt to divert the discussion.

Doesn't bode well for healthcare being more affordable....


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> I posted five simplified links, comparing the various plans and giving examples of how pricing will change and whom it will affect.
> 
> I also _already said_ it's impossible to say exact numbers as those are completely dependent upon specific individuals now.
> It's not hard to imagine that that will remain the same, especially in light of the fact that there is currently _no_ government-sponsored plan.
> ...


So you cannot, or will not substantiate with the most recent proposed 3-15-10 reconcillation bill.
That tells me quite a bit.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Red herring? 
No....

It's an _analogy_. 

The point was simply that if we waited until we knew _exactly_ what was going to happen, we'd never get _anything_ done. 
There're no guarantees. Just like there wasn't with the WOT. 

What we DO know is that the _status quo_ is bankrupting people every day. We also know that the Republicans really don't have a plan. (And they have had over 15 years to come up with something and did diddley)

Something has got to change and it has to change soon. Sitting on our hands is why we're currently in the mess we're in. :shrug:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> For that matter, why didn't we know exactly how much it was going to cost, how long it would take us, how many people would be lost, and how many more troops would still be needed 9 years after it started?
> Not to mention, we should have had an exact timeline for reconstruction of Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, at the very least...
> 
> 
> Right??


That's not mentioned in any of the versions of the Health care proposed bill/s

Therefore, not applicable to proving your points.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

So.....$875,000,000,000 is being spent to lower the price of health insurance but there are NO guarantees that the price will be lower....and THAT is considered a good thing by the proponents of the bill...


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

OZ - I cannot find anywhere in this proposal the 'lowering of cost to an individual" or combination those words.

I think I have to down load it to this computer so I can search it better. 

I cannot find the information in the proposed 3-15-10 reconcillation bill.... and no one saying certain things will be better, can prove their points.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> We also know that the Republicans really don't have a plan. (And they have had over 15 years to come up with something and did diddley)


That is a little bit of a lie....



> 1. Malpractice Reform. The goal of malpractice reform is to drive down high malpractice insurance rates for physicians and hospitals. Further, this would encourage providers to stop practicing defensive medicine and the corresponding ordering of unnecessary and expensive tests.
> 2. Allow individuals and business to buy insurance across state lines to create a more competitive health care insurance marketplace by increasing competition. This could potentially drive down costs of health care insurance for everyone.
> 3. Provide individual states the tools and money to come up with innovative and cost saving initiatives to lower health care spending.
> 4. Allow groups of people to pool together to buy health insurance much like large corporations do today.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-rubin/health-care-reform-is-les_b_481003.html


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> That's not mentioned in any of the versions of the Health care proposed bill/s
> 
> Therefore, not applicable to proving your points.


it's an analogy. 

Though it _seems_ like you're trying to get pretty snide... I hope that's not the case.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> OZ - I cannot find anywhere in this proposal the 'lowering of cost to an individual" or combination those words.
> 
> I think I have to down load it to this computer so I can search it better.
> 
> I cannot find the information in the proposed 3-15-10 reconcillation bill.... and no one saying certain things will be better, can prove their points.


It appears we just have to take it on faith that AFTER the bill is passed insurance costs will go down...I mean,the fedgov. has a great track record of telling the truth.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> For that matter, why didn't we know exactly how much it was going to cost, how long it would take us, how many people would be lost, and how many more troops would still be needed 9 years after it started?


Why don't you ask why O has not fulfilled his promise yet? Troops are still there. Gitmo is still open, economy is getting worse, unemployment is still higher then he said it was going to be, Geesh he just extended the Patriot Act for another year, And nothing he has said he was going to do is getting done, and now he is in his 2nd year.
How is that Change thingy going?
Why is nothing transparent, like he promised?
And now with this health bill stuff that is just wrong, O will never see a 2nd term, but my oh my will he have done a whole lot of damage in his 2 years m with yet 2 more to go.
I like what I saw on a car the other day. "I Want My Change Back"
Cause it certainly is going in the wrong direction and with this health bill he will sink a lot of people into the poor house even further.
And put a lot of small business either out of business or to lay off even more people because they cannot afford this health care Tax and Mandatory acts that are Forced on them.
It is just a tax on the working people to pay for things.
How much longer are people going to stand by and get taxed to death?
And that is what the Tea Party people are all about.
This health care smear is a power crab at the highest order of the government, Grab what you can now and Control the people so they can't get control back in their hands where is was and should be from the start.
Just follow the Money Trail. That will tell a lot of what is happening.
Those that do not have rose colored glasses on in the utopia that obama Had promised and has not done one thing except made things worse, ands getting even lower in voter confidence.
The health bill is not the end all but just the beginning of the end.
Obama even extended patents another 3 to 4 years to make sure the drug companies made even more money before the Generics come out.
Boy that is help for those that are in need of health care, Not going to lower their costs now is he?
No going to Walmart and getting a 3 months supply for 10 bucks on those drugs form and EXTRA 4 years. Nice going Obama.
And drugs are a pretty good part of health care costs.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> it's an analogy.
> 
> Though it _seems_ like you're trying to get pretty snide... I hope that's not the case.



So, since you're not providing back up to your assertions, I'm getting snide.

Really, I am focused on one thing - If there is a lowering of cost as you and Nevada keep saying - I would like to see the solid documentation that you are basing it on. If you cannot, or will not - then I must assume it's coming from what you've heard on other sources, and not something that can be substantiated with the vanilla, not news sourced, documents.

So if that is snide.


from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snide


Main Entry: snide
Pronunciation: \&#712;sn&#299;d\
Function: adjective
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: circa 1859

1 a : false, counterfeit b : practicing deception : dishonest <a snide merchant>
2 : unworthy of esteem : low <a snide trick>
3 : slyly disparaging : insinuating <snide remarks>

&#8212; snideÂ·ly adverb

&#8212; snideÂ·ness noun


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> 1. Malpractice Reform. The goal of malpractice reform is to drive down high malpractice insurance rates for physicians and hospitals. Further, this would encourage providers to stop practicing defensive medicine and the corresponding ordering of unnecessary and expensive tests.
> 2. Allow individuals and business to buy insurance across state lines to create a more competitive health care insurance marketplace by increasing competition. This could potentially drive down costs of health care insurance for everyone.
> 3. Provide individual states the tools and money to come up with innovative and cost saving initiatives to lower health care spending.
> 4. Allow groups of people to pool together to buy health insurance much like large corporations do today.


1. Tort reform doesn't produce the desired results. We have it in Nevada, so I challenge you to show me where inexpensive health care is available as a result.
2. To allow insurance companies to operate across state lines overrides state insurance regulation. Is that really a good idea?
3. Sounds a little half-baked to me. That's not really a proposal.
4. Grouping people is nothing new.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> That is a little bit of a lie....


From the article you posted:


> The Republicans do have ideas and each one contributes to health care reform. However, there is a fundamental difference and question (or problem). *Under the Democrats plan, an estimated 30 million Americans would have access to better health care and health care insurance. Under the Republican plan, that number is 3 million.* So the question for all of us to decide is: who is right? We also need to consider what the country can afford and is insuring 3 millions more Americans really health care reform or just a talking point for the next election?
> 
> *Under the Republican proposal, 27 million Americans remain vulnerable to the current system.* Additionally, this plan requires less government intervention and financial outlay. But it also leaves the most vulnerable people in *the same situation they are in today.* So how does a civilized society, of such great wealth, leave so many behind?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> So you cannot, or will not substantiate with the most recent proposed 3-15-10 reconcillation bill.
> That tells me quite a bit.





AngieM2 said:


> So, since you're not providing back up to your assertions, I'm getting snide.
> 
> 3 : slyly disparaging : insinuating <snide remarks>
> 
> ...



Yep, that's the one.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> From the article you posted:


Well of course the Dem plan will get more people insured,everyone is FORCED to have it....:smiley-laughing013:

When you FORCE people to have insurance,it is pretty much guaranteed the number of uninsured will drop....


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Yep, that's the one.


Thank you for proving you are insulting me and calling me names, and still not providing any concrete information to your assertions.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

NO guarantees of lowered insurance costs to people,but a guaranteed cost to everyone in that we will be in debt for almost a trillion dollars.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

.....


> So how does a civilized society, of such great wealth, leave so many behind?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes lets get the Government to protect and care for all of us from cradle to grave. That is a Nanny State and not what the USA is.
It IS about Freedom. Not a government control like this health care stuff is for. And the National ID Card is also part of how the health care system now how is your freedom doing with all that happening?
No choice in the matter yes a person can keep what they have now UNTIL ANY change is made in the policy then Bingo, You Have to Switch over to the Government one. Nice freedom there now isn't it?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Thank you for proving you are insulting me and calling me names, and still not providing any concrete information to your assertions.


Oh Angie... 

I wasn't calling you names and I think if you were to be honest with yourself you'd see that. 
I said it seems like you're being snide (and told you why) and said that I hoped that I was misunderstanding. 

I guess I just think you should be above the pettiness that keeps showing up in this thread. 
I thought we were friends.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Erin,you care so much about those left behind and the 45,000 who die needlessly,why do you support a bill that won't take affect for several years thereby condemning thousands to a needless death???


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

If there's a version that'll take effect next year, I'd support that instead.  However, this is what we have. 
And it's the best chance we've seen in over two decades...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

By the way,this nation is actually bankrupt and unable to pay it's debt,not sure how that passes a nation of great wealth....

Y'all DO know that the money for this bill will be borrowed right?

There isn't any money left to pay for it....


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> If there's a version that'll take effect next year, I'd support that instead.  However, this is what we have.
> And it's the best chance we've seen in over two decades...


So when does this bill supposedly take effect,five years time?

That is condemning over 2 million people to a needless death....

How do you reconcile that with your position that we must do something?

Seems like you don't mind a few million dead as long as the bill gets passed.

Pretty cold of you if that is true.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Oh Angie...
> 
> I wasn't calling you names and I think if you were to be honest with yourself you'd see that.
> I said it seems like you're being snide (and told you why) and said that I hoped that I was misunderstanding.
> ...


Erin -I thought we were also. And I hope to remain...

But, I'm so sick and tired of "pie in the sky" promises that are being spouted off these days - even yours.

I work 8 hours a day with government contracts/subcontracts - invoice, and purchase orders and how they are worded and how specific the funding documents are, - they have to be precise down to the penny! And I'm seeing puffs of happy smoke being blown all over the place.

So if you're going to blow smoke (general population YOU), then I expect you to have a really good reason to believe it. Talking heads on news stations of either belief is NOT good enough. 

You are smart enough, and so are most, if not, all of the people that read this forum to make an informed decision that can be backed up by facts that are in the documents. If they are not in black and white on these documents they are nothing but SMOKE. They mean NOTHING. 

This is why I'm driving this so hard, If you believe something - you can prove why - you have the documents, you've posted links to three, but you'll not be specific with these documents as to what in them makes you believe the way you do. How can I believe either you or Nevada or anyone else if you cannot give a good solid - not SMOKE and PROMISES - reason for that belief.

I could tell you I'm going to send you $1,000,000 - but not tell you when, not put it in writing and keep adding clauses to the agreement, and in the end I'll be collecting $2,000,000 from you. It can and is done daily.

So, unless you can show me why you believe it, in black and white - with your own documents, and the 3-15-10 reconcillation is the very latest they are trying to cram through - then how can I believe anything you say about it? It is just your opinion.

heck - you didn't even think the college loans were in this document and it is. I'm searching the document to give you page number and it's heading so you can check it out for yourself. So, maybe there is other stuff in this proposed bill, that you've not seen


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ErinP said:


> For that matter, why didn't we know exactly how much it was going to cost, how long it would take us, how many people would be lost, and how many more troops would still be needed 9 years after it started?
> Not to mention, we should have had an exact timeline for reconstruction of Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, at the very least...
> 
> 
> Right??


So you think it's impossible to know the costs of legislation? Do you think we should even bother worrying about costs of legislation that's put into law? Is that how you deal with your own finances.....you just write the checks and ignore the balance?

Comparing wars to legislation is like comparing apples to......shoes. They are NOTHING alike.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Well for anyone _genuinely_ interested in the projected costs, the Congressional Budget Office is the place to start. 

But I guess I thought people's complaints were that they didn't _believe_ the CBO et. al. 
Not that they truly _didn't know_ where to look for the info...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Smoke and mirrors at that place. Health Care Cost is Deficit Neutral, and I have ocean from t property in AZ for sale.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> So when does this bill supposedly take effect,five years time?
> 
> That is condemning over 2 million people to a needless death....
> 
> ...


Wow, that is completely uncalled for, not to mention an illogical and unfair conclusion. 

This isn't GC, people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> By the way,this nation is actually bankrupt and unable to pay it's debt,not sure how that passes a nation of great wealth....
> 
> Y'all DO know that the money for this bill will be borrowed right?
> 
> There isn't any money left to pay for it....


Borrowing was good enough to pay for republican tax cuts, bailouts, and even the Iraq war. Why is borrowing a suddenly a problem?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

SunsetSonata said:


> Wow, that is completely uncalled for, not to mention an illogical and unfair conclusion.
> 
> This isn't GC, people.


What is uncalled for?
The proponents of this bill put forward that 45,000 people die needlessly every year from lack of insurance.

They also are putting forward that this bill will stop this from happening.

But the bill doesn't take affect for years...meaning people will die needlessly.

Also the proponents of this bill have put forward it is the right thing to do because it will help people but do not seem to care that much that people will die BEFORE it takes affect.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Borrowing was good enough to pay for republican tax cuts, bailouts, and even the Iraq war. Why is borrowing a suddenly a problem?


I believe YOU thought it immoral to burden future generations...do you still feel that way?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Here's one Nevada will probably want to read:

page 116

Subtitle B - Public Health Insurance Options
Sec.221 Establishment and Administration of a Public Health Insurance Option as an Exchange-Qualified Health Benefit Plan

on down that page or 117 - 125 covers the cost and premiums.

page 137 has a chart for

(d) TABLE OF PREMIUM PERCENTAGE LIMITS AND
24 ACTUARIAL VALUE PERCENTAGES BASED ON INCOME
25 TIER.â

another interesting bit page 167 and 168 and beyond

18 ââSEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ââ(a) TAX IMPOSED.âIn the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess ofâ
168
â¢J. 55â345
1 ââ(1) the taxpayerâs modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
3 ââ(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
5 ââ(b) LIMITATIONS.â
6 ââ(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.â
7 ââ(A) IN GENERAL.âThe tax imposed
8 under subsection (a) with respect to any tax9
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
10 applicable national average premium for such
11 taxable year.
12 ââ(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE
13 PREMIUM.â
14 ââ(i) IN GENERAL.âFor purposes of
15 subparagraph (A), the âapplicable national
16 average premiumâ means, with respect to
17 any taxable year, the average premium (as
18 determined by the Secretary, in coordina19
tion with the Health Choices Commis20
sioner) for self-only coverage under a basic
21 plan which is offered in a Health Insur22
ance Exchange for the calendar year in
23 which

Oh well, guess I need to go research more.

Angie


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Smoke and mirrors at that place. Health Care Cost is Deficit Neutral, and I have ocean from t property in AZ for sale.


It's not so far-fetched. As I've explained before, the uninsured generate a lot of bad debt in the medical industry. That bad debt is written-off on the corporate taxes of the medical providers. The government fails to collect taxes on a percentage of that bad debt, probably somewhere between 25% and 50%. If everyone was insured then that bad debt would dry-up and the IRS would collect a lot more in corporate taxes.

I've been trying to find some hard numbers on that, but it's evidently something that they don't want to talk about.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> What is uncalled for?
> The proponents of this bill put forward that 45,000 people die needlessly every year from lack of insurance.
> 
> They also are putting forward that this bill will stop this from happening.
> ...


So it's better to do nothing? 
Or follow the Republican's route and cover a tenth as many people? 

I'm completely missing your point, I guess... Well, other than the obvious insults. 
Those are kind of hard to miss. lol


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> I believe YOU thought it immoral to burden future generations...do you still feel that way?


Yes, I do. But you thought it was fine. Why the change of heart?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Here's one Nevada will probably want to read:
> 
> page 116
> 
> ...


I notice you left out the income tiers. Why?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I notice you left out the income tiers. Why?


Why don't you post them if you have a point to make?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Because I was starting to copy a book so I gave the pages so someone could read the in between for themselves. After all, I did the research, do I have to read it out loud to the general you also, or can you do for yourself?

Why have you not posted anything from the actual document to substantiate what you've been saying? You are not currently other than self employeed, from what you say, so you could be doing research and backing up your claims with pages and such - but you don't.

At least I'm doing the research and trying to get people to the right area of the document for further reading.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

This may be what Nevada was referring to, since some cannot do for themselves...

This is copy and paste, so I don't know how it will format here: (page 137)

1 (1) IN GENERAL.âFor purposes of this sub2
title, the table specified in this subsection is as fol3
lows:
In the case of family income
(expressed as a
percent of FPL) within
the following income
tier:
The initial premium
percentage
isâ
The final premium
percentage
isâ
The actuarial
value percentage
isâ
133% through 150% 1.5% 3% 97%
150% through 200% 3% 5% 93%
200% through 250% 5% 7% 85%
250% through 300% 7% 9% 78%
300% through 350% 9% 10% 72%
350% through 400% 10% 11% 70%
4 (2) SPECIAL RULES.âFor purposes of applying
5 the table under paragraph (1)â
6 (A) FOR LOWEST LEVEL OF INCOME.âIn


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Yes, I do. But you thought it was fine. Why the change of heart?


I love this \. Why do you chastise folks that change their minds?
You know that word Change?
It is better to do so now then never. Forget what took place years ago. People ARE finally waking up and speaking out~! 
That is what is important. Not what they did years ago. That was a mistake, The previous administration did spend like drunken sailors. Is THAT what you want to hear? OK I said it, and I know lost of people that will also admit at least the last 3 years, was not good for that administration. 
But now people having come to their senses are speaking up in what is wrong with this country. And it is about time.
There.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Why have you not posted anything from the actual document to substantiate what you've been saying?


I quoted the reconciliation bill to show that the public option was still alive.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Again, I didn't realize that people were saying they simply didn't know where to look for the information.

I thought the _validity_ of the numbers was what was in question...

So if everyone agrees to the validity, why has there been half a day's worth of "show me the numbers"?!?!
The "numbers" are readily available!!


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> So it's better to do nothing?
> Or follow the Republican's route and cover a tenth as many people?
> 
> I'm completely missing your point, I guess... Well, other than the obvious insults.
> Those are kind of hard to miss. lol


Again,the ONLY reason people are covered by the Dem plan you support is because it FORCES people to buy insurance....
The Repub plan doesn't FORCE people to,it makes it easier to buy however.

I find FORCING people to buy anything a little too...fascist.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yes, I do. But you thought it was fine. Why the change of heart?


But you NOW like the idea?
Why YOUR change of heart?

Is burdening future generations to get YOU and others healthcare in a few years okay?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Again, I didn't realize that people were saying they simply didn't know where to look for the information.
> 
> I thought the _validity_ of the numbers was what was in question...
> 
> ...


Erin - I totally do not know what you are saying here.

So, I'm going to ask another way....

Why do you believe what you do about this 'health care' bill? Why do YOU, believe in it?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Again,the ONLY reason people are covered by the Dem plan you support is because it FORCES people to buy insurance....
> The Repub plan doesn't FORCE people to,it makes it easier to buy however.
> 
> I find FORCING people to buy anything a little too...fascist.


I know. 
Like forcing people to buy car insurance! 

I mean, if I want to send someone's family to the hospital and years of PT, I have the right to. 
Sue me. See if I care. Like the lawyers say, you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip! :nana:

Too bad that that means the family won't be able to afford those years of PT. 
But hey! At least we're not fascists. :thumb:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Erin - why car insurance example? Some folks don't drive and don't buy it, only the ones that choose to drive.

But, unless you chose not to breathe, and such - you have to live, and they are mandating all living have this. (there is the opt out for religion s- somewhere between 165 and 190, pages.)

There is a difference.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> I know.
> Like forcing people to buy car insurance!


Yes I just knew that was going to come up.
Nobody is forcing you to buy Auto insurance. You Don't have to Drive. Bike car pool, WALK, run, take a bus, a train, subway, whatever even a cab. But Nobody is FORCED to Drive a car, so the Forced to buy auto insurance does not wash, and should not even come into the same picture as Health insurance.
But you do have to Live And BUY this Health Insurance from the government!~!
Apples and Oranges. But nice try.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I can see certain 'religions' getting a new influx of believers ---- if this happens:hysterical:ound:


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> I know.
> Like forcing people to buy car insurance!


No-one is FORCED to buy car insurance to own a car.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

4 ââ(GG) section 6050X (relating to returns
5 relating to health insurance coverage).ââ.

Thought knowing the IRS tax form was interesting. Page 178


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> But you NOW like the idea?
> Why YOUR change of heart?
> 
> Is burdening future generations to get YOU and others healthcare in a few years okay?


Why? Because Bush drop-kicked the economy so we need social programs to avoid a humanitarian crisis. In other words, there's no choice now. We had a choice with Iraq, we had a choice with tax cuts, but we didn't have a choice with the depression. That choice was made for us by Bush, so now we have to deal with it, and it's going to cost us.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

eh. I wouldn't blame it on Bush. This has been a long time in coming. 
There's a reason Clinton tried to get it through 15 years ago...



AngieM2 said:


> Erin - I totally do not know what you are saying here.
> 
> So, I'm going to ask another way....
> 
> Why do you believe what you do about this 'health care' bill? Why do YOU, believe in it?


--Because I _believe_ CBO estimates that the total cost of healthcare our government pays will actually go DOWN. 

--Because I know _entirely_ too many people who are currently uninsured, or under-insured because of cost is prohibitive. (The entire family-sized production ag. industry, basically, because we're an industry of the self-employed. As well as the people who populate communities directly dependent upon ag.) 
The Center for Rural Affairs STRONGLY supports health care reform. , as well as more specifically the public option.

--I've known too many people who _can't get coverage_ because they have a bad back (hurt at work) or a heart defect, or rheumatoid arthritis, or kidney stones, or a trick knee, or nonHodgkins lymphoma (friend of ours recently died and now his family is scrambling, trying to figure out how to save a ranch that's been part of their family for over a century  )etc, etc. 

--Because I have too many friends and family members who live in other countries (with some sort of government controlled health system) who think we're absolutely barbaric here in the States, that we're one of the wealthy countries in the world and we have a significant chunk of our population who can't afford to do something so basically human as seek medical care when it's needed.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> No-one is FORCED to buy car insurance to own a car.


No, but most states FORCE you to carry car insurance in order to legally DRIVE. 
(Precisely _because_ you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.  )


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> I can see certain 'religions' getting a new influx of believers ---- if this happens:hysterical:ound:


No kidding, huh? I notice on pg. 119 about 'geographically-adjusted premium rates' which made me think that people will be moving to the lower-cost regions, too.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ErinP said:


> --Because I _believe_ CBO estimates that the total cost of healthcare our government pays will actually go DOWN.
> 
> --Because I know _entirely_ too many people who are currently uninsured, or under-insured because of cost is prohibitive. (The entire family-sized production ag. industry, basically, because we're an industry of the self-employed. As well as the people who populate communities directly dependent upon ag.)
> The Center for Rural Affairs STRONGLY supports health care reform. , as well as more specifically the public option.
> ...


Those people you know in other countries that think we're barbaric......does their population compare to the US?


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

"Is burdening future generations to get YOU and others healthcare in a few years okay?[/QUOTE]"

But burdening them with extreme deficits from making bogus wars on nations
is ok? I'm sure future generations would thank us for having the cahones to
fight for healthcare. War or Healthcare? Seems like a no-brainer to me ;-)
pc


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Erin - why car insurance example? Some folks don't drive and don't buy it, only the ones that choose to drive.


Because insurance is insurance. 
I've been driving for 20 years and have _never_ had an accident. The only claim I've _ever_ made on my insurance was 8 years ago when I got a rock-chip repaired. lol 
Yet I understand the concept of the insurance pool and why it's necessary that I should carry it



> (there is the opt out for religion s- somewhere between 165 and 190, pages.)


I know.  
I pointed it out half a dozen pages ago.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> Those people you know in other countries that think we're barbaric......does their population compare to the US?


No, and neither does their GDP.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

pcwerk said:


> "Is burdening future generations to get YOU and others healthcare in a few years okay?


"

But burdening them with extreme deficits from making bogus wars on nations
is ok? I'm sure future generations would thank us for having the cahones to
fight for healthcare. War or Healthcare? Seems like a no-brainer to me ;-)
pc[/QUOTE]
So you support burdening future generations to give you and others cheaper healthcare,is that correct?

Just want to get this clear.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I take it you're another who doesn't believe in the CBO?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

People DO know that most nations that have a UHC system have a LOT of their population also having private insurance too...right?

The reason for this is so a person doesn't have to wait to have such things as tests for cancer BEFORE they actually succumb to the disease...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Is the CBO correct all the time?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Erin - I really thank you for your reasons. I can see that they make a lot of sense.

I still am not supporting this version of getting the result that you are advocating - but I wish there was something better and that the shove and the MANDATORY bit was not there. I could give this more consideration if the force and mandatory was not there.

I have a question.. 
if this goes through. It becomes the law.
What are you going to do if your costs goes up, or the availability to your family and friends goes down?
Have you given that some thought?

I have to say, I would entirely LOVE not having to work at the job I'm doing right now, I would love to be a type of 'stay at home non-wife", and start sewing and other free lance things - and the benefit package is worth having bills paid and decent insurance. Maybe my Pie in the Sky, Hope Smoke would allow me to get FREE.

Or - I might still be working, lose my insurance as it might be less expensive for my employeer to drop it and pay the 8% of my salary. Best I figure it, it would save them about $1800 a year or more. Then it would come out of my pay check, and maybe I'd be paying for the ag folks also (at least they make the food I appreciate). Or maybe an undocumented alien's baby, but I like baby's - or someone's grandma or older lady friend - of course, the parents could work, the friend could work to pay for their family and friends, and let me take care of myself. 

But, the FORCE - is wrong, if it were half as good as being touted, folks would be yelling for it - and sneaky attempted parlimentary tricks would not be necessary to attempt to pass it.

It smells.
But you do have some serious concerns and hopes to have things fixed.

Angie


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

p*age 192*


18 ââ(1) SPECIAL RULE FOR PARTNERSHIPS AND
19 SELF-EMPLOYED.âIn the case of a partnership (or
20 a trade or business carried on by an individual)
21 which has one or more qualified employees (deter22
mined without regard to this paragraph) with re23
spect to whom the election under 4980H(a) applies,
24 each partner (or, in the case of a trade or business


go to the page and next few for the SELF EMPLOYED.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

page 198
â¢J. 55â345
1 ââSEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.
2 ââ(a) GENERAL RULE.âIn the case of a taxpayer
3 other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addi4
tion to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal
5 toâ
6 ââ(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified ad7
justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
8 $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,
9 ââ(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified ad10
justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
11 $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and
12 ââ(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified ad13
justed gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds
14 $1,000,000.
15 ââ(b) TAXPAYERS NOT MAKING A JOINT RETURN.â
16 In the case of any taxpayer other than a taxpayer making
17 a joint return under section 6013 or a surviving spouse
18 (as defined in section 2(a)), subsection (a) shall be applied
19 by substituting for each of the dollar amounts therein
20 (after any increase determined under subsection (e)) a dol21
lar amount equal toâ
22 ââ(1) 50 percent of the dollar amount so in ef23
fect in the case of a married individual filing a sepa24
rate return, and
25 ââ(2) 80 percent of the dollar amount so in ef26
fect in any other case.

continues on page 199


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Erin - I really thank you for your reasons. I can see that they make a lot of sense.
> 
> I still am not supporting this version of getting the result that you are advocating - but I wish there was something better and that the shove and the MANDATORY bit was not there. I could give this more consideration if the force and mandatory was not there.


Truth be told, _I'm_ not wild about the mandatory thing, either. However, I understand the rationale for its being there...



> I have a question..
> if this goes through. It becomes the law.
> What are you going to do if your costs goes up, or the availability to your family and friends goes down?
> Have you given that some thought?


Yeah. 
Most of us have nothing to lose. :shrug:
On the bright side, that's like passing the War resolution and finding out that instead of going to war as planned, we're going to make a Mars trip instead. Ie, I'm not very concerned that the _exact opposite_ of the whole purpose is going to happen. 



> I have to say, I would entirely LOVE not having to work at the job I'm doing right now, I would love to be a type of 'stay at home non-wife", and start sewing and other free lance things - and the benefit package is worth having bills paid and decent insurance. Maybe my Pie in the Sky, Hope Smoke would allow me to get FREE.


I'm not sure how you're planning on doing this by just getting more accessible health insurance, but dream away. 



> Or - I might still be working, lose my insurance as it might be less expensive for my employeer to drop it and pay the 8% of my salary. Best I figure it, it would save them about $1800 a year or more. Then it would come out of my pay check, and maybe I'd be paying for the ag folks also (at least they make the food I appreciate).


Something to keep in mind is that no one is asking for free. (Well, no one who isn't asking for free stuff anyway.  ) People just want to be able to _get_ insurance, and then be able to _use_ it! 
We pay taxes, too, ya know. lol And, generally speaking, a _larger_ percentage of our income goes for our insurance costs. 



> if it were half as good as being touted, folks would be yelling for it - and sneaky attempted parlimentary tricks would not be necessary to attempt to pass it.


I don't think so. 
Look at all of the misinformation that's just here on this board. (This thread isn't quite so bad, but GC is just _full_ of it!!) 
Expand that to the national level...? No, I think there are too many people who don't want it because they "just don't, that's all!" And they all have their reasons, but once you start digging a bit, you realize that it's just stuff like a mass email that no one bothers to fact check. :shrug:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

page 205 

medicines and insulin - I think some of you may need to study up before and after this bit...(I highlighted the date)


3 ââ(f) REIMBURSEMENTS FOR MEDICINE RESTRICTED
4 TO PRESCRIBED DRUGS AND INSULIN.âFor purposes of
5 this section and section 105, reimbursement for expenses
6 incurred for a medicine or a drug shall be treated as a
7 reimbursement for medical expenses only if such medicine
8 or drug is a prescribed drug or is insulin.ââ.
9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.â*The amendment made by
10 this section shall apply to expenses incurred after Decem11
ber 31, 2009.*


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Is anyone else actually reading, scanning this document?

I'm only up to page 219 and scanning.

Did you know they are covering foreign treaties and this (early 200#'d pages)

Very interesting stuff


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Here's the Medicare & Medicaid stuff - or at least what I've come across...

Page 224

11 SUBDIVISION B&#8212;MEDICARE AND
12 MEDICAID IMPROVEMENTS
13 SEC. 1001. TABLE OF CONTENTS OF SUBDIVISION.
14 The table of contents for this subdivision is as fol15
lows:
Sec. 1001. Table of contents of subdivision.
TITLE I&#8212;IMPROVING HEALTH CARE VALUE


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Are you sure it's foreign treaties? 
Because I caught references to treaties, but assumed it was in regard to _Indian_ Affairs. (Same as always)


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You want accountability? Let's go back to when results were actually promised; like when we were told that the economy could be saved if we gave TARP money to the last administration. Was the economy saved?
> 
> You don't want accountability. You don't even care about accountability. You just want a republican in the White House.


You're wrong. TARP is why I voted AGAINST Kay Bailey Hutchison in the primaries. I'd vote against Rick Perry and FOR Bill White if Perry supported this health care bill and White opposed it. Bill White is a Democrat. That's called accountability.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

from page 245 (over 65 does not count in the uninsured)

20 (B) NATIONAL RATE OF UNINSURANCE
21 DEFINED.âThe term âânational rate of
22 uninsuranceââ means, for a year, such rate for
23 the under-65 population for the year as deter24
mined and published by the Bureau of the Cen246
â¢J. 55â345
1 sus in its Current Population Survey in or
2 about September of the succeeding year.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ErinP said:


> I know.
> Like forcing people to buy car insurance!


STATES have the constitutional authority to require people who choose to drive on public highways to purchase auto insurance. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force people who simply choose to live to buy medical insurance.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Are you sure it's foreign treaties?
> Because I caught references to treaties, but assumed it was in regard to _Indian_ Affairs. (Same as always)



I am pretty sure, but backing up, is hard to do with this document.

Scanning it forward is something - can you download it and do a search?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

page 237 and 238 (highlighting dates by me)

17 (b) CHANGE IN PAYMENT FOR NONTHERAPY ANCIL18
LARY (NTA) SERVICES AND THERAPY SERVICES.&#8212;
19 (1) CHANGES UNDER CURRENT SNF CLASSI20
FICATION SYSTEM.&#8212;
21 (A) IN GENERAL.&#8212;Subject to subpara22
graph (B), the Secretary of Health and Human
23 Services shall, under the system for payment of
24 skilled nursing facility services under section
25 1888(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
238
&#8226;J. 55&#8211;345
1 1395yy(e)), increase payment by 10 percent for
2 non-therapy ancillary services (as specified by
3 the Secretary in the notice issued on November
4 27, 1998 (63 Federal Register 65561 et seq.))
5 and shall decrease payment for the therapy case
6 mix component of such rates by 5.5 percent.
7 (B) *EFFECTIVE DATE.&#8212;The changes in
8 payment described in subparagraph (A) shall
9 apply for days on or after January 1, 2010,*
10 and until the Secretary implements an alter11
native case mix classification system for pay12
ment of skilled nursing facility services under
13 section 1888(e) of the Social Security Act (42
14 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)).
15 (C) IMPLEMENTATION.&#8212;Notwithstanding
16 any other provision of law, the Secretary may
17 implement by program instruction or otherwise
18 the provisions of this paragraph.
19 (2) CHANGES UNDER A FUTURE SNF


you might want to go read the next sections on the future of the Skilled Nursing Facilities and what they are going to be deciding on. I figure lots of pages would be too much. But go to the first listed here, and read a few pages.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Well it doesn't say in the document itself. It just refers to section 894 of the Internal Revenue Code (which is Indian Affairs). 
All I saw was "treaty," not _foreign_ treaty... 
And treaties are _still_ what govern the US/Indian relations.

And while I was at it, I scanned for something about student loans and found them. They're specifically in reference to student loans for _medical_ school.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

During my last nightâs shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B; tune for a ring tone.
Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.
She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer. And our President expects me to pay for this womanâs health care?
Our nationâs health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture â a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of oneâs self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.
A culture that thinks I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.
Pretty much hits the nail on the head, doesnât it? This is the problem with liberalism. If we go with Obama and Pelosi (and their third little stooge, Reid), then things like responsibility and accountability will become things of the past. Why bother? If the government takes care of you from cradle to grave then why does anyone need to take care of themselves? Liberalism seeks to completely reshape the American cultural and societal landscape. This country was founded on a frontier spirit. The people who moved here and settled on this land were risk-takers, adventure-seekers. They wanted the freedom to find better lives, to take chances. They understood and accepted the dangers and the risks that this involved. They wanted the responsibility of building their lives the way that they wanted them. They fled oppression from all over the world just to have the ability to make their own decisions. Liberalism would take all of that away. With a liberal, socialist, nanny-state government, you wonât ever have to worry about making any decisions yourself. 
And Obamacare is one step in that direction. 
Oh, sure, theyâll give you all kinds of examples of these poor, poor Americans who âcanât affordâ health care. But are these people truly incapable of paying for their own health care? Thatâs one of the primary arguments being made on the left: that those who live in poverty canât afford health care and health care is a right that all Americans deserve. Setting aside the fallacious argument that health care is a ârightâ, letâs examine the premise that Americaâs poor canât afford health care.
Does anyone remember a study from Heritage done about six years ago examining poverty in America? It certainly gives you a different perspective on just what we consider âpoorâ to be.
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.
For most Americans, the word âpovertyâ suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as âpoorâ by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of Americaâs âpoorâ live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or welloff just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowestincome onefifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.1
The following are facts about persons defined as âpoorâ by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. 
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. 
Only 6 percent of poor households are over crowded. More than two thirds have more than two rooms per person. 
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) 
Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. 
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. 
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. 
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. 
As a group, Americaâs poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middleclass children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higherincome children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
So, those who live in poverty in the United States seem to have it pretty well off. They arenât overcrowded, theyâre reasonably well-fed. By most rational standards, that would be described as living comfortably. You own your own house, have a couple of cars, color TVs, DVD playersâ¦ sounds like Americaâs poor have it made. If they canât afford health care and really need it, is it possible that maybe they could afford it by selling one of their cars? Maybe a TV? Perhaps they could get rid of cable. Dr. Jonesâ patient mentioned above could maybe quit smoking multiple packs of cigarettes a day, stop spending hundreds of dollars on tattoos, and maybe get Payless brand shoes instead of some expensive name brand. Maybe then she could afford to buy a private health insurance plan through, I donât know, Blue Cross Blue Shield rather than making responsible taxpayers have to pay for her health care. 
And Obamacare sums up the problem with this country in a nutshell. We went from a nation of people who wanted nothing more than to be in control of their own lives to a nation of people living off an entitlement mentality, desperate for nothing more than to get their slice of the government pie. Obamacare is just a symptom of the liberal socialist disease. As Dr. Jones said, this is a crisis of culture. Our culture is becoming rotted and we cannot survive it. Obamacare is just the beginning. If we value our country, if we want to keep that enterprising, entrepreneurial, frontier spirit alive â instead of an attitude of entitlement â then we must stop this bill.

That about says it all,Thanks...to hotair.com


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> You're wrong. TARP is why I voted AGAINST Kay Bailey Hutchison in the primaries. I'd vote against Rick Perry and FOR Bill White if Perry supported this health care bill and White opposed it. Bill White is a Democrat. That's called accountability.


I'm not wrong. I said that TARP didn't work. Whether you were for or against TARP is not relevant to the question of whether it worked. The fact is that it didn't work, and not you or anyone else asked for accountability.

But now you want accountability for a democrat. Could politics have something to do with it?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

zant - you'd have made a good wild west frontier person, for freedom and responsibility.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Well it doesn't say in the document itself. It just refers to section 894 of the Internal Revenue Code (which is Indian Affairs).
> All I saw was "treaty," not _foreign_ treaty...
> And treaties are _still_ what govern the US/Indian relations.
> 
> And while I was at it, I scanned for something about student loans and found them. They're specifically in reference to student loans for _medical_ school.


The student loan bill isn't IN the health care bill, it's a separate bill that they're planning to 'sidecar' when they vote on the healthcare bill. IOW, if they pass healthcare, the government takeover of the student loan industry will be passed as well. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/politics/12loans.html



> The deal would bundle the bill into an expedited budget package along with the Democratic health care legislation, which would allow for both measures to be passed by the Senate on a simple majority vote. Without the deal, the student loan bill would have been unlikely to pass because it lacked the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
> 
> The bill would end government payments to private, commercial student lenders, leaving the government to lend directly to students. It would also redirect billions of dollars to expand the Pell grant program for low-income students, and to pay for other education initiatives.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not seeing that at all. I just found a medicare doctor for my friend. Go to medicare.gov and select "find a doctor". We've got lots in Las Vegas.


Big cities have lots of things rural areas don't. I checked for the town I grew up in and got exactly zero (0) GPs. I checked for my town and got zero (0). I checked the small town I used to live in and got (0). The closest was about 45 miles away. Seeing as how I live several miles on the other side of the town I'd say it'd be closer to 60 maybe 75 miles, depending on where in the town the office is located.

I know in my home town people have to travel 90 miles to see a doc for joint replacements. Can you imagine traveling that far on a bad hip or to get back home after surgery?

Even with the crappy insurance I used to have I had a doc right in my old town and with my better insurance now I have a doc right in my current town. With both companies I didn't need a referral from my GP before I could go to a specialist. This was nice because I could save money by not having to pay for an office visit just to get permission to pay for a second office visit.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> zant - you'd have made a good wild west frontier person, for freedom and responsibility.


 Thank you,Ma'am :lonergr:
The sad part is the people convinced that the gov't is their mommy and daddy will ignore/skip the entire post and refuse to acknowledge the reality off the article.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> And our President expects me to pay for this woman&#8217;s health care?


Ummm..... If she's on Medicaid, you're _already_ paying for that woman's health care. We all are and have been for decades. 
"Obamacare" doesn't affect _them_ in the slightest... 

It's for those of us who _can't get_ health insurance, or ALREADY PAY OUR OWN WAY. And usually pay MORE than those who get it via their employer.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> The student loan bill isn't IN the health care bill, it's a separate bill that they're planning to 'sidecar' when they vote on the healthcare bill. IOW, if they pass healthcare, the government takeover of the student loan industry will be passed as well.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/politics/12loans.html


Ah. They're tacking it onto the budget package. 

But "government takeover?"
Because they're ending gov't payments to banks, who then lend to students and just lending directly to students? Ie, they're just cutting out the middleman for that type of loan. 
How is that a "takeover?"


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

zant said:


> Thank you,Ma'am :lonergr:
> The sad part is the people convinced that the gov't is their mommy and daddy will ignore/skip the entire post and refuse to acknowledge the reality off the article.


It's not an "article." 
It's a viral opinion piece that has _no_ references at any of the dozens of sites who are hosting it.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I think we need to think on this that I've come across two or three times now - the uninsured status is only for people under 65. So, those over 65 are what?

page 245 - 246

20 (B) NATIONAL RATE OF UNINSURANCE
21 DEFINED.âThe term âânational rate of
22 uninsuranceââ means, for a year, such rate for
23 the under-65 population for the year as deter24
mined and published by the Bureau of the Cen246
â¢J. 55â345
1 sus in its Current Population Survey in or
2 about September of the succeeding year.
3


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> I think we need to think on this that I've come across two or three times now - the uninsured status is only for people under 65. So, those over 65 are what?



On Medicare.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The public option has a good chance of keeping costs down, most likely less, than just about any other provision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As long as people keep living longer, demand more and better care and the tort system allows for lawyer lotto health care cost and health insurance cost are going to keep going up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You want accountability? Let's go back to when results were actually promised; like when we were told that the economy could be saved if we gave TARP money to the last administration. Was the economy saved?
> 
> You don't want accountability. You don't even care about accountability. You just want a republican in the White House.


Which is why I rather have a private business running things. If a business reneges on a promise you can sue them for breach of contract. If the government does it you are just SOL.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> On Medicare.


This is in the Medicare/Medicaid reform area.... so I don't think that's it necessarily.....
More reading, and keeping my eyes open on this one.

(my parents, aunt's, uncles, etc are in 70"s)


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Well for anyone _genuinely_ interested in the projected costs, the Congressional Budget Office is the place to start.
> 
> But I guess I thought people's complaints were that they didn't _believe_ the CBO et. AL.
> Not that they truly _didn't know_ where to look for the info...


The problem is the first few years there is tax money coming in but no money being paid out. That tends to screw up the 10 year numbers, don't ya think?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

pages 265 - 266 

Efficiency areas - it appears to be where they need doctors...


8 &#8216;&#8216;(x) INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT
9 AREAS.&#8212;
10 &#8216;&#8216;(1) IN GENERAL.&#8212;In the case of services fur11
nished under the physician fee schedule under sec12
tion 1848 on or after January 1, 2011, and before
13 January 1, 2013, by a supplier that is paid under
14 such fee schedule in an efficient area (as identified
15 under paragraph (2)), in addition to the amount of
16 payment that would otherwise be made for such
17 services under this part, there also shall be paid (on
18 a monthly or quarterly basis) an amount equal to 5
19 percent of the payment amount for the services
20 under this part.
21 &#8216;&#8216;(2) IDENTIFICATION OF EFFICIENT AREAS.&#8212;
22 &#8216;&#8216;(A) IN GENERAL.&#8212;Based upon available
23 data, the Secretary shall identify those counties
24 or equivalent areas in the United States in the
25 lowest fifth percentile of utilization based on
266
&#8226;J. 55&#8211;345
1 per capita spending under this part and part A
2 for services provided in the most recent year for
3 which data are available as of the date of the
4 enactment of this subsection, as standardized to
5 eliminate the effect of geographic adjustments
6 in payment rates.
7 &#8216;&#8216;(B) IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTIES
8 WHERE SERVICE IS FURNISHED..&#8212;For pur9
poses of paying the additional amount specified
10 in paragraph (1), if the Secretary uses the 5-
11 digit postal ZIP Code where the service is fur
12 nished, the dominant county of the postal ZIP
13 Code (as determined by the United States Post
14 al Service, or otherwise) shall be used to deter
15 mine whether the postal ZIP Code is in a coun
16 ty described in subparagraph (A).




267
&#8226;J. 55&#8211;345
1 &#8216;&#8216;(D) PUBLICATION OF LIST OF COUNTIES;
2 POSTING ON WEBSITE.&#8212;With respect to a year
3 for which a county or area is identified under
4 this paragraph, the Secretary shall identify
5 such counties or areas as part of the proposed
6 and final rule to implement the physician fee
7 schedule under section 1848 for the applicable
8 year. The Secretary shall post the list of coun9
ties identified under this paragraph on the
10 Internet website of the Centers for Medicare &
11 Medicaid Services.&#8217;&#8217;.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> The problem is the first few years there is tax money coming in but no money being paid out. That tends to screw up the 10 year numbers, don't ya think?


On the contrary, the way I read it, that's part of what makes it solvent.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

SunsetSonata said:


> Wow, that is completely uncalled for, not to mention an illogical and unfair conclusion.
> 
> This isn't GC, people.


The numbers are off a bit and it was a bit snarky<?> but the conclusion is based on the other side's own numbers and statements. The other side keeps saying that 45,000 people die each year due to not having insurance. The bills I have seen do not take effect for 3-5 years (depending on the bill). So taking number of people they say die every year times the number of years before the new system starts working you get from 135,000 to 225,000 people dieing in the years between the time the bill is passed and when it starts saving lives.

So how is it illogical and unfair to ask why they would support these deaths? To ask them if the bill is really about saving lives why is it not going to be implemented immediately is unfair?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

page 270 - 274 are about California and the MSA and their adjustments. Only California is mentioned here.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

AngieM2 said:


> This is in the Medicare/Medicaid reform area.... so I don't think that's it necessarily.....
> More reading, and keeping my eyes open on this one.
> 
> (my parents, aunt's, uncles, etc are in 70"s)


Angie, what page is that on? Thanks.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> The numbers are off a bit and it was a bit snarky<?> but the conclusion is based on the other side's own numbers and statements. The other side keeps saying that 45,000 people die each year due to not having insurance. The bills I have seen do not take effect for 3-5 years (depending on the bill). So taking number of people they say die every year times the number of years before the new system starts working you get from 135,000 to 225,000 people dieing in the years between the time the bill is passed and when it starts saving lives.
> 
> So how is it illogical and unfair to ask why they would support these deaths? To ask them if the bill is really about saving lives why is it not going to be implemented immediately is unfair?


But the alternative is _even higher_. 

So by this logic, that means those who _don't_ support the Bills must support even MORE people dying?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> On the contrary, the way I read it, that's part of what makes it solvent.


Solvent by taxing people for years and years before a program gets up and running? How in the world is that making that program solvent? You are Taxing people up from first so it is smoke and mirrors to say making it solvent . Taxes Still went for paying for it. And who is to say after the 10 years more and more money is still needed. That is not being solvent by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> No, but most states FORCE you to carry car insurance in order to legally DRIVE.
> (Precisely _because_ you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.  )


Nope. I know many cars and trucks in several states which are legally driven w/o insurance.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> But the alternative is _even higher_.
> 
> So by this logic, that means those who _don't_ support the Bills must support even MORE people dying?


We aren't the ones SO upset over these deaths....


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

page 289 - I know this part has been mentioned somewhere on this thread...


1 Subtitle CâProvisions Related to
2 Medicare Parts A and B


10 ââ(p) ADJUSTMENT TO HOSPITAL PAYMENTS FOR
11 EXCESS READMISSIONS.â
12 ââ(1) IN GENERAL.âWith respect to payment
13 for discharges from an applicable hospital (as de14
fined in paragraph (5)(C)) occurring during a fiscal
15 year beginning on or after *October 1, 2011*, in order
16 to account for excess readmissions in the hospital,
17 the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would
18 otherwise be made to such hospital under subsection
19 (d) (or section 1814(b)(3), as the case may be) for
20 such a discharge by an amount equal to the product
21 ofâ
22 ââ(A) the


you might want to look it up and continue reading
3 SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOS4
PITAL READMISSIONS.
5


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not wrong. I said that TARP didn't work. Whether you were for or against TARP is not relevant to the question of whether it worked. The fact is that it didn't work, and not you or anyone else asked for accountability.
> 
> But now you want accountability for a democrat. Could politics have something to do with it?


How could it work. It'd be like you taking a jar of peanut butter out of your pantry, giving it to your wife to put back in and have her say "now we have more food than we did because you gave me something to put in the pantry."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> On the contrary, the way I read it, that's part of what makes it solvent.


1) I do believe we were talking about the CBO. This is what makes their numbers look good. This like buying a house and paying nothing but interest for the first 5 years then having to pay the rest off in 3 years. The first couple of years you will do fine. After that well. . .

2) How many people are going to die in the years before the system kicks in? Aren't 45,000 people a year dieing now due to the lack of insurance? How can the government tell 135,000+ people we need to let you die?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I sure wish I had this printed out and my yellow highligher.


PS: this is a good way to go cross-eyed and get foggy brained, I should sleep good tonight


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I'm not quite certain what this means, but it doesn't sound good. Page 289

&#8216;&#8216;(iii) ADJUSTMENT.&#8212;In order to pro6
mote a reduction over time in the overall
7 rate of readmissions for applicable condi8
tions, the Secretary may provide, beginning
9 with discharges for fiscal year 2014, for
10 the determination of the excess readmis11
sions ratio under subparagraph (C) to be
12 based on a ranking of hospitals by read13
mission ratios (from lower to higher read14
mission ratios) normalized to a benchmark
15 that is lower than the 50th percentile.

Page 294 (bottom) and continuing

&#8216;&#8216;(i) readmissions (as defined in sub24
paragraph (E)) that represent conditions
25 or procedures that are high volume or high
295
&#8226;J. 55&#8211;345
1 expenditures under this title (or other cri2
teria specified by the Secretary);

So, the goal is to prevent re-admissions that represent high volume or high expenditures (costs)??

My eyes are crossing. That's all for me tonight. Carry on.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> But the alternative is _even higher_.


Really? Putting the system into effect the day the bill is signed into law will cause even more deaths? How does that work?




ErinP said:


> So by this logic, that means those who _don't_ support the Bills must support even MORE people dying?


No, most of them don't believe the numbers because they know how the numbers were "found".

Also if you want to save lives you would ban the private ownership of automobiles. It is a FACT that over 40,000 a year die in auto accidents each and every year from 1994 to 2007. 

And the number of injuries runs around 3,000,000. That's 3 million people who would not be using the health care system. How much money would that save us?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Here's a real simple question:

What part of the bill actually controls health care and drug costs, since that IS the core problem, no? If _health care_ costs continue to rise, what does it matter if you have 'affordable' insurance? Will insurance premiums not necessarily rise, too?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Angie, what page is that on? Thanks.


page 245 starting at line 20

with search page 1292, starting at line 22. same thing


Anyone over 65 is not being counted as an uninsured.

new search: "0ver 65" nothing found


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Probably because they _already qualify_ for the existing government health care plan: Medicare. 
:shrug:


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> Here's a real simple question:
> 
> What part of the bill actually controls health care and drug costs, since that IS the core problem, no? If _health care_ costs continue to rise, what does it matter if you have 'affordable' insurance? Will insurance premiums not necessarily rise, too?


Well, this is the whole problem. Without a public option there is NOTHING to
control costs! Obama showed his true Corporate Self when he let Max
Baucus (the number ONE recipient of HC lobby dollars) chair the process!! 
I guess whatever passes now will be more like the worthless Big Pharmacy
giveaway that Bush and co. rammed through a few years back that cost us
over $800 Billion ;-( Funny, that I doubt many of you same folks screaming and 
kicking about this bill uttered a peep about that one?
pc


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> I'm not quite certain what this means, but it doesn't sound good.


And that right there can be summed up as the argument being made by 95% of the opposition. lol

I'm curious how many of you who are so bent out of shape about the rules and procedures that are outlined have actually read _your insurance policy._ 
Because most of the criteria I keep reading looks _very_ similar.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> We aren't the ones SO upset over these deaths....


Yeah, really. I mean, what do conservatives care about American lives? Well, when they're trying to justify war it's different.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Probably because they _already qualify_ for the existing government health care plan: Medicare.
> :shrug:


Which is going to be cut.

Fact: most healthcare expenses are incurred in the last 24 months of life. If a third party payer can deny coverage for many of those expenses, or if the insuree can find no one to take their "insurance", it can cut down the cost.

This is what is done in all socialized medicine. You resource shift from the old and ailing. They're gonna die soon, anyway, right?

It's only logical....


----------



## Witterbound (Sep 4, 2007)

Republicans probably actually benefit from the 45k uninsured who die each year because the uninsured probably mostly vote democrat.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Which is going to be cut.
> 
> Fact: most healthcare expenses are incurred in the last 24 months of life. If a third party payer can deny coverage for many of those expenses, or if the insuree can find no one to take their "insurance", it can cut down the cost.
> 
> ...


The CBO on the Senate version has on page 6 at the bottom a paragraph showing that $20.7 million will be cut to $0 for Medicare by 2014, that's how they are going to save money.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf

I tried to cut and paste it, but it didn't work. 
It's on the Thomas "Library of Congress" page'
the CBO report on the 5th version of the Senate proposed bill.

I thought that was interesting.

Angie


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Which is going to be cut.
> 
> Fact: most healthcare expenses are incurred in the last 24 months of life. If a third party payer can deny coverage for many of those expenses, or if the insuree can find no one to take their "insurance", it can cut down the cost.
> 
> ...


You know, that's what's wrong with this debate. Americans want health care reform; that was clear before this process got started. But the opposition to health care reform -- any health care reform -- took political stands against the bill and made them public. The opposition is taking advantage of one simple fact about this country; Americans aren't good about learning the facts about issues. Instead, they make decisions based on talking points they hear, regardless of what the truth might really be.

The result is that I'm hearing people say things like, "I want health care reform, but I don't want them to kill my grandmother", or, "I want health care reform, but I heard that this bill is just a power grab and won't reform health care anyway."

What republicans want is to "start over". But this bill already went through the legislative debate process. What reason to we have to believe that a new bill will be any different? We don't know, and it wouldn't be any different if it started over. This is about stalling the process in the hope that the health care issue will just go away. That's what the lobbyists want; for it just to go away.

Corporate interests have paid over $300 million in lobbying to try to kill this bill. Do you think those corporations give a care if your grandmother gets killed-off or you lose freedom? Don't make me laugh! And it happens that the only industries who are contributing to that lobbying are the insurance and medical industries. Why do you suppose that is? I mean, why is it that the insurance and medical industries are so concerned about the constitution and our freedom, but the oil and auto industries don't care? It's because this lobbying effort is about money -- lots of money.

There's trillions of corporate revenue hanging in the balance with this bill. In fact, there more money at stake with health care reform than there has been for any war we've ever fought. $300 million in lobbying is chump change compared to what's at stake. Make no mistake about it; those people would kill to stop this bill if they thought it would do any good. Does anyone believe they would stop short of lying to us to end health care reform?

This health care bill will be good for America, and we need it. Please, don't let big business get our way when it comes to our health care.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

> Americans aren't good about learning the facts about issues. Instead


You have read the Senate version, the House version, and the reconcillation that was put out 3-15-10, so you're qualified to make these statements?

I am at least reading it, and so are some others.

But I'm seeing very few cite from the documents, particular passages that support the issue of pushing this through and actually doing what is being claimed it will do.

Why don't the ones that say we are not reading it, not informed, and only listening to the "talking heads" prove they are not doing what they are accusing the ones that don't want 'this bill' of doing?

Angie


----------



## notenoughtime (Aug 13, 2007)

Why on earth don't they just try a pilot program on one or two states? It seems that would be a lot less costly than to jump in with both feet and getting completely buried. I still have my doubts it will ever work and one huge problem is greed. The days are gone that people do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. To many pockets will be padded and we will all lose.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> You have read the Senate version, the House version, and the reconcillation that was put out 3-15-10, so you're qualified to make these statements?
> 
> I am at least reading it, and so are some others.
> 
> ...


This kind of post is not typical for you. Normally all points of view are welcome around here.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

notenoughtime said:


> Why on earth don't they just try a pilot program on one or two states? It seems that would be a lot less costly than to jump in with both feet and getting completely buried. I still have my doubts it will ever work and one huge problem is greed.


I think that Massachusetts provides a reasonable model to learn from mistakes and build on. Don't you think?



notenoughtime said:


> The days are gone that people do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. To many pockets will be padded and we will all lose.


While that's certainly true, I'm betting that the supporters of the bill are wearing the white hats this time.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada - you have a point of view that has been said a lot.
I understand that. You've been steady in your point of view.
But, don't you think it reasonable to see what is really in those bills to substantiate your point of view.

You have been saying that people that don't want this version are only listening to the 'talking heads', why is that not applicable to anyone that is for it?

If I saw one bit of supporting evidence, of why a person wanted 'this' current legistation - then it would make a difference.

But why is it okay for you or anyone to make claims about those that don't want it, flat out insulting in most cases, and then say I'm not myself when I point out the inconsistency of holding each side to the same criteria of reason?

I'm reading it so I can be really informed. Not just the claims of 45,000 dying without it each year, or how I'm only getting my information from the emails, and talking heads, etc.

If it applies to me, why does it not apply equally to you?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I'm reading it so I can be really informed.


But most _aren't_. 
And even with reading it, you're still not understanding a lot of it, too. (The treaty thing springs immediately to mind)


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

FIFTY PERCENT OF AMERICANS *DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE REFORM*. A vocal minority certainly DO want it, but they are still (by a little), the minority.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Witterbound said:


> Republicans probably actually benefit from the 45k uninsured who die each year because the uninsured probably mostly vote democrat.



The problem is its the dems who are letting them die. They have total control of the senate, house and WH. If every repub voted against any bill there were enough dem votes to pass it. They should have been able to pass a bill within 30 days of the last election. The dems who are the ones who wrote a bill which will let between 135,000 and 225,000 people die before the law kicks in.

Its the democrates who want these deaths otherwise why didn't they pass this bill in February of 2009 and have it take effect on 1 MAR 09?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Erin - you're right about that treaty thing...

But, when I find something I'm at least putting the page and line and when I can cut and past the portion, so the readers here can go to the page, read above and below, and make their own informed decision.

As you did in clarifying the 'foreign treaty' bit.

That helped both of us. 
It was more helpful, don't you think, that just keep on quoting something from and article or news source and it NOT really being in any of the documents around this major life changing USA issue?

Angie


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You know, that's what's wrong with this debate. Americans want health care reform; that was clear before this process got started. But the opposition to health care reform -- any health care reform -- took political stands against the bill and made them public. The opposition is taking advantage of one simple fact about this country; Americans aren't good about learning the facts about issues. Instead, they make decisions based on talking points they hear, regardless of what the truth might really be.


Really? If the Americans wanted this it would have been passed within 30 days after the last election. You must remember its the DEMOCRATS who are keeping this bill from passing. There is *-=**NOTHING**=-* the republicans can do to keep this from passing. The dems have complete and TOTAL control of the senate, the house AND the white house.




Nevada said:


> Corporate interests have paid over $300 million in lobbying to try to kill this bill. Do you think those corporations give a care if your grandmother gets killed-off or you lose freedom? Don't make me laugh! And it happens that the only industries who are contributing to that lobbying are the insurance and medical industries. Why do you suppose that is? I mean, why is it that the insurance and medical industries are so concerned about the constitution and our freedom, but the oil and auto industries don't care? It's because this lobbying effort is about money -- lots of money.


This makes no sense. The bill forces every American to buy insurance, why would they fight such a bill. This bill allows American businesses to dump their health insurance cost savign them BILLIONS of dollars. Why would they fight such a bill? 

Saying "corporate interest" are trying to kill the bill would be like saying "corporate interest" were trying to kill the bail out bills.





Nevada said:


> This health care bill will be good for America, and we need it. Please, don't let big business get our way when it comes to our health care.



As I have pointed out I rather have someone who can be held at least partly responsible by the threat of lawsuites in control than a government agency which can not be.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

notenoughtime said:


> Why on earth don't they just try a pilot program on one or two states? It seems that would be a lot less costly than to jump in with both feet and getting completely buried. I still have my doubts it will ever work and one huge problem is greed. The days are gone that people do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. To many pockets will be padded and we will all lose.


They have and they were total failures. Google TENNCARE and "massachusetts health care reform failure". Here's a quote from an article on the Massachusetts plan:

_
Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state's generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate. 

Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8â10 percent per year, nearly double the national average.

New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs. 

Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a "global budget" on health care spendingâwith its attendant rationing. 

A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician._


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

WindowOrMirror said:


> FIFTY PERCENT OF AMERICANS *DO NOT WANT HEALTHCARE REFORM*. A vocal minority certainly DO want it, but they are still (by a little), the minority.


Actually, that's not even remotely true. 
When the question is asked if people want health care reform, the overwhelming answer is yes. 

For that matter, when people are asked if they want the_ individual components_ of the various incarnations of the Bills, again the overwhelming answer is Yes. 

It's only when it's stated as being THIS Bill(s) with its supporters that the support drops. 
One has to wonder why, eh? 



AngieM2 said:


> Erin - you're right about that treaty thing...
> 
> But, when I find something I'm at least putting the page and line and when I can cut and past the portion, so the readers here can go to the page, read above and below, and make their own informed decision.
> 
> ...


Umm... I had been reading this _before_ you started posting anything...
I just wasn't seeing anything that struck me as being overly heinous. :shrug:
Like I said, if you've read your insurance policy lately, you'd notice that a lot of it is _very_ similar.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

> Like I said, if you've read your insurance policy lately, you'd notice that a lot of it is very similar.


You may be entirely right.
There is one large difference.

I don't have to, on penalty of money being taken from me, have THIS insurance coverage. I could chose, none or a different one.

Angie


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Are you sure it's foreign treaties?
> Because I caught references to treaties, but assumed it was in regard to _Indian_ Affairs. (Same as always)


Erin - I'm having a problem with this when I search the IRS codes and the actual statements in the reconcillation portion of all this.


page 220 - line 5 about the deductions with a foreign parent corporation...

and the form 5471 of the IRS code for reporting income, etc from a foreign corporation.

This isn't Indian (Native American) Affairs.

I think we have to dig deeper.

Angie


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

watcher said:


> As I have pointed out I rather have someone who can be held at least partly responsible by the threat of lawsuites in control than a government agency which can not be.


Folks, please, please consider this statement. If this passes, private policy insurance for average working Americans will go the way of the Model T. If you think forcing an insurance company to honor its contract is daunting, try doing the same with a government agency.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> 15 SEC. 451. LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN
> 16 DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS.
> 17 (a) IN GENERAL.&#8212;Section 894 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income affected by treaty)
> 19 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
> 21 &#8216;&#8216;(d) LIMITATION ON TREATY


yada, yada. 
The above most assuredly DOES refer to BIA type benefits. That's what I kept running across. 

So far as the part you're referencing, I'm sure they _do_ have to have protocol for dealing with foreign companies who employ people within the US.
But again, I'm just not seeing anything particularly suspicious. It's just like the tax code with people who pay taxes on income made from foreign companies. :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Stephen in SOKY said:


> Folks, please, please consider this statement. If this passes, private policy insurance for average working Americans will go the way of the Model T. If you think forcing an insurance company to honor its contract is daunting, try doing the same with a government agency.


Well we already know it's impossible with insurance companies, so if that's the case then we aren't really out anything, now are we.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Well we already know it's impossible with insurance companies, so if that's the case then we aren't really out anything, now are we.


In my life time I have fought several private companies (insurance and others) as well as various local, state and the federal government agencies. 

Here is my experience:

With a private company if you can't get things resolved on the first go around you can ask to deal with a higher up. Higher ups have more power to make decisions than the first line support people. If you are still not happy you can asked for someone even higher. If they don't, can't or won't fix the problem you can start talking about taking your business else where, breach of contract, lawyers, lawsuits, news agencies, bad company PR and about how they might want to contact their legal department for advice. At which point you almost always see a major change in their attitude. You may not get what you want you usually do get some action on the problem.

With a government agency things are just a bit different. The first line of people are about the same. They have a script/flow chart that they must follow. When you move up the line you discover that the higher ups also are limited that way. They have no options but to follow the SOP. When you reach the point of bring up the lawyers, lawsuits, etc. their attitude is usually 'Go ahead' or 'Where else can you go?'. Also dealing with local government is easier than state and state is easier then the feds. 

I have won a few, very few, battles with government agencies but it has almost always been by choking it with its own red tape. AAMOF, I'm involved with one now. The local government is trying to tell me a property I bought on the open market from a realtor is worth over 3 times more than I paid for it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I think that Massachusetts provides a reasonable model to learn from mistakes and build on. Don't you think?


No, because according to State Treasurer Cahill, their program is being propped up by the federal government to appear successful, but that it is not.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1240176


> âI was afraid of what we had already been getting in Massachusetts, and at that point in 2008, I was aware that it wasnât working,â he said. Separately yesterday, Cahill accused Obama of âpropping upâ the Bay Stateâs health plan with federal aid in order to help push the Democratsâ plan through Congress.
> 
> âThe real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform,â Cahill said. âAnd I would argue that itâs being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.â


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Just read this and thought it might add something to the discussion.

WASHINGTON &#8211; Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.


Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help millions of people who can't afford the cost now.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3JlNAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--

*
*


----------



## stickinthemud (Sep 10, 2003)

Insurance premiums are virtually guaranteed to increase due to inflation. From what I read, there is a dollar amount that will trigger the "Cadillac tax" on insurance premiums. Does anyone know if there is a mechanism to account for inflation, or will everyone wind up paying eventually?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

It gives dollar ranges and percentages of extra tax. I'll try to find that part tonight and post it for you.

Angie


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And if you really want to know what this bill is all about, it sure is not about health care that is a given.
What it is about is a redistribution of wealth.
TAKE from those that have and Give it to those that do not.
Capitalism is deed now in America if this so called health bill passes!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> This makes no sense. The bill forces every American to buy insurance, why would they fight such a bill. This bill allows American businesses to dump their health insurance cost savign them BILLIONS of dollars. Why would they fight such a bill?
> 
> Saying "corporate interest" are trying to kill the bill would be like saying "corporate interest" were trying to kill the bail out bills.


Well, corporate interests have paid $300 million in lobbying to take a stand against the bill anyway. That fact really isn't in dispute.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Well, corporate interests have paid $300 million in lobbying to take a stand against the bill anyway. That fact really isn't in dispute.


Isn't that the same amount Harry Reid gave Mary Landrieu for her vote?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Per page 44:

If your health care plan is determined not to be in compliance with predetermined standards, you can be booted off the plan by the federal government.

(B) *suspension of enrollment of individuals
15 under such plan* after the date the Commis16
sioner notifies the entity of a determination
17 under paragraph (1) and until the Commis18
sioner is satisfied that the basis for such deter19
mination has been corrected and is not likely to
20 recur;

The *federal government* will have the power to suspend your enrollment. It doesn't say what happens to you, if you'll be fined for not having insurance.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

stickinthemud - I'm looking for the $$ ranges I saw last night for you.

But I did run across this for taxing - well, the title explains it.

page 167 (reconcillation proposed bill) I highlighed some about the $ amounts.

18 ââSEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ââ(a) TAX IMPOSED.âIn the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, *there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess ofâ
168
â¢J. 55â345
1 ââ(1) the taxpayerâs modified adjusted gross in2*
come for the taxable year, over
3 ââ(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
5 ââ(b) LIMITATIONS.â
6 ââ(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM.â
7 ââ(A) IN GENERAL.âThe tax imposed
8 under subsection (a)* with respect to any tax9
payer for any taxable year shall not exceed the
10 applicable national average premium for such
11 taxable year.*
12 ââ(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE
13 PREMIUM.â
14 ââ(i) IN GENERAL.âFor purposes of
15 subparagraph (A), the âapplicable national
16 average premiumâ means, with respect to
17 any taxable year, the average premium (as
18 determined by the Secretary, in coordina19
tion with the Health Choices Commis20
sioner) for self-only coverage under a basic
21 plan which is offered in a Health Insur22
ance Exchange for the calendar year in
23 which


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

page 315 into 316

20 ââ(ii) COLLABORATIVE CARE NETWORK
21 DEFINED.âFor purposes of this subpara22
graph, the term âcollaborative care net23
workâ means a consortium of health care
24 providers that provides a comprehensive
25 range of coordinated and integrated health
316
â¢J. 55â345
1 care services to low-income patient popu2
lations (*including the uninsured)* which
3 may include coordinated and comprehen4
sive care by safety net providers to reduce
5 any unnecessary use of items and services
6 furnished in emergency departments, man7
age chronic conditions, improve quality and
8 efficiency of care, increase preventive serv9
ices, and promote adherence to post-acute
10 and follow-up care plans.
11 ââ(iii) CONTINUING CARE HOSPITAL

I posted this, and some may want to read more - but, if this is mandatory, the government going to issue credits/or whatever it will be called to assist low income to have this insurance - then what is this "uninsured" referred to here? I thought the whole purpose of this "health reform" exercise was to do away with anyone 'uninsured" unless by religion. maybe that's it - uninsured due to religion....

What do you think? could it be the religion loop-hole?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Probably. :shrug:
Not to mention the tax-evader types who won't enroll no matter what because then they're "in the system!"
Depending upon which version ends up going through (if any), there were several opt-out groups.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I need help from those of you that are reading/scanning the Senate/the reconcillation papers......

As Erin, and others have said - we'll be paying into this for years before it becomes active. (if it passes). 

Help me find the holding pot for the funds, and the guards that keep it from being dipped into (as the SS was done, and is now broke and not having enough funds). The taxes, and penalties are going into a general fund, not just a Health Care fund - (read in several places referred to in the reconcellation paper).

So, does anyone already know what the document says about funds holding tank and the guards on it?

Angie


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> And if you really want to know what this bill is all about, it sure is not about health care that is a given.
> What it is about is a redistribution of wealth.
> TAKE from those that have and Give it to those that do not.
> Capitalism is deed now in America if this so called health bill passes!!


Amen!

Remember, you cannot give up just a little bit of freedom.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> I need help from those of you that are reading/scanning the Senate/the reconcillation papers......
> 
> As Erin, and others have said - we'll be paying into this for years before it becomes active. (if it passes).
> 
> ...


Just as an FYI, SS has _never_ had a special account or something of its own. Since its inception, it's been nothing but a numbers game. It's a tax like any other, it's just that it has its own line on your payroll withholdings.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Joshie said:


> Amen!
> 
> Remember, you cannot give up just a little bit of freedom.


So by extension this means those who are on Medicare/SS have already given up their freedom?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

We have already PAID into that. But yes to a certain extent we have . But that does NOT mean we have to be even MORE dependent on the government. The government sent out in the uSA was never intended to be a Cradle to Grave one. 
And btw in Europe male prostate cancer is at 45% because you Cannot Get The EARLY detection we can in the USA and ours is down to less then 20% Because of EARLY treatment and the best health care system in the world.
BTW did you also know that severe arthritis sufferers in Europe a GOVERNMENT Health Care System~! You do NOT get the wonderful drugs that we have here in the STATES./
ALL thanks to our wonderful health care~!
Nice isn't it? Now America will be headed in that same direction all thanks to our Nanny government that thinks THEY know what is good for us more then we do our selves.
And THAT is NOT what America is.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/11/obama-family-health-care-fracas/


> America has the finest health care delivery system in the world. Let's not forget that and put it at risk in the name of reform. Desperate souls across the globe flock to our shores and cross our borders every day to seek our care. Why? Our system provides cures while the government-run systems from which they flee do not. Compare Europe's common cancer mortality rates to America's: breast cancer - 52 percent higher in Germany and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom; prostate cancer - a staggering 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway; colon cancer - 40 percent higher in the United Kingdom.


 Obama's own cousin ( A Doctor ) doesn't even back this health care stuff.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

ErinP said:


> So by extension this means those who are on Medicare/SS have already given up their freedom?


It certainly opened the door for this, didn't it? It also does not fulfill its original purpose, does it?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Intriguing. 

I wonder how many of our board members who are on Medicare and/or SS would agree with you...


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Since I said something about separate funds for SSI, and now being part of the whole pot of funds - and what's to keep this "health care" reform funds from being separate for the time before it 'starts"..







MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Myths:

"Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) program. He promised:

1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary;
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program;
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year;
4) That the money the participants paid in would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.;
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)


*Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

*

So they do appear to be a separate trust.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

My point exactly.

A numbers game.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf

The Social Security Trust Fund As A Designated Account
Within the U.S. Treasury, there are numerous accounts for federal accounting
purposes. The Social Security trust fund is one of the accounts designated, by law,
as a trust fund. While all of the monies within the Treasury are federal monies, the
designation of an account as a trust fund allows tracking of certain funds for internal
accounting purposes. *One reason an account would be designated as a special fund
in law is because the funds are dedicated to specific purposes, a*nd are not for general
government program use. The monies or holdings of a trust fund in the Treasury are
owned by the U.S. government. The U.S. government can, by changing the law, raise
or lower the revenues going into the trust fund, and the payments made by the trust
fund.


there is a total of 17 pages, and this is dated 2005.


The bolded makes sense if you deal with any government funding documents. I know when I do a purchase order to a subcontractor there is an accounting number from the funding document from the government. If that money is used up, unless there is a subsequent designated 'pot of money' - that's it - no more spending, no more paying of invoices.

So, they are very specific on their spending- and accounting....

Now that I've documented what's done and it's history - 

Can anyone help me find the portion of the current proposed bills what will happen to the money prior to 2014 when this would 'officially' start?

Thanks, Angie


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nice spin, but you said earlier that it's just a tax and never had a separate account.

Did we just read the same thing???

(addressed to Erin)


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

ErinP said:


> Intriguing.
> 
> I wonder how many of our board members who are on Medicare and/or SS would agree with you...



.............I'm on SS , but can't enroll in Medicare until dec-2011 ! It won't affect me because It won't start until 3 or 4 years down the road . No for profit insurance co. is going too insure anyone over 55 UNless the feds pay an enrollment fee for each person they accept . Once a person reaches a certain age(55 or so) health insurance just isn't available unless they're covered under a group plan issued by a large company . , fordy:shrug:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

from the 3-15-10 Reconcellation proposed bill 

page 109 and a couple of following pages - this shows a set up of a "trust fund" and what goes into it..... But I'm not seeing the guards on it - yet, I'm still searching... Please get the document, and read any of this for yourself - the stuff before and after - compare to the Senate approved version that this is to be attached to.... - I need to do more of that, but this is really a neat research project... 


7 SEC. 207. HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE TRUST FUND.
8 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE EX9
CHANGE TRUST FUND.âThere is created within the
10 Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known
11 as the ââHealth Insurance Exchange Trust Fundââ (in this
12 section referred to as the ââTrust Fundââ), consisting of
13 such amounts as may be appropriated or credited to the
14 Trust Fund under this section or any other provision of
15 law.
16 (b) PAYMENTS FROM TRUST FUND.âThe Commis17
sioner shall pay from time to time from the Trust Fund
18 such amounts as the Commissioner determines are nec19
essary to make payments to operate the Health Insurance
20 Exchange, including payments under subtitle C (relating
21 to affordability credits).
22 (c) TRANSFERS TO TRUST FUND.â
23 (1) DEDICATED PAYMENTS.âThere is hereby
24 appropriated to the Trust Fund amounts equivalent
25 to the following:
110
â¢J. 55â345
1 (A) TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAIN2
ING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.âThe amounts re3
ceived in the Treasury under section 59B of the
4 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to re5
quirement of health insurance coverage for indi6
viduals).
7 (B) EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON EMPLOYERS
8 NOT PROVIDING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.âThe
9 amounts received in the Treasury under section
10 3111(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
11 (relating to employers electing to not provide
12 health benefits).
13 (C) EXCISE TAX ON FAILURES TO MEET
14 CERTAIN HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIRE15
MENTS.âThe amounts received in the Treasury
16 under section 4980H(b) (relating to excise tax
17 with respect to failure to meet health coverage
18 participation requirements).
19 (2) APPROPRIATIONS TO COVER GOVERNMENT
20 CONTRIBUTIONS.âThere are hereby appropriated,
21 out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise ap22
propriated, to the Trust Fund, an amount equivalent
23 to the amount of payments made from the Trust
24 Fund under subsection (b) plus such amounts as are
111
â¢J. 55â345
1 necessary reduced by the amounts deposited under
2 paragraph (1).
3 (d) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN RULES.âRules simi4
lar to the rules of subchapter B of chapter 98 of the Inter5
nal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply with respect to the
6 Trust Fund.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

found a downloadable .pdf of the passed senate bill....

Now I can search it easier than the one I had earlier today.



to add 

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

this is where that .pdf is from - but there are about 4 different types of summaries there for use also.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill50.pdf

this is their (Senate's) (8 pages)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Implementation Timeline

on down the first page is a thing where dependent children are now up to 26 years old. 

I'm still not seeing the Trust Funds and the protection of the funds.

"trust fund" is not in these 8 pages...


----------



## stickinthemud (Sep 10, 2003)

Angie, thank you for the link to "...as-passed" I have downloaded it & will be reading tomorrow. Just noticed something that MIGHT refer to what they plan to do with the $ collected---
On page 15 there is reference to "Title X-Strengthening Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans", then "Subtitle A-Provisions relating to Title I", and several sections referring to Amendments to Subtitles A thru G, then "Sec.10109 Development of 
Standards for Financial and Administrative Transactions."

I will look for this tomorrow when I am awake. THanks again!


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill49.pdf (from their Section - by - Section analysis) I don't think this says how the money is going to be 'protected/separate" from the General fund. {and stickinthemud, nice to know the link/s helped at least one do their own investigation.}


Sec. 10109. Development of standards for financial and administrative transactions. Requires the Secretary to consult stakeholders and the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics and the Health Information Technology Standards and Policy Committees to identify opportunities to create uniform standards for financial and administrative health care transactions, not already named under HIPAA, that would improve the operation of the health system and reduce costs.
Subtitle BâProvisions Relating to Title II
Part I â Medicaid and CHIP
Sec. 10201.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://www.healthcarebillindex.com/HR3962/DIVISION_A/TITLE_III/SUBTITLE_A/SEC_307/

(d) Application of Certain Rules - Rules similar to the rules of Subchapter B of Chapter 98 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply in respect to the Trust Fund.



So the below gives some idea of how it's proposed to be treated....



http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t26t28+2564+0++'26 USC Chapter 98'

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Subtitle I - Trust Fund Code

CHAPTER 98 - TRUST FUND CODE

-HEAD-

CHAPTER 98 - TRUST FUND CODE 


The above shows some set up, but not this one. I've scanned about the first 5 or 6 pages..

I'll read more later.

Angie


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> Nice spin, but you said earlier that it's just a tax and never had a separate account.
> 
> Did we just read the same thing???
> 
> (addressed to Erin)


_This_ was your contribution to the conversation? 
A snarky comment that Melissa has recently said she doesn't want to see?



I think we might be talking about two different things, Angie. 
I meant separate account in that so many people think their SS is somehow being piled up in a bank account, just for them. 

However, by your own link, it shows that you were mistaken, also:



> However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. *However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.*


Consequently, I would make the connection that if this is to be placed in a trust fund, it would probably be administered (budgeted, what have you, so we don't have _that_ debate again!  ) in much the same way.
Have all of the proposed versions included some kind of trust fund set-up?


fordy, I was actually questioning Joshie's point that those on SS/Medicare have _already_ given up their freedoms.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Well, corporate interests have paid $300 million in lobbying to take a stand against the bill anyway. That fact really isn't in dispute.


Who has paid who what?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

rose2005 said:


> Angie, I appreciate all the highlighted text you have shared, and taken the time to find.
> 
> It's been an eye opener and made my head spin.
> 
> Rose


Thanks Rose - this is too important to spout off what I'm hearing here, in magazines, from any news source - as I see most posts about this do.

A lot of emotion about this, but if you check the title of this thread, it says "facts" - so that implies a direct provable source. That's what I'm trying.

And as much as I like Erin - I do not read several of the things in the same light she does. And same with others. 
I'm not asking anyone to stiffle their opinion - but when opinion is stated as facts then obviously there is substantiating documentation that can be stood on. Especially since the title of this thread is "not politics, but facts".

Angie


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

But Angie, there have been several things you've been fired up about that it turned out you simply misunderstood. :shrug:
And that seems to be the real problem with this entire debate. 

I'm off for the day, but I'll hunt around later. 
There's a fairly recent poll that showed that when asked about the individual components of the health care bills (explained so people understood what was being discussed) a significant majority was in favor of almost every major piece. 

When it was stated as the current health care bills, it shook out again along party lines. 


Ie, it would seem much of the opposition isn't really to the bills themselves.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Who has paid who what?


Here is a breakdown of industries.










Here is the total magnitude of spending, and where it went.










Here are a few individual companies that contributed, and how it compared to the previous year.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Here is a breakdown of industries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who got the money?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Who got the money?


You want a list of the lobbying companies involved? This will give you an idea of the magnitude of the effort.

******
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html
******

This is the Super Bowl of lobbying.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada - thanks for those charts. I did notice they are "for and against" the health care. So, how does that prove spending against it? I see that it can be 99% against and still have "for and against", or 99% for and still have "for and against".

You did show me they did spend that much money. Thank you for that. It helps.

Angie


----------



## stickinthemud (Sep 10, 2003)

One thing I never saw during this debate was a breakdown of "Health Care Costs"
"Lobbying" obviously has some effect on the cost of doing business for insurance companies & pharmaceutical firms. Or how about advertising--it seems like half the ads in magazines & on TV are for drugs. Around here hospitals are advertising on billboards and TV--where is that included in "Health Care"?


----------



## stickinthemud (Sep 10, 2003)

I can tell you that a chunk of cash is being spent in Pittsburgh right now. TV ads both for and against the health care bill, all ending with Jason Altmire's phone number.
Hmmm, turned on the TV & don't see those ads--is the vote over?
Just ads for drugs, diabetes supplies, power wheelchairs, lawyers...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The new price numbers from the CBO look really good. With the deficit reduction features I don't see how we can afford to NOT have this health care reform bill pass.

******
_Washington (CNN) -- A long-awaited compromise health care bill drafted by top Democrats will cost $940 billion over the next 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis released Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

*The bill cuts the deficit by $138 billion during that period of time, the Budget Office report said. It would further reduce the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion in the following decade*_
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/18/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

AngieM2 said:


> Is anyone else actually reading, scanning this document?
> 
> I'm only up to page 219 and scanning.
> 
> ...


this is where I first mentioned foreing treaties and was assured it meant Native American type Indians.... but, it's kept nagging at me. So, more research...

The 3-15-10 reconcillation proposed bill - page 205 at the bottom is where it talks of foreign treaties, etc. It refers to Section 894 of IRS Code of 1986.
So, I found that -
Here's the code and foreign treaties as it applies to taxes:

http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Internal_Revenue_Code:Sec._894._Income_affected_by_treaty

Sec. 894. Income affected by treaty

(a) Treaty provisions
(1) In general
The provisions of this title shall be applied to any taxpayer
with due regard to any treaty obligation of the United States
which applies to such taxpayer.
(2) Cross reference
For relationship between treaties and this title, see section
7852(d).
(b) Permanent establishment in United States
For purposes of applying any exemption from, or reduction of, any
tax provided by any treaty to which the United States is a party
with respect to income which is not effectively connected with the
conduct of a trade or business within the United States, a
nonresident alien individual or a foreign corporation shall be
deemed not to have a permanent establishment in the United States
at any time during the taxable year. This subsection shall not
apply in respect of the tax computed under section 877(b).
(c) Denial of treaty benefits for certain payments through hybrid
entities
(1) Application to certain payments
A foreign person shall not be entitled under any income tax
treaty of the United States with a foreign country to any reduced
rate of any withholding tax imposed by this title on an item of
income derived through an entity which is treated as a
partnership (or is otherwise treated as fiscally transparent) for
purposes of this title if -
(A) such item is not treated for purposes of the taxation
laws of such foreign country as an item of income of such
person,
(B) the treaty does not contain a provision addressing the
applicability of the treaty in the case of an item of income
derived through a partnership, and
(C) the foreign country does not impose tax on a distribution
of such item of income from such entity to such person.
(2) Regulations
The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary or appropriate to determine the extent to which a
taxpayer to which paragraph (1) does not apply shall not be
entitled to benefits under any income tax treaty of the United
States with respect to any payment received by, or income
attributable to any activities of, an entity organized in any
jurisdiction (including the United States) that is treated as a
partnership or is otherwise treated as fiscally transparent for
purposes of this title (including a common investment trust under
section 584, a grantor trust, or an entity that is disregarded
for purposes of this title) and is treated as fiscally
nontransparent for purposes of the tax laws of the jurisdiction
of residence of the taxpayer.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> The new price numbers from the CBO look really good. With the deficit reduction features I don't see how we can afford to NOT have this health care reform bill pass.
> 
> ******
> _Washington (CNN) -- A long-awaited compromise health care bill drafted by top Democrats will cost $940 billion over the next 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis released Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
> ...


Nevada - do you know if they've printed the letter report out yet? I'd like to see how they addressed the $20.7 million that will go to $0 in 2014 for Medicare/caid. 

But, this does bear more watching.

Angie


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Nevada - do you know if they've printed the letter report out yet? I'd like to see how they addressed the $20.7 million that will go to $0 in 2014 for Medicare/caid.
> 
> But, this does bear more watching.
> 
> Angie


It's my understanding that information about the report is from statements lawmakers have made. The press hasn't actually seen it yet.


----------



## Possumcat (Oct 2, 2008)

Melissa said:


> Health care being quite obviously a family issue the post is not out of place. And I NEVER, NEVER move threads to any other board. If it is here, it stays here (unless requested by the op) but I would close or delete it if it gets out of hand.
> 
> I have found that those who have health care just want to maintain the status quo, and they don't generally care about the 40 million or so who don't have any at all, and ignore that many other millions actually do have government funded care through medicare and medicaid. So why fight about it? Congress will most likely pass something, insurance companies will get richer, people will all still die of something, life will go on...



Wow...live and learn. I never would've dared to post this kind of topic here on CF. Thought it would be considered "Politics".

Regarding the "40 million" folks...I think it's more relevant to discuss why these folks don't have insurance. This number is often quoted but misconstrued to mean these people are "unable" to get insurance when in actuality, that's not quite the case.
--Jenn


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Think it may be time to retire, cut our income so as not to be hung on the taxes. Sure not going to go through with our plans to open a business. Time to pull back and reassess our options and see where this leads.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> It's my understanding that information about the report is from statements lawmakers have made. The press hasn't actually seen it yet.


Thanks Nevada - I'll be watching for it. (and the news, too)


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

From the CBO - today:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf

25 pages long....


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

zong said:


> Everybody sees the health care insurance issue from their own point of view. Most then try to overlay their POV on the whole country. My point of view is this: It's not about health care. It's about *forcing* people to be part of the system. its about *forcing* people to fork over untold billions to insurance companies, who in turn pay lobbyists who in turn bribe congressmen. I don't want to be forced to buy anything. I've been forced to pay taxes and social security my entire life. Now as I approach the downhill side, I am going to be forced to slowly sell everything I own to provide some huge insurance company with a few extra thousand bucks a year? Or get rid of every single thing I own to qualify for medicaid? (something like $3000 net worth is the allowable maximum.) I worked hard for what I got, and I paid in taxes and SS on it. I could have been drawing SS disability for the past 5 years, I don't want it. I don't want full SS when I'm 65, I don't want medicare when I'm 65, I don't want to be in a hospital hooked up to tubes and wires while somebody tells my family "he needs more tubes", or "he needs to be unplugged" I do not want insurance. I want to pay the doctor if and when I go. I want the government to keep it's hand out of my pocket. I've given and given and given to the government. The SS money? They stole that from me , just like the tax. I don't even want it back. Only one thing I want from the government, is for them to stay out of my personal affairs. I want to live free and die free. I realize that my way of thinking is outdated, but I don't even care. I just want to be left alone.


My thoughts exactly. Well said.


----------



## fetch33 (Jan 15, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The new price numbers from the CBO look really good. With the deficit reduction features I don't see how we can afford to NOT have this health care reform bill pass.
> 
> ******
> _Washington (CNN) -- A long-awaited compromise health care bill drafted by top Democrats will cost $940 billion over the next 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis released Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
> ...


When have you ever heard of the government saving money? I heard they were counting some numbers twice to make it sound better than it actually is going to be.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

They also left out part of the costs (Doc fix). It is a huge dog and pony show and insurance companies will be the big winners.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Does any of this really matter anymore, now that Fess Parker is dead?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ambereyes said:


> They also left out part of the costs (Doc fix). It is a huge dog and pony show and insurance companies will be the big winners.


Insurance companies? What Insurance Companies?
There won't be any left after O gets done with them and his one payer one company smoke and mirrors coming down the pike.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Insurance companies? What Insurance Companies?
> There won't be any left after O gets done with them and his one payer one company smoke and mirrors coming down the pike.


You know that's not in the proposal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Here is a breakdown of industries.
> 
> 
> Here is the total magnitude of spending, and where it went.
> ...




Nice numbers but where does it show if the money was spent in support, opposition or split between both. Yes companies will hedge their bets by supporting people on both sides of the same bill.

As I said I'd think all the companies you mentioned would be in support of the bill. After the more people that have money to visit the doctor and to buy more drugs would put MORE money into their pockets. Would it not?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You want a list of the lobbying companies involved? This will give you an idea of the magnitude of the effort.
> 
> ******
> The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
> ...


IIRC, you were claiming that $300,000,000 dollars has been spent lobbing *against* the bill. This is not what your facts are showing. BTW, where's the money spent by unions and lawyer groups?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The new price numbers from the CBO look really good. With the deficit reduction features I don't see how we can afford to NOT have this health care reform bill pass.
> 
> ******
> _Washington (CNN) -- A long-awaited compromise health care bill drafted by top Democrats will cost $940 billion over the next 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis released Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
> ...


First off this is not a CBO report, its a pelimary report based on what they have been told is in the bill.

Second, how in the world can say spening an extra $1,000,000,000 that the government doesn't have is going to reduce the deficit? Well it could be by double counting the savings when they cut medicare.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

A word about CBO reports...CBO's figures are no better than the figures contained within the bill it is examining, since it uses those figures as a springboard.

In other words, in some cases, GIGO.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Ambereyes said:


> Think it may be time to retire, cut our income so as not to be hung on the taxes. Sure not going to go through with our plans to open a business. Time to pull back and reassess our options and see where this leads.


_Go Gault baby _is going to be a new rallying cry I think. Humm. . .maybe I should see if I can copyright/trademark it and make bumper stickers and T shirts. Anyway. . .I know several people, myself include, who have already started and many more who are talking about it. If nothing else you should look into cutting your income to below the level where you will be forced to buy government mandated insurance.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You know that's not in the proposal.


Only if you don't listen to the politicians and don't read between the lines. How are insurance companies supposed to survive when the government restricts what they can charge AND forces them to cover people who will NEVER pay in as much as they are paying out?

Look at the SS system. Its going belly up because we have the same thing. People are taking out many times more than they paid in. Even if it weren't a ponzi scheme where you use todays money to pay yesterday's investors it would still be falling apart.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> how in the world can say spening an extra $1,000,000,000 that the government doesn't have is going to reduce the deficit? Well it could be by double counting the savings when they cut medicare.


Because a big point of health care reform is to get Americans contributing more towards their health care costs. Right now the government compensates health care providers for bad debt. This bill will eliminate most of that bad debt, so the government will collect more revenue.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

By Golly Nev us correct.! My hats off to you.
TAKE from the Rich and give to the poor. 
Redistribution of wealth has been the lefts motto for years, and this is the biggest step backward,,,, toward it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> By Golly Nev us correct.! My hats off to you.
> TAKE from the Rich and give to the poor.
> Redistribution of wealth has been the lefts motto for years, and this is the biggest step backward,,,, toward it.


What on earth are you taking about? I suggested no such thing.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Yep, we are all on the hook for the ones that don't pay, lets make sure the insurance companies prosper!!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> What on earth are you taking about? I suggested no such thing.





> Nevada;4337754
> Because a big point of health care reform is to get Americans *contributing more towards their health care costs*.
> * Sure by Taxing the Rich*
> Right now the government compensates health care providers for bad debt. This bill will eliminate most of that bad debt, so the government will collect more revenue.
> * Yes Tax The Rich so the Poor are on a more even playing field. *


 A Obama plan of redistribution the wealth. 
No way around it that is what it is. 
And that is what they (Dem's) have wanted to do, to this country for years.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And besides Nevada this government health care does not work.
Take a Look at Mass-health, or what ever they call it in Massachusetts.
If not for a Huge Government Money infusion it would be Bankrupt right now~!
But O put a money deal together so that the MassHealth would not "look bad"
Gee I wonder why?
But I am not sure if it was Mass. Gov.. or not.
But somebody "In The Know" said IF America does the same thing the USA would be Bankrupted in Four Years`!
You can't just keep this money sucking health care bill as written turn into the law of the land.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Because a big point of health care reform is to get Americans contributing more towards their health care costs. Right now the government compensates health care providers for bad debt. This bill will eliminate most of that bad debt, so the government will collect more revenue.


Nevada - I really need to know about this "government compensates health care providers for bad debt". That would explain the public hospitals complaining about the losses and having to cut back so much.

Please explain this, as I really need to check it out. I'm sure there must be hospital year end statements that would reflect that if I knew what you were basing this on. 

Thanks -


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Nevada - I really need to know about this "government compensates health care providers for bad debt". That would explain the public hospitals complaining about the losses and having to cut back so much.
> 
> Please explain this, as I really need to check it out. I'm sure there must be hospital year end statements that would reflect that if I knew what you were basing this on.
> 
> Thanks -


This is for all medical providers (in fact, all businesses). Let's say that you got an x-ray that they billed $200 for and you didn't pay the bill. They would eventually claim the $200 on their taxes as a bad debt, which would reduce their taxable income by $200. That would save them $50 or $75 on their taxes. If everyone had insurance then the x-ray clinic would get paid for the x-ray, so the clinic makes more money and the government takes-in more money.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And besides Nevada this government health care does not work.
> Take a Look at Mass-health, or what ever they call it in Massachusetts.
> If not for a Huge Government Money infusion it would be Bankrupt right now~!
> But O put a money deal together so that the MassHealth would not "look bad"
> ...


You've got Medicare, don't you?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Not the same thing at all.
And if they pass this bill by reconciliation they then have declared war on the People, and the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.
Because they will then have the precedent to "deem passed" anything Obama wants done. And that is bad all the way around.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

Angie, We received some very limited S-Chip payments for servces provided to some children. The tax right off referred to above doesn't even begin to cover the provision of services to those who do not pay, much less fund expansions, new equipment or anything else. Remember, we're told we have to treat them, but the people mandating that do not directly reimburse hospitals for the treatment.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> This is for all medical providers (in fact, all businesses). Let's say that you got an x-ray that they billed $200 for and you didn't pay the bill. They would eventually claim the $200 on their taxes as a bad debt, which would reduce their taxable income by $200. That would save them $50 or $75 on their taxes. If everyone had insurance then the x-ray clinic would get paid for the x-ray, so the clinic makes more money and the government takes-in more money.


Oh, taking bad debt's off one's taxes..... is government help... then I guess EVERY business that has had a bad debt and deducted it is in exactly the same boat.

So, lets make a demand that everyone has to pay vehicle repair funding, even if they don't have a vehicle cause someone is going to make a bad debt and this would make it cost less to the government.

or the people that have not paid me for my sewing, and I took the bad debt.

Or the banks that allow a sale of a foreclosed house for less than they have in it - so they deduct that from the tax report - but they already have money from the government ..

Your example applies to anyone that deducts a bad debt. So this does not make a medical example at all, just that they are one of a bunch.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Not the same thing at all.
> And if they pass this bill by reconciliation they then have declared war on the People, and the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.
> Because they will then have the precedent to "deem passed" anything Obama wants done. And that is bad all the way around.


What's your problem with "deem & pass" anyway? It seems like an efficient way to do it. They still need to vote on the changes and the senate version. It just combines it into one vote. I don't see why it's a big deal.

By the way, there is already ample precedent for deem & pass.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> What's your problem with "deem & pass" anyway? It seems like an efficient way to do it. They still need to vote on the changes and the senate version. It just combines it into one vote. *I don't see why it's a big deal.*




I truly believe what I've bolded. You don't see the big deal....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Your example applies to anyone that deducts a bad debt. So this does not make a medical example at all, just that they are one of a bunch.


That's true, it isn't a purely medical thing. I said that in my post. But having a lot more people with health care coverage will reduce bad medical debt, which will increase government revenues. All I was trying to do was explain how this bill could save $138 billion.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> What's your problem with "deem & pass" It seems like an efficient way to do it. They still need to vote on the changes and the senate version. It just combines it into one vote. I don't see why it's a big deal.


It is a sneaky, liars way of getting things passed through, that you do not have enough votes to pass in the correct way of doing things, that is what is wrong with it.
Did you not read about using same way to sell scalped tickets?
You Attach the tickets to a Cap and then just sell those caps with the tickets hidden inside, so what if that cap cost 2K You are just selling Caps~!
And besides it has never been used to control 1/6th of the economy, it has only been used to Pass the budget, way different in meanings. Same peanuts compared to what may be coming down the pike.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> [/B]
> 
> I truly believe what I've bolded. You don't see the big deal....


Then please explain why deem & pass is a big deal?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That's true, it isn't a purely medical thing. I said that in my post. But having a lot more people with health care coverage will reduce bad medical debt, which will increase government revenues. All I was trying to do was explain how this bill could save $138 billion.





> Democrats in Washington say that their unpopular takeover of the nationâs health care sector â *with its higher taxes, cuts to seniors on Medicare and price controls*





> Simply put, the Massachusetts law was an experiment to expand health insurance coverage to almost every resident of the Commonwealth, by redirecting existing health care spending and without raising taxes. It was not an attempt to control costs.





> As an experiment, however, the Massachusetts law has revealed certain weaknesses in the plan. Three areas of concern are: overreaching social planning by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority (the âexchangeâ);* double-digit increases in health insurance costs for many employers and individuals, and too much taxpayer money* still underwriting free care.


 It Don't work there and would be bankrupt if the Government had not forked over a huge amount of money into the system.
What in the world makes a person think the Government and the Nation as a whole can stand to go through what is happening in Mass. now?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34588.html


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Because the first portion has only passed the Senate, the House has not accepted it. Since Senate and the people that want this so badly cannot go by the rules that are set in place for 1/6th of the economy (I think I have the percentage correct), they want to circumvent the actual vote that makes every Representative accountable for their vote. This is just a cowardly way to make it hopefully go through if they can make it through with the Reconcillation portion. 

Why do you not want to know the vote on the Senate bill - 
This is too important to take short cuts to attempt at passing it.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Is the part still in the bill that you go to jail if you don't buy their insurance? If so are we looking at having debtors prisons? 

Deem and pass is a form of going around the responsibility for their actions in the passage of this mess.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Because the first portion has only passed the Senate, the House has not accepted it.


With deem & pass the senate version is still voted upon. It's integrated into the the reconciliation bill, so it still has to be passed by the house. Deem & pass only combines the senate bill and the reconciliation bill into one vote.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> With deem & pass the senate version is still voted upon. It's integrated into the the reconciliation bill, so it still has to be passed by the house. Deem & pass only combines the senate bill and the reconciliation bill into one vote.


I'll have to research that....


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> With deem & pass the senate version is still voted upon. It's integrated into the the reconciliation bill, so it still has to be passed by the house. Deem & pass only combines the senate bill and the reconciliation bill into one vote.


Sure and Nobody will know who voted for the health care bill, and who voted against it. nice and sneaky. Way of doing things. 
Oh and How Is That transparency going?
Well I hope America keeps that in mind in a few months, and then again in 2012~! And vote ALL of them out that have a D by their name.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Sure and Nobody will know who voted for the health care bill, and who voted against it. nice and sneaky. Way of doing things.
> Oh and How Is That transparency going?
> Well I hope America keeps that in mind in a few months, and then again in 2012~! And vote ALL of them out that have a D by their name.


You ARE aware that republicans have used "deem & pass", aren't you?

******
The GOP used self-executing rules [i.e., Deem and Pass] 35 times in 2005-2006 alone (the last time the Republicans ran the House). Back then Democrats sued to end the practice and the GOP defended it in court. Ornstein asks: "Is there no shame any more?" Well ... no.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-...ypocrisy-on-reconciliation-deem-and-pass.html


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Well I found a copy of the document that has "deem and Pass" first in it... and more fun information....
did you know:

"1 The House must adopt its rules anew at the beginning of each Congress. The Senate, on
the other hand, is a continuous body, and its rules remain in effect from one Congress to the
next. H.Res. 5 also made several other House Rules changes not related directly to the
congressional budget process. For more information on these changes, see CRS Report
RS21382, Committee System Rules Changes in the House, 108th Congress, by Judy
Schneider and CRS Report RS21388, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings
in the 108th Congress, by Elizabeth Rybicki."

So I'm wondering if at the start of this House of Reps, if they adopted this rule already? So, can they use it?





http://web.mit.edu/annakot/MacData/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL31728.pdf

I had to go through wikilike (never heard of, but it had a link to this that I needed).

"deem and Pass" as known as "&#8220;Gephardt Rule"


Off to read more


I'm back: after searching I found the official site of House rules http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-453.pdf

Angie

So far, it seems to be only used for raising the budget debt limit..... not changing anything that has not already been in existence.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> "deem and Pass" as known as "&#8220;Gephardt Rule"


It's also known as the "self-executing rule".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-executing_rule


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://www.rollcall.com/news/44362-1.html

This is a bit of interesting news from today... I had heard this was going to happen..


GOP Blocked From Getting Up-or-Down Vote on Senate Health Care Bill
By Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
March 18, 2010, 3:28 p.m.
PrintPrint
E-MailE-Mail
ReprintsReprints
Decrease Text SizeIncrease Text SizeText Size
Latest News

* Subpoenas Target Nevada Firms That Donated to NRSC
* Obama Fails to Sway Lynch
* Senate Democrats Building Broad Message Campaign
* Kaptur Urges Separate Vote on Stupak Language
* GOP Move to Scold Democrats for Procedural Wrangling Fails

The House Republican effort to force an up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill failed on Thursday, but not before attracting support from a handful of Democrats.

Members voted 222-203 to pass a previous question on a rule that was unrelated to the health care reform bill â a move that effectively blocked the Republican resolution that would have forced the up-or-down vote on the Senate bill and stopped Democrats from deeming it as passed.

Had the previous question failed, the Republican resolution would have gotten a vote.

More on the link.....


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You ARE aware that republicans have used "deem & pass", aren't you?
> 
> ******
> The GOP used self-executing rules [i.e., Deem and Pass] 35 times in 2005-2006 alone (the last time the Republicans ran the House). Back then *Democrats sued to end the practice* and the GOP defended it in court. Ornstein asks: "Is there no shame any more?" Well ... no.
> [


Sure I do but it was for the most part only to pass the Budget. Not to control 1/6 of the economy~!
And looks like the Dem's did not like it and sued.
BUT now it IS good and they will do it come heck or high water.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> It's also known as the "self-executing rule".
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-executing_rule


thanks for that term... since I know anyone can update wikipedia - I decided to get the document...

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

this is about the 2nd or 3rd paragraph - this alone would keep a true roll call of the Senate version...

Definition of âSelf-Executingâ Rule. One of the newer types is called a âselfexecutingâ
rule; it embodies a âtwo-for-oneâ procedure. This means that when the House
adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is
specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete
policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to
be taken up. *The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will
lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the âself-executedâ*
provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this
sort contain customary, or âboilerplate,â language, such as: âThe amendment printed in
[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole.â


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> this is where I first mentioned foreing treaties and was assured it meant Native American type Indians.... but, it's kept nagging at me. So, more research...
> 
> The 3-15-10 reconcillation proposed bill - page 205 at the bottom is where it talks of foreign treaties, etc. It refers to Section 894 of IRS Code of 1986.
> So, I found that -
> ...


I'm missing your point, I guess... 
Like I said (post #603),


> So far as the part you're referencing, I'm sure they _do_ have to have protocol for dealing with foreign companies who employ people within the US.
> But again, I'm just not seeing anything particularly suspicious. It's just like the tax code with people who pay taxes on income made from foreign companies.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I learn more.....

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2010/03/16/the-self-executing-rule-and-the-health-care-bill.htm




> In this case, as Liberal Politics Guide Deborah White explains, the self-executing rule would be adopted for the House's consideration of the bill containing the negotiated changes and "fixes" to the Senate-approved health care reform bill. The rule - if passed by the House - would stipulate that by passing the changes and fixes the House also "deems" the Senate bill to have passed. *The Senate would then consider the revised health care bill using the reconciliation process, which would prevent Republicans from blocking its passage with a filibuster.*




http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/reconciliation.htm
about the 2nd or 3rd paragraph down...



> Budget reconciliation is a process that temporarily modifies the legislative process in the U.S. Senate by eliminating the possibility of a filibuster against a bill. Under the traditional rules of the Senate, debate on bills has no time limit and 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster, thus ending debate on a bill and bringing it to a final vote. When a bill is considered under the rules of budget reconciliation, d*ebate is limited to 20 hours and ending debate requires only a simple 51-vote majority. In the House of Representatives, debate on all bills and amendments is subject to strictly enforced time limits, thus filibusters are not allowed.*



Okay - Nevada - I've done my research and now I see why this is just a way to keep people (non-believers in this bill of either party, this time Reps) from being able to fillabuster. So Dems may be trying to "temporarily modify the legistative process" so they can GET THEIR WAY.


now I know.

Angie


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Ambereyes said:


> Yep, we are all on the hook for the ones that don't pay, lets make sure the insurance companies prosper!!


That's the way it _currently_ is... :shrug:


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

the last article had this also..



> Congress created the budget reconciliation process in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as a method of reducing federal spending, reducing the deficit and streamlining the process of considering budget and tax-related legislation. For example, budget reconciliation *was used to pass major deficit reduction and tax-cutting legislation under both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.*




A president from both parties.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Sure I do but it was for the most part only to pass the Budget. Not to control 1/6 of the economy~!


Why should the magnitude of the bill make a difference?



arabian knight said:


> And looks like the Dem's did not like it and sued.
> BUT now it IS good and they will do it come heck or high water.


So the court said deem & pass is legal, and democrats had to live with that decision. Why should that bar then from using it?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/reconciliation.htm

further down the page, and this is public documentation....
I think many of us will be interested in this portion


*What Budget Reconciliation is NOT*
Creators of the budget reconciliation process did not intend for it to be used as a loophole in the legislative process allowing the majority party to pass controversial social policy bills. To prevent that, Sen. Robert Byrd (D - West Virginia), helped craft six conditions -- the Byrd rule -- under which any part of a reconciliation bill could be ruled "extraneous" to or having no effect on the federal budget and excluded from consideration under the rules of budget reconciliation.

The Byrd Rule
Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering bills determined to be extraneous to the federal budget under the relaxed rules of budget reconciliation. Specifically, under the Byrd rule, budget reconciliation may not be used for bills that:

* do not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

* produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision (the bill);

* are outside the jurisdiction of the congressional committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

* increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision's title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee's reconciliation instructions;

* increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral (neither increases nor decreases spending or revenue);

* contain recommendations regarding the OASDI (social security) trust funds.

Senators who object to the consideration of any part of a bill under the rules of budget reconciliation may offer an amendment striking the measure from the bill. Alternatively, a senator may raise a point of order (objection) against the measure under the Byrd rule.

*From 1985 to 2008, Senators had used the Byrd rule to raise objections (points of order) to the consideration of bills under the rules of budget reconciliation 53 times. According to a Congressional Research Service report, the objections were upheld in 43 of the 53 cases.*
Also See:

* The US Legislative Process
* The Federal Budget Process
* About the Legislative Branch

Related Articles

* 2000 Federal Budget Status - U.S. Government Info/Resources
* The Federal Budget Process, pg. 4 - 10/17/99
* U.S. Legislative Process
* Government Shutdown? - U.S. Government Info/Resources - Date: 10/24/99
* Senate Votes for Lower Tax Cuts

Robert Longley

Robert Longley
US Government Info Guide

* Sign up for my Newsletter

* My Blog
* My Forum

Sponsored Links

Reconciliation processHealth Care in Congress Grade Members of Congresswww.gradegov.com

The Reconciliation LeaderLearn how we standardize & control the entire reconciliation process.www.BlackLine.com

Help Stop ReconciliationHelp stop Reconciliation and put an end to ObamaCare!FreedomWorks.org/NoReconciliation

Tax Problems?Cook & Co. CPA's, Enrolled Agents & Accredited Tax Advisors in Arabwww.CooKco.us

IRS Tax Debt ReliefYou could reduce tax debt to a fraction. Fast, Free Quote.FreedomFinancialNetwork.com

Tax Problems? Lien? Levy?Warning-If You Owe The IRS Over $15,000 And Cant Pay, Read Thiswww.ustaxsolutionsinc.com

Advertisement


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Then please explain why deem & pass is a big deal?


If this happens you just get ready to scream the next time the repubs have control of the senate, house and white house. I can tell you they will remember this and will ram stuff through which will make you demand an armed revolution.

BTW, if you read the USC you might just see what the big deal is.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

If something is genuinely unConstitutional, that's what the Supreme Court is _for_. 
I have complete and utter faith in the Founders plan for the testing of Constitutionality. And if they find it unConstitutional, so be it. That's the way it's _supposed_ to work.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> That's the way it _currently_ is... :shrug:


How do you figure that? What is the basis?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ErinP said:


> If something is genuinely unConstitutional, that's what the Supreme Court is _for_.
> I have complete and utter faith in the Founders plan for the testing of Constitutionality. And if they find it unConstitutional, so be it. That's the way it's _supposed_ to work.


The people we elect to the Congress have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is the foundational document that should guide their every move. It it, we find their job descriptions and the rules by which they do their jobs. It is their responsibility to understand and abide by the restrictions put upon them in that document. The function of the Supreme Court is to check their actions in the event they fail to do their job properly. Our job as citizens is to make sure we elect people who have the integrity necessary to do the job properly, and to replace them when they fail to do so.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> If something is genuinely unConstitutional, that's what the Supreme Court is _for_.
> I have complete and utter faith in the Founders plan for the testing of Constitutionality. And if they find it unConstitutional, so be it. That's the way it's _supposed_ to work.


Is that like robbing a bank to give to the homeless, and then letting the courts decide if you did good, or go to jail?


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

ErinP said:


> If something is genuinely unConstitutional, that's what the Supreme Court is _for_.
> I have complete and utter faith in the Founders plan for the testing of Constitutionality. And if they find it unConstitutional, so be it. That's the way it's _supposed_ to work.


Waiting to defend the Constitution until an act is utterly and completely unConstitutional is how we've gotten where we are. What we NEED to do is protect against acts that are even a LITTLE unConstitutional _every time_ they come up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If this happens you just get ready to scream the next time the repubs have control of the senate, house and white house. I can tell you they will remember this and will ram stuff through which will make you demand an armed revolution.


To be accurate, I didn't say a word when the republicans did it. 



watcher said:


> BTW, if you read the USC you might just see what the big deal is.


The house can make it's own procedural rules. And let's not forget that the court ruled that it was okay.

But if you have something specific to reference in the constitution, please post about it.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> How do you figure that? What is the basis?


Experience?

People don't (or can't) pay their med. bills and it drives up prices of everything from x-rays to bandaids for those of us who _do_.
My insurance premiums go up because people don't pay their med. bills. Consequently, _I_ get to. Because heaven knows we aren't dipping into profit margins...


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Waiting to defend the Constitution until an act is utterly and completely unConstitutional is how we've gotten where we are. What we NEED to do is protect against acts that are even a LITTLE unConstitutional _every time_ they come up.


What you guys seem to be ignoring is the fact that the Constitution is something that is dependent upon interpretation. 
Afterall, there's a reason those nine people in black dresses _rarely_ all agree when handing down decisions. 

What one person (Senator, Congressman, etc) will swear is unConstitutional, someone else will think is perfectly within bounds.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Then please explain why deem & pass is a big deal?


Why is a simple Yes or No vote such a big deal?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Experience?
> 
> People don't (or can't) pay their med. bills and it drives up prices of everything from x-rays to bandaids for those of us who _do_.
> My insurance premiums go up because people don't pay their med. bills. Consequently, _I_ get to. Because heaven knows we aren't dipping into profit margins...


If you say so, but dead beats is a reason to steal from everyone else so the Hospitals will not raise costs. Now if we add this to Nevada's savings by not having those deductions from the taxes each year we really have a neat reason to have this proposed bill happen.


----------



## notenoughtime (Aug 13, 2007)

ErinP, I don't understand your statement that "insurance premiums go up if people don't pay their bills"? The insurance companies set their fee schedule what they will pay for indivi. that have a policy with their company. If someone doesn't pay their bill that affects the facility they owe the monies to. Which may cause a higher cost to people without insurance to cover the loss.But not sure what you mean by your statement.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

There is a coup afoot.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Experience?
> 
> People don't (or can't) pay their med. bills and it drives up prices of everything from x-rays to bandaids for those of us who _do_.
> My insurance premiums go up because people don't pay their med. bills. Consequently, _I_ get to. Because heaven knows we aren't dipping into profit margins...


Please tell me what the average hospital profit margin?

And the average health insurance company profit margin?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Please tell me what the average hospital profit margin?
> 
> And the average health insurance company profit margin?


I'll answer my own question, so you won't have to look it up...the average profit margin for hospitals rose in 2009 (2008 was 0%) to 3.1%.

The average profit for health insurance companies in 2009 is 3.4%.


Next time, y'all might want to check your facts a mite...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Why is a simple Yes or No vote such a big deal?


It will get a Yes or No vote. It's just that there won't be a separate vote for the senate version and the reconciliation. They will both be covered under one vote.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

One thing I want to say and do before we find out what happens....


Erin and Nevada - thank you for making me dig for what I believe and why. If you'd not been posting the things you have, I probably would not have researched them and learned so much.

Thank you for being civil during this exchange of ideas, opinions and information so we can continue to communicate and not just throw words on a screen.

So, this is being a heck of a Civic's lesson.

And to the others, thanks for being in on my education also.

Angie


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Waiting to defend the Constitution until an act is utterly and completely unConstitutional is how we've gotten where we are. What we NEED to do is protect against acts that are even a LITTLE unConstitutional _every time_ they come up.


Are you forgetting that a court said it was constitutional?


----------



## JimB (Feb 1, 2010)

erinp and notenoughtime you both are wrong kinda. What you see is payers picking up the tab for non payers just what the gov. wants you to see. When in fact it is medicare and medicaids fault that prems are going up. Heres what I mean when you use medicare or medicaid to get a procedure they tell the doc how much they are going to pay period. So an expensive process that say costs 5,000 they only pay 1500 maybe and tells the doc take it or leave it. So guess who pays the other 3500 everyone else. These programs were started as a good thing now there being abused.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It will get a Yes or No vote. It's just that there won't be a separate vote for the senate version and the reconciliation. They will both be covered under one vote.


And what would be the purpose of doing that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> And what would be the purpose of doing that?


Streamlining the process. Less votes, so less arm twisting.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

No ability for R's to filabuster.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> I'll answer my own question, so you won't have to look it up...the average profit margin for hospitals rose in 2009 (2008 was 0%) to 3.1%.
> 
> The average profit for health insurance companies in 2009 is 3.4%.
> 
> ...


What facts are in dispute?? 



notenoughtime said:


> The insurance companies set their fee schedule what they will pay for indivi. that have a policy with their company.


True.


> If someone doesn't pay their bill that affects the facility they owe the monies to.


True again. (Which is why they must raise costs for those of us who _will_/can pay.) 



> Which may cause a higher cost to people without insurance to cover the loss.But not sure what you mean by your statement.


It also causes a higher premium for those of us who are insured. (I realize those who are insured through employers might not see it as often, but insurance rates go up regularly, and this is a big part of why)



AngieM2 said:


> If you say so, but dead beats is a reason to steal from everyone else so the Hospitals will not raise costs.


I would hardly call those who are bankrupted by medical bills "deadbeats"...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> No ability for R's to filabuster.


That's more of a concern in the senate than the house.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Thank you for being civil during this exchange of ideas, opinions and information so we can continue to communicate and not just throw words on a screen.


I really appreciate those who've been civil, also. 
I'm also glad the mods didn't move this down to GC as I make it a rule not to go down there and wouldn't have participated otherwise.


----------



## notenoughtime (Aug 13, 2007)

JimB so do you think that the difference actually goes to the docs? I don't have any knowledge about the hospitals so I won't go there. If a doc takes a medicare/or medicaid patient and they charge 100.00 and they only allow 50.00 the doc writes off the other 50.00. Noone gets that other 50.00 it is a write off. Now if there is a test that medicare does not deem necessary and the patient signs a advance beneficary notice saying they understand it is not covered then the doc can charge the patient for that test. Just curious if you are thinking someone else actually pays for that write off to the doc? Scratch this although the information that I used as an example is correct, I talked with dh and now understand what you are saying. My misunderstanding.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> What facts are in dispute??
> 
> 
> True.
> ...


The facts are in an aside you wrote about profit margins.

I know what it takes to deliver the level of care people expect - at least in my specialty. I know what my overhead is, both personnel costs and more fixed costs such as technology and infrastructure. I write my own billing structure, with a jaundiced eye cast towards Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.

Let me give you a piece of informed opinion...there is now a region of the country where Walgreens will no longer accept medicaid...kinda reminds me of people with TriCare...most of the time, it ain't worth fooling with, so we won't take it. I look for this trend to accelerate nationwide.

Obama may gin up coverage for x number of Americans...he may even create a public option...we may have a multitude of people covered with an insurance no decent healthcare provider can afford to take.

Faster, cheaper, better...pick any two you want...


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> That's more of a concern in the senate than the house.


But it the Senate version bill is Deem'd passed, it blocks any fillabuster on that site to no more than 20 hours.

Please see the pages I posted about it on page 24 of this thread.

also, there is the Bryd amendment/bill whatever that limits the use of the deem and pass... function.

Angie


(info contained in post 695 and 697 of page 24 of this thread)


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> The facts are in an aside you wrote about profit margins.


So you think they DON'T raise premiums and instead it comes out of the insurance company's profit margin??

Because that was my only point... :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Obama may gin up coverage for x number of Americans...he may even create a public option...we may have a multitude of people covered with an insurance no decent healthcare provider can afford to take.
> 
> Faster, cheaper, better...pick any two you want...


And maybe we'll learn to do more with less, like the Japanese did.

Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

_Everybody_ pays less for their health care than we do! lol (They just manage to cover _far_ more people in the process)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I've noticed that the claim that Americans don't want this bill have cooled-off since the latest Wall Street Journal poll. There are now 46% who want the health care bill to pass with 45% who don't.

That's a big deal, and it sends a message to democrats in congress that there may be a political price to pay for not voting in favor of the bill.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

And almost the same percentage (if we use your numbers) that won't have a job if they do vote Yea.....


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Clearly, the majority of Americans do not want Congress to mess with our insurance plans. Why does Congress mess with something that most Americans do not want? As we've had more time to hear about the items in the bill, Americans have become less favorable to these (horrible, in my opinion) changes.



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


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Streamlining the process. Less votes, so less arm twisting.


It this is a good bill, why is there any need for arm twisting? It seems to me that the President should be able to make his case for the legislation, and convince at least the members of his own party to support it. Why so much trouble getting it passed?


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

A FOX poll just measured that 55% of Americans do NOT want this bill while 35% support it. I hope this results in a lot of lost offices for politicians.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

There is a video on utube called "truth about goverment healthcare" . It states the facts then the pages. I'd have brought it over for you,but downloaded foxfire, noe my computer is messed up.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I've noticed that the claim that Americans don't want this bill have cooled-off since the latest Wall Street Journal poll. There are now 46% who want the health care bill to pass with 45% who don't.
> 
> That's a big deal, and it sends a message to democrats in congress that there may be a political price to pay for not voting in favor of the bill.


Oh really? I haven't noticed any cooling off. I'll still make that "claim". The poll results to which you refer break down as follows:

Pass Obamacare - 46%
Keep the current system - 45%
Neither / Not sure - 9%

On the surface, that looks like a pretty even split, giving Obamacare a slight majority. Of course, you have to look past the surface to really understand. It's a known fact that Americans believe something needs to be done to improve what we currently have. It's reasonable then to assume that many of the 9% who voted Neither / Not sure are actually voting "Neither". They want something changed, but they don't want Obamacare. If even 2% voted Neither, that would put Obamacare back in the minority. Chances are, the actual number is higher than 2%.

To bolster that position, I would point to the following article:



> > *Obama agenda: Breaking down the poll *
> > Posted: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:23 AM by Domenico Montanaro
> > Filed Under: Barack Obama
> >
> > ...


I'm thinking that 48% calling it a "bad idea" is less than the ringing endoresement you were hoping for.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

You know what REALLY bothers me.

The news reports are all still saying...

The vote is now on Sunday BUT THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN CAUSE THE VOTE WILL NOT BE CALLED UNTIL THE DEMS 'KNOW' THEY HAVE THE VOTE.

So, what if they don't know on Sunday, does it go on to Monday? I mean the Pres is so concerned that he put off this trip he's suppose to be on until June.

So, they are so darn afraid, and so darn determined and that they cannot call a vote until they think they will win.
What COWARDS.


Wouldn't it be funny in an ironic way, if they think they have the vote to pass, and it gets to the actual vote and the ones they 'think' are in the pocket to go yes - they start voting NO in droves......


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Are you forgetting that a court said it was constitutional?


Here is what Stanford law professor and former federal appeals court judge Michael W. McConnell said about it in the WSJ:



> It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. . . . According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a âBillâ to âbecome a Law,â it âshall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senateâ and be âpresented to the President of the United Statesâ for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has âpassedâ both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.
> 
> To be sure, each House of Congress has power to âdetermine the Rules of its Proceedings.â Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.


Personally, I think it might be worth revisiting this in court. I've never heard of this particular rule until now, and I firmly believe it is unconstitutional. I don't care how many times it's been used in the past, or which party used it. I'm fine over-turning any law that has previously been passed in this manner. The integrity of our Constitutional process is much more important than any individual bill.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> _Everybody_ pays less for their health care than we do! lol (They just manage to cover _far_ more people in the process)


Yes and at a TRUE cost of 2.4 Trillion~!
Lets get the True Cost of this out, and not those fabricated ones. That say it saves money. That is so much bunk, and besides even those figures are only preliminary.
And will bankrupt this country in 4 years.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Personally, I think it might be worth revisiting this in court. I've never heard of this particular rule until now, and I firmly believe it is unconstitutional.


So let me get this straight. The rule has been used hundreds of times and has even been challenged in court. In fact, the republicans defended it in court, and the court sided with the republicans. Now democrats want to use it so you want to see the rule challenged again, this time with the republicans arguing against it. Is that right so far?

Is there no limit to republican hypocrisy? Is there no shame? The simple fact that republicans used that same rule successfully to get their way should be enough to back-off.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Yes and at a TRUE cost of 2.4 Trillion~!
> Lets get the True Cost of this out, and not those fabricated ones. That say it saves money. That is so much bunk, and besides even those figures are only preliminary.
> And will bankrupt this country in 4 years.


You're challenging the CBO?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> So let me get this straight. *The rule has been used hundreds of times *and has even been challenged in court. In fact, the republicans defended it in court, and the court sided with the republicans. Now democrats want to use it so you want to see the rule challenged again, this time with the republicans arguing against it. Is that right so far?
> 
> Is there no limit to republican hypocrisy? Is there no shame? The simple fact that republicans used that same rule successfully to get their way should be enough to back-off.




From 1985 to 2008, Senators had used the Byrd rule to raise objections (points of order) to the consideration of bills under the rules of budget reconciliation *53 times*. According to a Congressional Research Service report, *the objections were upheld in 43 of the 53 cases.* 
*from my post a page or two back about using this rule..

other times must have been before 1985 and after 2008. Of the ones listed here, it held a Net 10 times.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You're challenging the CBO?


http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1524-five-reasons-the-cbo-figures-are-phony

You darn right, as many others are now doing the same thing. It is nothing but a rouse, and playing with facts and figures to make it Look Like it is something good when it is flat out a huge cost on the government and a huge tax on its people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> I'm thinking that 48% calling it a "bad idea" is less than the ringing endoresement you were hoping for.


But that won't necessarily translate into votes on November. You see, after this passes Americans will see that no one is killing their grandmothers. At that point I believe that Americans will see the republican lies for what they are.

I think democrats will lose some seats in November, but only because some of the traditionally republican districts have the bad taste of Bush out of their mouths enough to vote republican again.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> You darn right, as many others are now doing the same thing. It is nothing but a rouse, and playing with facts and figures to make it Look Like it is something good when it is flat out a huge cost on the government and a huge tax on its people.


But the whole point of the CBO was to create a politically neutral entity, and the idea was that no one was to challenge that. So now that their opinion cuts the other way and you throw them under a bus? Have you no shame at all?

But regardless of your shame, other than the fact that you don't like the CBO's conclusion, what reason to you have to distrust the CBO opinion?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Just wait till 1,000's of what you just said "Grandmothers" come tomorrow and march on Washington~!
There is a bunch coming from Florida and from all over the USA to STOP this, what will end up, if passed will Ration Health Care, which Puts "Grandma and Grandpa in trouble.
And killing them off earlier. So much for aarp.
If you notice aarp has been very very quite during the last few weeks.
Geesh I wonder why? They have been put on notice by the grandmas and grandpas.
And the ONLY reason AARP spoke up at first THEY were thinking THEY would get the exclusive distributor of health care. So much for that thinking.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> To be accurate, I didn't say a word when the republicans did it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hum. . .interesting. I wonder what would happen if the next time the repubs get control they change the rules saying that to pass a bill you only need 10 votes in each house of congress. I don't think the USC says anything about needing a majority.

I can't help but think of taxation w/o representation. Poll after poll after poll shows less than 50% of the people want this passed. If the people wanted this it would have passed in 30 days. Note how quickly the extension of unemployment payments went through.

I will tell you this, I'm worried, very worried. I keep my eye on extreme groups on all sides and I can tell you if you think the militia group movement was bad during Clinton and 'code pink' was bad under Bush you ain't seen nothing if this passes this way. A lot of people out there do not trust the federal government and seeing this rammed through this way is going to make more people think the feds are completely out of control. If you don't believe me just spend an evening doing a few google searches.


----------



## Ohiogal (Mar 15, 2007)

Its a bad bill because it does nothing to encourage a reduction in cost, other than denying healthcare to the elderly via a reduction in services due to "cost".
NOTHING in DC is done "non profit". What they aren't talking about is how on paper it looks "good" but in reality, it will be an enormous program that has many many cost overruns due to the bureacratic mess that it will create!
Take the latest boondoggle, the 2010 Census. Its already 3X over budget, in just a few months. Can you imagine what is going to happen with healthcare? And when/if it passe, they aren't done with making laws about it - more restraint and more taxes are to come.
Do you all have any confidence that the same gov't that runs SS, and Medicare, both in near insolvency, will have the ability to run this program? 
I think not. To "them" the solution is more taxes to pay for the excess, of which most of us already can't afford to pay because of the situation with jobs and the declining value of the dollar.
What we are voting away is our freedom to make our own choice on where we put our money for our own health, and also putting ourselves under a tyrannical rule. Hello, England. King George would approve.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've noticed that the claim that Americans don't want this bill have cooled-off since the latest Wall Street Journal poll. There are now 46% who want the health care bill to pass with 45% who don't.
> 
> That's a big deal, and it sends a message to democrats in congress that there may be a political price to pay for not voting in favor of the bill.


You know as well as I do if the numbers were any where that close this bill would have been signed into law MONTHS ago. Why are the dems stopping the bill? Its because they KNOW the bill is a career killer for a lot of them.

Remember its not the repubs stopping this bill, they can't. Its the dems doing it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're challenging the CBO?


Seeing as how the bill doesn't even have a final form how can the CBO give accurate numbers?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You're challenging the CBO?


 Why don't you get the true numbers from the CBO? Instead of Nanny P's CBO figures??? So really I am challenging the Dem's and how they are reporting the CBO Figures.


> The Democrats are irresponsibly and disingenuously claiming that the bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years. But that's not what the CBO says. Rather, the CBO says that $871 billion would be the costs from 2010 to 2019 for expansions in insurance coverage alone. But less than 2 percent of those "10-year costs" would kick in before the fifth year of that span. In its real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), the CBO says that the bill would cost $1.8 trillion -- for insurance coverage expansions alone. Other parts of the bill would cost approximately $700 billion more,* bringing the bill's full 10-year tab to approximately $2.5 trillion -- according to the CBO.*


http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/cbo_real_10year_cost_of_senate.asp


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But the whole point of the CBO was to create a politically neutral entity, and the idea was that no one was to challenge that. So now that their opinion cuts the other way and you throw them under a bus? Have you no shame at all?
> 
> But regardless of your shame, other than the fact that you don't like the CBO's conclusion, what reason to you have to distrust the CBO opinion?


Can you show me where any on this board where someone who claims to be a conservative has used the CBO to support anything?

I have never trusted the CBO numbers on anything. They are like all the economic "experts" out there. How many times do you read/hear/watch a news story of how the economic experts were surprised/shocked when something they predicted turned out to be wrong?

AND the CBO numbers include the years when taxes, or sorry _fees_ are being paid in but nothing is being paid out. That's like a company giving an earnings prediction for the next 10 years but not counting labor cost for the first 3-5 years. Of course they are going to look like a great investment but would you invest in a company on that info?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Just wait till 1,000's of what you just said "Grandmothers" come tomorrow and march on Washington~!
> There is a bunch coming from Florida and from all over the USA to STOP this, what will end up, if passed will Ration Health Care, which Puts "Grandma and Grandpa in trouble.
> And killing them off earlier. So much for aarp.
> If you notice aarp has been very very quite during the last few weeks.
> ...


Its a stirght shot up I95 from a large part of FL to DC and the old people have time and money to make the trip and they VOTE.

I wish I had the time and money to make the trip. I'd be up there in person rather than working the phone/fax/email.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> And maybe we'll learn to do more with less, like the Japanese did.
> 
> Japanese Pay Less for More Health Care


We'll have to learn to do with less.

Internal polling among physicians shows approximately 5% will retire if this bill is enacted, which is slightly higher than the normal percentage of docs which retire each year. But the eye-opener occurs when looking at the longer picture, because 25% of docs say they will retire by the time the bill is fully enforced - 2014.

My friend, some pointy-headed Washington pol can pass whatever legislation he wishes to pass - apparently without input from his constituents, if this bill is the norm - but he can't make bricks from straw. You can throw wheelbarrows of money at the masses and tell them to go see a doctor, which does them absolutely no good, if there are no doctors who will see them.

Doctors are among the best and brightest people we produce. They *will* go where the money is at, if they are already in practice. Maybe cash only or some type of concierge medicine. They may change gears and pursue some other career, if they are not yet in med school or are recent grads.

The bottom line is: *You cannot legislate access, unless all parties are willing*.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> So let me get this straight. The rule has been used hundreds of times and has even been challenged in court. In fact, the republicans defended it in court, and the court sided with the republicans. Now democrats want to use it so you want to see the rule challenged again, this time with the republicans arguing against it. Is that right so far?
> 
> Is there no limit to republican hypocrisy? Is there no shame? The simple fact that republicans used that same rule successfully to get their way should be enough to back-off.


I've never defended this rule, since I was unaware of it until now. I'm more than willing to say the Republicans were wrong to use it, and to defend it in court. 

The Democrats brought a suit against it, and now they're defending the use of it. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're defending the use of the rule. Were the Democrats wrong to sue over the rule, or are they wrong to use it?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But that won't necessarily translate into votes on November. You see, after this passes Americans will see that no one is killing their grandmothers. At that point I believe that Americans will see the republican lies for what they are.


Sorry, but I've learned to not put a lot of faith in your predictions (Bush did leave office didn't he?). This part of the article might portend a different election outcome than you are expecting:



> "The survey found a 21-point enthusiasm gap between the parties, with 67% of Republicans saying they are very interested in the November elections, compared with 46% of Democrats."


It seems the Democrats in Congress (you know, the ones whose political careers depend on knowing which way the political winds are blowing) don't agree with you, or there wouldn't be a need for all the arm twisting that's going on.



Nevada said:


> I think democrats will lose some seats in November, but only because some of the traditionally republican districts have the bad taste of Bush out of their mouths enough to vote republican again.


Making excuses already? Maybe you don't have much faith in your predictions either.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Reading through this discussion, a question comes to mind to those who support the bill: if lower costs also meant lower _quality_ in healthcare, would you still support the bill? By quality, I mean less care options, fewer choices of medicines, packed waiting rooms/longer wait times for appointments, etc.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Jolly said:


> But the eye-opener occurs when looking at the longer picture, because 25% of docs say they will retire by the time the bill is fully enforced - 2014.


Great, those that became doctors only for the opportunity at big bucks shouldnt let the screen door hit them on the rear on way out. They werent real doctors anyway. I am sure some have salted away huge amounts of cash over the years. They can now live on it. The young doctors still have bills to pay and what are they going to do? Become lawyers, politicians, or perhaps just chase the latest economic bubble? McD pays even less than being a doctor so that isnt an option.

Everybody else got their good paying jobs exported or immigration flood gates opened for foreigners to come here that will work cheaper and drive down wages. Why should any sector of the society be protected from getting simularly screwed? Whats sacred about doctors or lawyers or politicians other than that they have lot political clout in Washington?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > You know that's not in the proposal.
> ...


 How about directly from the Vice President Bidens own mouth? "" Were Gonna Control the Insurance Companies.""
Would you believe it then? Play the video to hear it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/exclusive-vice-president-biden-says-obamas-cancelled-trip-not-a-bad-sign-for-health-care-bills-prosp.html


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

HermitJohn said:


> Great, those that became doctors only for the opportunity at big bucks shouldnt let the screen door hit them on the rear on way out. They werent real doctors anyway. I am sure some have salted away huge amounts of cash over the years. They can now live on it. The young doctors still have bills to pay and what are they going to do? Become lawyers, politicians, or perhaps just chase the latest economic bubble? McD pays even less than being a doctor so that isnt an option.
> 
> Everybody else got their good paying jobs exported or immigration flood gates opened for foreigners to come here that will work cheaper and drive down wages. Why should any sector of the society be protected from getting simularly screwed? Whats sacred about doctors or lawyers or politicians other than that they have lot political clout in Washington?


So when the doctors who care about making a decent return on their investment of time, labor, and money leave the profession for greener pastures, and all that's left are those who aren't concerned about money, how long will the lines be? How long with the waiting periods be to have surgery? How will the government handle the rationing of healthcare?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> So when the doctors who care about making a decent return on their investment of time, labor, and money leave the profession for greener pastures, and all that's left are those who aren't concerned about money, how long will the lines be? How long with the waiting periods be to have surgery? How will the government handle the rationing of healthcare?


Where do you think doctors are going to go?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Gentlemen - you are, aren't you?

This thread had made it a long ways on trying to have facts.

Now it appears to be turning into a GC type snap at each other, so probably will be closed soon.

I know that a discussion can happen between different sides - but if you're working to get this thread closed, you're doing pretty good. I cannot do it as this is Country Families and Melissa's rules - but I can see the leading up signs of it happening.

No one is really showing any proof, other than talking heads, there is that video - guess seeing someone say something is pretty much proof of him saying it - but
HAVE YOU READ THE DOCUMENT/s - CAN you substantiate what you are saying - or is this going from FACT to OPINION and snipping?

If the last - at least I've learned something that's real, but investigating and posting facts with links. Which most of the facts have ignored a few times today.

Angie


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > I think democrats will lose some seats in November, but only because some of the traditionally republican districts have the bad taste of Bush out of their mouths enough to vote republican again.
> ...


Your predictions have nothing to do with my belief. It has to do with a lifetime of watching political trends. Who would have guessed that the disgrace of Nixon/Ford could have worn-off in just 4 years? American voter memories are short.

But the republican seats won't come from long-time liberal democrats' seats, they'll come from blue-dog democrats' seats. That's because many traditionally republican districts elected conservative democrats out of disgust for Bush. Those districts will go back to republican representation soon, and we all should expect that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Reading through this discussion, a question comes to mind to those who support the bill: if lower costs also meant lower _quality_ in healthcare, would you still support the bill? By quality, I mean less care options, fewer choices of medicines, packed waiting rooms/longer wait times for appointments, etc.


Do you know for a fact that lower cost will translate into a lower quality of care?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Great, those that became doctors only for the opportunity at big bucks shouldnt let the screen door hit them on the rear on way out. They werent real doctors anyway. I am sure some have salted away huge amounts of cash over the years. They can now live on it. The young doctors still have bills to pay and what are they going to do? Become lawyers, politicians, or perhaps just chase the latest economic bubble? McD pays even less than being a doctor so that isnt an option.
> 
> Everybody else got their good paying jobs exported or immigration flood gates opened for foreigners to come here that will work cheaper and drive down wages. Why should any sector of the society be protected from getting simularly screwed? Whats sacred about doctors or lawyers or politicians other than that they have lot political clout in Washington?


Real doctors? They certainly have M.D. behind their name and are board certified. They certainly treat patients. I'd say that makes them doctors.

Let's talk about what it takes to become a physician:

1. You must have at least 3 years of college, although many institutions will only accept applications from college graduates.

2. It is not mandatory, but it helps to have a college degree very heavy in science. The guys I went to school with, that later attended medical school, typically had 20-30 hours chemistry with at least organic and biochem, 20-30 hours of biology with at least microbiology, comparative anatomy and embryology, along with 10-15 hours of physics and 9-12 hours of math with at least one course in calculus and one course in statistics.

3. You must have a good score on the MCAT.

4. If you are a white male, your GPA better be 3.5 or better. Slightly less for a white female. A black male could get in with about a 3.2. Black females slightly less. We used to joke the candidate with best chance of getting in was a one-legged, black, deaf Jewish woman.

5. You must pass an oral interview. Some candidates with good grades, a good MCAT and all the right courses still get turned down at this point.

6. If you do get in, get ready for 4 years of school where you will be absolutely broke and must borrow every penny for school and living expenses. Most guys borrow around $120K and add that to their undergrad debt.

7. Once you complete medical school, you will apply for your residency. Some of the less well-paying resdencies are only two years (family practice, peds) where you will be paid the princely sum of between $20-30K, depending on region...the longer residencies are usually 4 years, but some things like urology take 6. So it could easily be the case you don't hang out your shingle until you are 32 years old.


Now, if you want to screw with that pipeline, be my guest. But there are certain circumstances in everyone's life that require the services of a competent physician or death will usually occur.

Personally speaking, I'd like to have access to a doctor. Even if he's doing it for the money.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Do you know for a fact that lower cost will translate into a lower quality of care?


Yes.

I do.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Where do you think doctors are going to go?


Pharmacy school. A new PharmD is a $100K graduate.

CRNA. Average compensation is about $160K.

And so on....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Pharmacy school. A new PharmD is a $100K graduate.
> 
> CRNA. Average compensation is about $160K.
> 
> And so on....


Doctors will have no difficulty commanding $160K and above, with or without health care reform.


----------



## Ohiogal (Mar 15, 2007)

So the cat is out of the bag....as I said previously, a whole bunch of "new" legislation is planned, which will make this bill impossible to adminstrate without having serious budget overruns.

And, they are ALREADY lying to the American people. The CBO estimates are just that, an estimate based on a snapshot in time - with numbers given to them. My father has an old saying "figures don't lie, liars figure".

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall


----------



## Ohiogal (Mar 15, 2007)

And another...a lot of money has been allocated to programs that are basically a gentlemen's bribe. And the cuts on Medicaid are going to even higher that what is projected.

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/...ecord_id=db834f41-4e33-4f33-ac0b-ad2962bd5d4a

Gotta love that Hopey-Changey math we are dealing with!


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Your predictions have nothing to do with my belief. It has to do with a lifetime of watching political trends. Who would have guessed that the disgrace of Nixon/Ford could have worn-off in just 4 years? American voter memories are short.
> 
> But the republican seats won't come from long-time liberal democrats' seats, they'll come from blue-dog democrats' seats. That's because many traditionally republican districts elected conservative democrats out of disgust for Bush. Those districts will go back to republican representation soon, and we all should expect that.


I didn't know Ted Kennedy was a blue-dog.


----------



## Scott in Florida Panhandl (May 10, 2002)

deaconjim said:


> I didn't know Ted Kennedy was a blue-dog.


Twice! 
Once when swimming out of his submerged car at Chappaquiddick. The other,when he went to meet his maker.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Do you know for a fact that lower cost will translate into a lower quality of care?


No more than you know for a fact that it won't. 

But, let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that it would translate into lowered quality than we're accustomed to now. Would you still be in favor of the bill if it meant lower quality health care?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Its a stirght shot up I95 from a large part of FL to DC and the old people have time and money to make the trip and they VOTE.
> 
> I wish I had the time and money to make the trip. I'd be up there in person rather than working the phone/fax/email.


Watcher, you want me to find you a bus, it'll run about 100 bucks.(for the bus) Straight there and back. I don't understand why can't people see that this bill is just the beginning. Obama wants all Private HC out of Buisness. Period. He has said it. It's on tape.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Ohiogal said:


> So the cat is out of the bag....as I said previously, a whole bunch of "new" legislation is planned, which will make this bill impossible to adminstrate without having serious budget overruns.
> 
> And, they are ALREADY lying to the American people. The CBO estimates are just that, an estimate based on a snapshot in time - with numbers given to them. My father has an old saying "figures don't lie, liars figure".
> 
> http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall


Don't forget, the number of new IRS employees to make this bill work is estimated at 13,000.

Wonder what the average IRS guy makes?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Doctors will have no difficulty commanding $160K and above, with or without health care reform.


Uh, maybe not.

Canada has socialized medicine. Some Canadian figures for you:

http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/canadian-versus-american-physician.html


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Uh, maybe not.
> 
> Canada has socialized medicine. Some Canadian figures for you:
> 
> http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2007/10/canadian-versus-american-physician.html


My father was an internist who worked until the day he died. I mean that quite literally too, since he was getting ready for work one morning when he died suddenly at home. He was a few months shy of 80 years old.

He was always going to be a doctor, since that's who he was. He reached a point where he couldn't maintain a private practice any longer. He could have retired when he closed his practice, but that wasn't him. Instead, he went to work as a staff physician at a hyperbaric oxygen therapy clinic. I don't know what he earned there. It may not have been a whole lot for a doctor.

The point is that he wasn't going to leave medicine regardless of conditions. He made a lot of money during his life, but lower pay wouldn't have driven him away.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> My father was an internist who worked until the day he died. I mean that quite literally too, since he was getting ready for work one morning when he died suddenly at home. He was a few months shy of 80 years old.
> 
> He was always going to be a doctor, since that's who he was. He reached a point where he couldn't maintain a private practice any longer. He could have retired when he closed his practice, but that wasn't him. Instead, he went to work as a staff physician at a hyperbaric oxygen therapy clinic. I don't know what he earned there. It may not have been a whole lot for a doctor.
> 
> The point is that he wasn't going to leave medicine regardless of conditions. He made a lot of money during his life, but lower pay wouldn't have driven him away.












I'm not saying they will leave the medical field, they are. I can only take them at thier word. Another bothersome issue is how many won't enter the medical field after this passes.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Yes and at a TRUE cost of 2.4 Trillion~!
> Lets get the True Cost of this out, and not those fabricated ones. That say it saves money. That is so much bunk, and besides even those figures are only preliminary.
> And will bankrupt this country in 4 years.


Ummm... I was referring to what we _currently_ pay. 
_Currently_, we pay _far_ more than any other country on the planet for our government sponsored health care. Yet we only manage to cover a mere fraction of our population.
And if that doesn't tell you we're doing something _very_ wrong, I don't know what else would. :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> I'm not saying they will leave the medical field, they are. I can only take them at thier word. Another bothersome issue is how many won't enter the medical field after this passes.


My father would have probably answered those questions the same way, but not because he would ever leave medicine. He would have said those things because he was a life-long, dyed-in-the-wool republican.

We got along because he was only a fiscal conservative. But in his line of work he saw it all, so he had to be somewhat of a social liberal to not be judgmental. I would never have accused him of a thing that to his face, but he was.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> because 25% of docs say they will retire by the time the bill is fully enforced - 2014.


Quick FYI, _all_ professions will soon be losing a large percentage of their workforce for no other reason that the bulk of the Baby Boomers will be retiring/retired. (Which of course is a good thing for job-_seekers_)

Though I would _really_ like to read your info, if you have it handy.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> Reading through this discussion, a question comes to mind to those who support the bill: if lower costs also meant lower _quality_ in healthcare, would you still support the bill? By quality, I mean less care options, fewer choices of medicines, packed waiting rooms/longer wait times for appointments, etc.


But _everyone_ is covered?
Yes, I think it's a fair trade off.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Do you know for a fact that lower cost will translate into a lower quality of care?


In the same way you can not know for a fact that it will even lower cost I do not know for a fact. But I can tell you logic predicts it.

1) Look at simple supply and demand. There will be more people looking for service. According to you this is the very reason for this bill, is it not? As it stands right now there are not enough doctors in a lot of places. And there will not be more doctors for many more years, unless we lower the standards which would lead to lower quality care. But with more people looking for more service and the doctors being the same or less the doctors are going to need to see more people per day. This means less time per person per visit. Shove them in, shove them out. This going to lead to lower quality care because the doc will have to make snap judgments and not have time to really explain the treatment plan.

2) The way the plan is set up most healthy people are going to be better off financially to just pay the fees/fines and NOT pay for insurance until they get sick. Then when they get sick they can get insurance, no matter how sick. This means the pool of healthy people paying in and not drawing out is not going to grow. So you are going to have a lot of sick people sucking at the medical care teat and there is only so much milk. This means someone is going to have to do with less than they need. Either, as in nature, the runts (sickest) will die or the entire litter (all the sick people) will be stunted.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> Real doctors? They certainly have M.D. behind their name and are board certified. {rest of post cut for brevity}




Now _this_ I find intriguing...

Most of the physicians I've dealt with in the last 20 years have NOT been MDs. They've been physician's assistants or nurse practitioners. 
Such is life in rural America. I've never thought much of it actually.

But that begs the question: How many of you DON'T deal with PAs/NPs most of the time?? (BTW, PAs are making $150K, even in rural Nebraska, so I can only _guess_ at what docs are making!! lol)


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Doctors will have no difficulty commanding $160K and above, with or without health care reform.


And how much will go to malpractice insurance? W/o tort reform you can "fix" the health insurance all you want but prices will keep going up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> And how much will go to malpractice insurance? W/o tort reform you can "fix" the health insurance all you want but prices will keep going up.


And how much will malpractice insurance drop WITH tort reform? I'll help you out here; none, in fact it will still go up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Watcher, you want me to find you a bus, it'll run about 100 bucks.(for the bus) Straight there and back. I don't understand why can't people see that this bill is just the beginning. Obama wants all Private HC out of Buisness. Period. He has said it. It's on tape.


If I could afford to get away I probably wouldn't need any money to get there. All I'd have to do is stand on the side of the interstate with a sign saying "Need a ride to DC to help stop the health care bill" and I'd have someone stop in 10 minutes. Coming home late last night I saw no less than two vehicles which were clearly heading to DC. One of them was a panel van which someone had taken a LOT of time to paint just what they felt about the bill on it.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> I'm not saying they will leave the medical field, they are. I can only take them at thier word. Another bothersome issue is how many won't enter the medical field after this passes.


Actually, if you look at that again, _they_ aren't saying they'd leave, either. 
They said they'd _consider_ leaving or early retirement. There's a big difference.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> And how much will malpractice insurance drop WITH tort reform? I'll help you out here; none, in fact it will still go up.


The same way auto insurance drops when you reach a certain age. If the odds of an insurance segment having to pay out goes down there will be some company which will offer lower premiums. Once one company does it others will have to follow, not all but enough.

But I'm talking about medical cost across the board. If your father was a doc you should have some MDs who will talk honestly with you. Ask them how many test they order which are not really needed medically but are needed as CYA if they get sued. 

Example. You take a kid into the doc. You know the kid has strep, the nurse knows the kid has strep, the doctor knows the kid has strep. Now what does the doctor do? He gives you a script for antibiotics *AND* orders a throat culture. Why? Because just in case its some 1 in 1,000,000 chance it isn't strep and the kid gets sicker and the parents sue him he has in the records that he was not negligent because he ordered a culture. So we, that's a general "we", are spending probably millions of dollars extra for all these medically unneeded throat cultures because the doctor needs to CYA.

And before you jump on your 'the docs are just doing it to make more money' band wagon. I can tell you that you are wrong. They even do this at all the "family clinics" (NPO and state ran) I have ever had dealings with. Its the same they have to have records showing they covered all the bases just in case.


----------



## fetch33 (Jan 15, 2010)

The Massachusetts State Treasurer is on Glenn Beck right now. Massachusetts health care is the 'experiement' that the ObamaCare plan is based on. He said the cost for the health care in his state have increased over 50% in the last 2 years and they have only been able to stay out of bankruptcy because the federal government has foot the bill. He said America would be bankrupt in 4 years if they implement the bill.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The same way auto insurance drops when you reach a certain age. If the odds of an insurance segment having to pay out goes down there will be some company which will offer lower premiums. Once one company does it others will have to follow, not all but enough.
> 
> But I'm talking about medical cost across the board. If your father was a doc you should have some MDs who will talk honestly with you. Ask them how many test they order which are not really needed medically but are needed as CYA if they get sued.
> 
> ...


The truth is that we have tort reform here in Nevada. It hasn't lowered malpractice insurance rate and it hasn' made health care any more affordable. What it has done is to strip the most vulnerable people in society of fair settlements to help them get by. The horror stories are so striking that the legislature is considering overturning the tort limits.

Are you sure that you've thought this all the way through?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You keep talking about Nevada and its tort reform Well Tort Reform has to part of the Over All Package not just on its own to bring prices down. 
So again it is not the same, when you combine tort reform into ALL the other things as well to Lower costs.
Now there is not tort reform going to happen why, because of the trial lawyers ini the pocket of the dem's...
Truth hurts but lets get the truth out in the open where it belongs.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I think it is about time for people again or those that have not seen it to watch the movie *"The Distinguished Gentleman"*.
Talking about tort reform there is a very good lone from that movie.
"If you are against it I Have Money From The Drug Companies.
If you Are For It I Have money From The Trail Lawyers Association."
There is a whole lot of truth in that movie, Way More Then some may think until they watch it as it shows what goes on and the why and how things are what and why they are. And how they get that way. MONEY~!!!!!!!
Follow the MONEY get the truth...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> You keep talking about Nevada and its tort reform Well Tort Reform has to part of the Over All Package not just on its own to bring prices down.
> So again it is not the same, when you combine tort reform into ALL the other things as well to Lower costs.
> Now there is not tort reform going to happen why, because of the trial lawyers ini the pocket of the dem's...
> Truth hurts but lets get the truth out in the open where it belongs.


So the fact that it's failing in Nevada doesn't bother you in the least?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> So the fact that it's failing in Nevada doesn't bother you in the least?


 No not at all because it has to be combined with Other Cost Saving measures.
And how about you? You don't mind if the health care system in the State of Mass, after which ObamaCare is modeled after is failing? And would have been bankrupted 2 years ago had the FEDERAL government not helped out with a large amount of money?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> No not at all because it has to be combined with Other Cost Saving matters.


But the point is that it's not saving anything here. It's the same old story; the wealthy get wealthier, but we pay even more for medical care.



arabian knight said:


> And how about you? You don't mind if the health care system in the State of Mass, after which ObamaCare is modeled after is failing? And would have been bankrupted 2 years ago had the FEDERAL government not helped out with a large amount of money?


I was told yesterday that we needed to start with a few states to test the democratic ideas. When I suggested that Mass. was a good test I was told that it wasn't similar enough. You need to get your stories straight.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Just wanted to make sure everyone was reading the same bill (didn't go through all the pages on this thread to verify).

There's a link to the House reconciliation bill, dated 3/18, which is only 153 pages.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/03/18/house-reconciliation-bill-full-text/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But the point is that it's not saving anything here. It's the same old story; the wealthy get wealthier, but we pay even more for medical care.
> 
> 
> 
> I was told yesterday that we needed to start with a few states to test the democratic ideas. When I suggested that Mass. was a good test I was told that it wasn't similar enough. You need to get your stories straight.


It is a Failure just like the national program will be.
If this passes on Sunday all you will be able to do is go and cry in your beer, cause this country is done for.
Then next week the Obama administration instead of working on the economy oh no they are going to work on immigration~!
Boy that ruined the Bush administration what in the world is Obama trying to do to this country? Sink it so fast there will be no turning back?
Sink it so fast nobody will be able to get it back on the correct path again?
You think the people are ticked now, just wait for the 30 million ILLEGALS to get Amnesty~!!!!!
That will if this health care did not sink obama's poll numbers even lower this amnesty will instead of getting America back to work~!
It sure will ensure Obama one term. 
And we will have what the rest of the world is doing. The Government is in control of everything the heck with the people.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Just wanted to make sure everyone was reading the same bill (didn't go through all the pages on this thread to verify).
> 
> There's a link to the House reconciliation bill, dated 3/18, which is only 153 pages.
> 
> http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/03/18/house-reconciliation-bill-full-text/


Don't be taken into a false hope. 
The reconciliation bill is only part. There will be the Senate version and parts of the house one also included when they do that Slight Of Hand no vote thingy called the Slaughter Amendment, in case they don't have the VOTES to pass the Entire Health Bill.
They will the use this Slaughter Amendment part, and Pass the reconciliation bill, and all the other bills Follow with it and also get passed without Voting on them in separate votes.
Don't get the wool pulled over your eyes thinking that the Reconciliation bill is the only thing that gets passed. cause it is not everything else also passes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> It is a Failure just like the national program will be.
> If this passes on Sunday all you will be able to do is go and cry in your beer, cause this country is done for.


What makes you think health care reform will be a failure, and why do you think this country is "done for" if health care reform passes? Please, can you try to be specific about the reasons you believe those things?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Now _this_ I find intriguing...
> 
> Most of the physicians I've dealt with in the last 20 years have NOT been MDs. They've been physician's assistants or nurse practitioners.
> Such is life in rural America. I've never thought much of it actually.
> ...


Not a lot more, look up the specialties.

No, guys hire NP's because the *government will reimburse at a higher rate for a NP visit than for a doctor's visit!* They make more money off of the government that way.

You know, the same folks that want to run healthcare? Cut out fraud and abuse...the same fraud and abuse they haven't been able to cut out before?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

What has the government ever done good?
SS Broke
Medicare Broke
Medicaid Broke
Post Office no explanation needed there, it is was goner from years back.
The Drug Program a nightmare
The VA bad in many areas and places. Needs to be fix big time.
Taxes if a person adds them all up most are up around 50 to 55% of what they make. 
Government taking over student loans, no more going to a private institution to get a loan for school 
GMC Government Motors. Nothing else needs to be said.
The Jobs bill that was just signed is Only For a small segment of workers. Will not do one thing for Joe Blow who owns a small business.
And stimulus packages have been a complete failure. A huge amount of vehicles people traded in and got new ones only gained 1 possibly 2 more MPG. Boy that saved a lot of gas in this country didn't it?
The so called Green Jobs that Obama got up and running now most of them have gone Over Seas Making those people happy and working and earning a paycheck.
If this Health Bill passes and according to Biden himself. "We Will Take Over The Insurance Companies". Nice for freedom there now isn't it? Many will close there doors on that move.

Do you want me to go on?
I could post more if you want. But right now I am getting sore wrists.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Quick FYI, _all_ professions will soon be losing a large percentage of their workforce for no other reason that the bulk of the Baby Boomers will be retiring/retired. (Which of course is a good thing for job-_seekers_)
> 
> Though I would _really_ like to read your info, if you have it handy.


Sure.

_(CNSNews.com) - Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to âdeteriorateâ and it could be the âfinal strawâ that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine.

More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent.

The medical journal published the results in its March and April edition, saying: âWhile a sudden loss of half of the nations physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health reform.â

Kevin Perpetua, managing partner for the Medicus Firm, reported that a reform bill could be âthe final strawâ in an already financially precarious industry.

âMany physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases,â Perpetua said in the study. âThe overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine.â

âWith an average debt of $140,000, and many graduates approaching a quarter of a million dollars in school loans, being a doctor is becoming less and less feasible,â Perpetua said. âHealth-care reform and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down.â

The survey shows that many doctors already find their situations difficult:

-- 36 percent said that they would not recommend medicine as a profession to others, regardless of whether health-care reform passes;
-- another 27 percent would still recommend medicine as a career, but not if the current reform proposal passes.

In total, 63 percent of doctors would not recommend the profession after health-care reform passes. Just 12 percent do not recommend becoming a physician now but think they would if current reform proposals pass.

Primary-care physicians, those who work in the critical fields of family and internal medicine, not only feel that they would want to quit but that they might be cast out of medicine. 46.3 percent of those physicians said that they would either want to leave medicine or that they would be âforced outâ by the changes to the system.

Despite all the opposition to the bill as it stands, only a little more than 3 percent of respondents said the status quo was best, with the vast majority (62.7 percent) saying they believe changes are needed.

The same 62.7 percent said they wanted reforms made, but that they âshould be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in (the) legislation.â

Andrea Santiago, a spokeswoman for the Medicus Firm, said those numbers were the most striking.

âPlease allow me to emphasize that 96 percent of the physicians surveyed in our report are in favor of health reform, in some form or fashion,â she told CNSNews.com in an e-mail. âTo me, the fact that so many physicians surveyed want health reform, but relatively few are in favor of the current legislation, was one of the most significant, telling results.â

Congressional Democratic leaders, meanwhile, have said that doctors favor the bill and are part of an âunprecedented coalitionâ of doctors rooting for its passage. The claim is based on the American Medical Associationâs endorsement of the legislation in Congress.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008 there were 661,400 physicians and surgeons within the United States. Of that number, 250,000 are members of the American Medical Association (AMA) -- and nearly 100,000 of those are medical students.

Santiago explained the AMA could not claim to represent all doctors, nor perhaps could any other group, and said the potentially massive shortage of physicians has stayed largely out of the debate because public figures have been trying to speak for doctors instead of speaking to them.

âI think the reason it hasnât become a big issue in the political debate is maybe because no one else has really thought about the effects of health reform on the physician workforce. Or, maybe people didnât want to think about it, but as recruiters we canât help but think about it and take notice,â she said.

âIf you are not talking to physicians every day about their career plans, it may not occur to someone that it would even be an issue. Plus, many public figures, media, and organizations are speaking for doctors in professional associations and groups, proclaiming âdoctors want this.â Without surveying each and every doctor, no one can claim that all doctors want this particular version of health reform, including us.â

Santiago said one problem with a comprehensive bill was all the uncertainty about its effects that comes along with it.

âWhen youâre on the phone with doctors each and every day, discussing their career plans, like we are as recruiters, you start to notice hot-buttons that are related to their career decisions, and health reform was increasingly and repeatedly coming up as an issue that was causing doctors apprehension when making career plans,â Santiago explained.

âMany seemed frustrated by it. Part of it, I think, is fear of the unknown -- the current health reform bill is so large and all-encompassing, no one really knows for sure what will happen when/if this bill passes, so how does a physician make major career decisions when so much is hanging in the balance?â
_


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> Don't be taken into a false hope.
> The reconciliation bill is only part. There will be the Senate version and parts of the house one also included when they do that Slight Of Hand no vote thingy called the Slaughter Amendment, in case they don't have the VOTES to pass the Entire Health Bill.
> They will the use this Slaughter Amendment part, and Pass the reconciliation bill, and all the other bills Follow with it and also get passed without Voting on them in separate votes.
> Don't get the wool pulled over your eyes thinking that the Reconciliation bill is the only thing that gets passed. cause it is not everything else also passes.


No hope here. Just noting the differences.....and it looks like there are some significant ones (not necessarily in a good way).

Here's a link to a simple, quick-read version.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/BREAKING__Reconciliation_bill_posted_.html


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Oh, and another key fact that may make some of you madder than wet hens:

We need to quit training so many female physicians. In many med school classes they make up 60% of the class. Yet... Females work 25% less than their male colleagues.

With a woman, we don't get near as much bang for the buck, in total hours of patients seen....


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Well, steff, you still out there?

Buehler?

Buehler? :grin:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> Not a lot more, look up the specialties.
> 
> No, guys hire NP's because the *government will reimburse at a higher rate for a NP visit than for a doctor's visit!* They make more money off of the government that way.
> 
> You know, the same folks that want to run healthcare? Cut out fraud and abuse...the same fraud and abuse they haven't been able to cut out before?


Guys hire NPs? What "guys"?
And _why_ is the government reimbursing a NP (or PA) for my office visit??

And how is fraud and abuse going to be any worse (or better, for that matter) if the HC bill is passed?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> Sure.
> 
> _(CNSNews.com) - Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
> 
> ...


_

An admittedly right wing blog published an email survey by a medical recruitment company and this is viewed as being legit?!?

They finished up their "report" with:



What does this mean for physician recruiting? It's difficult to predict with absolute certainty, but one consequence is inevitable. After health reform is passed and implemented, physicians will be more in demand than ever before. Shortages could be exacerbated further beyond the predictions of industry analysts. Therefore, the strongest physician recruiters and firms will be in demand. Additionally, hospitals and practices may be forced to rely on unprecedented recruitment methods to attract and retain physicians. "Health reform, even if it's passed in a most diluted form, could be a game-changer for physician recruitment," said Bob Collins, managing partner of The Medicus Firm in Texas. "As competitive as the market is now, we may not even be able to comprehend how challenging it will become after health reform takes effect."

Click to expand...

The whole thing was a sales pitch. 
And it's definitely better for the sale if it's as dire as possible...

"Look how bad it's going to be!! You'd better sign on with our recruitment service!"
And right-wing blogs/news picked it up and ran with it.

BTW, if you're genuinely interested in what doctors think, the New England Journal of Medicine is a bit more relevant:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790



Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options (see Panel A of graph). Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents &#8212; across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types &#8212; showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option (see Table 1). Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the &#8220;other&#8221; physicians &#8212; those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine &#8212; were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so. Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%).

Click to expand...

(There's a nice graph at the actual website)_


----------



## notenoughtime (Aug 13, 2007)

Just not what I should have said.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The truth is that we have tort reform here in Nevada. It hasn't lowered malpractice insurance rate and it hasn' made health care any more affordable. What it has done is to strip the most vulnerable people in society of fair settlements to help them get by. The horror stories are so striking that the legislature is considering overturning the tort limits.
> 
> Are you sure that you've thought this all the way through?


What kind of tort reform? This is always the problem. The easiest, IMO, is loser pays. This would give people with true cases of malpractice the opportunity to sue while at the same time giving doctors and insurance companies incentive to fight all those little cases which are now cheaper to settle than to take to court. Its not the few outrageous $100,000,000 dollar cases which drive up insurance so much its all the $10,000 cases the companies. Say your neighbor sues you for $500 and you find out it would cost you $1,000 to fight the case in court. You'd lose even if you won so it'd be easier and cheaper to just hand over the $500.

Right now a lot of malpractice cases are 'lawyer lotto'. The lawyers know there is a good chance you can get a group of people "too dumb to get out jury duty" who don't really care about the facts of the case. They see a 'poor injured person' being shafted by a 'big, impersonal and probably evil insurance company'. And think, 'What the heck it ain't my money I'm giving away'. 

We need tort reform across the board not just in medical cases. 

<RANT MODE ON>
I'm sorry but I don't care how hot the coffee was it was YOUR stupidity which put an open flimsy foam cup between your legs. I'm sorry it burned you but is it McDee's fault you are stupid? What about the auto manufactures who built a car seat which trapped a hot liquid in your crotch?

Look at things around your house. Do you really need a warning label on a hair dryer to tell you not to use it in the shower, in the bath or while sleeping? Do you really need a warning sticker to tell you its a really stupid idea to stick your hand under a running lawn mower? Come on! Any case like this should have been tossed out of court by the first judge who read the filing.
<RANT MODE OFF>

And who is to say that those things would not have gone up even more w/o the reform?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So the fact that it's failing in Nevada doesn't bother you in the least?


The fact that govenment trying to 'fix' medical care in TN, MA, medicare and the VA doesn't seem to bother you in the least.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> What kind of tort reform? This is always the problem. The easiest, IMO, is loser pays. This would give people with true cases of malpractice the opportunity to sue while at the same time giving doctors and insurance companies incentive to fight all those little cases which are now cheaper to settle than to take to court.


To answer your question directly, Nevada tort reform mainly involved capping non-economic damage awards at $350K. What that means is that for things like pain & suffering a jury can't award more than $350K unless it involves hard damages (lost wages, medical bills, loss of property, etc.). There were a few other provisions, but the damages cap was the primary issue.

Your suggestion that the case damages could swing either way is devoid of all logic. You go to court to establish damages, so if damages can't be established a loss means no award. If the doctor has been damaged by the patient than he needs to file a counterclaim, but he doesn't deserve what you were going to sue him for if you lose.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> An admittedly right wing blog published an email survey by a medical recruitment company and this is viewed as being legit?!?
> 
> They finished up their "report" with:
> 
> ...


The news article is from CNS. The CNS article quotes the survey as featured in the NEJM.

When you call the NEJM a right-wing blog, I'm afraid you have lost all credibility within this debate.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

notenoughtime said:


> Some of you are getting your facts wrong. Medicare reimbursment for a pa/arnp is 85% of what medicare allows in our area. I have read post since a few days ago and now getting discouraged. My husband is an MD in solo practice in rural kansas. And the $ your are talking about are just not there. Maybe in the big city or if you are working for a hospital or large group. I will never encourage our children to go into medicine because of the 60-80 hour work weeks, the middle of the night er calls. What you may not understand it doesn't just stop when you see the patient in the room. You have dictation and must code the level of visit (that means meeting the requirements that is put into place by CMS) then you have staff send in the claim. Then you wait to see if you have all the modifers and codes right. Some codes are automically flagged then they want more information or if they have to many UAs in one month they want to know if it is medically necessary. I could go on and on. They have now mandated that they will review 10 charts every 45 days to make sure in compliance with medicare, copies and copies to be made and sent off. I could not even count how many times he has missed supper with our family and the holidays. But this what his dream was to be a doc and loves his patients. What saves us also it is a small community and we know each other. This is a comfort for them that they can call the house and talk to him if sick or just concerned about themselves or a friend. Back to the money, it is not there. Just as any business times are tough. We are on the bottom of the list, food, medicine,electric,gas all come first. And to top it all off he is working on his MBA in healthcare because of what is happening. Medicine is just like any business if you can't pay your expenses and make a salary you aren't going to last long. Just remember those number they throw out there are not realistic for all docs. I was teasing him he may have to go get a second job, that may be the truth before long only when would he have time. I am feeling very sad what is happening to our country and that we are losing our choices. Just sad, really sad.


I know several guys who have given up their practices to work ER's. Just makes more financial sense.

Of course, according to many here, you don't know what you are talking about. You're just married to a doc and see his take-home pay.

I don't have a clue, either, although I was part of a group that negotiated one of the largest simultaneous buy and installation of diagnostic medical equipment, if not the largest.

At this point, it doesn't matter if we trot out facts or anecdotal evidence from home, these folks have determined healthcare is a right and it's a right they shouldn't have to pay for. The government (whoever that may be) can pay for it.

I just hope folks enjoy the healthcare they are going to get...at least there'll be no more arguments in the hall among family members about what to do about mama.

The government will decide that for you. Allocation of resources, you know....


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

> At this point, it doesn't matter if we trot out facts or anecdotal evidence from home, these *SOME* folks have determined healthcare is a right and it's a right they shouldn't have to pay for. The government (whoever that may be) can pay for it.


I had to add 'SOME' in your quoted bit there. These folks don't all want it, only some of the ones that posted on this thread do.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Guys hire NPs? What "guys"?
> And _why_ is the government reimbursing a NP (or PA) for my office visit??
> 
> And how is fraud and abuse going to be any worse (or better, for that matter) if the HC bill is passed?


Sorry, since I work with doctors, have lunch with doctors and have occasionally been known to stop by and eat supper with doctors at their homes, I sometimes take the liberty of referring to them generically.

And how is fraud going to be worse?

Do you remember what we did with DRG's, SNF's, or Geripsychs when the government changed the rules?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> The news article is from CNS. The CNS article quotes the survey as featured in the NEJM.
> 
> When you call the NEJM a right-wing blog, I'm afraid you have lost all credibility within this debate.


lol
No, that report was most assuredly NOT in the NEJM. 

It was a sales pitch in a publication called _Recruiting Physicians Today_. And _CNS_ is the right wing blog. (One of those who obviously glommed onto this "survey" and ran with it. lol)

In fact, the NEJM has been quoted as saying:


> NEJM spokesperson Jennifer Zeis told Media Matters that the study had "*nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine's original research*." She also made clear that *the study "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine*," and said that "we are taking steps to clarify the source of the survey."


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003170036


However, since your post indicated that you respected the NEJM, please, click the link I already posted to the survey they actually DID do. 
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790
You won't like the numbers though, I'm afraid...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

CNS is a right wing blog? Slanted right, perhaps, but this does not fit my definition of a blog:

http://www.cnsnews.com/home

As for the Medicus Survey, you might want to read how it was conducted:

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform

I would think a recruitment firm may have the best grasp on current trends in physician employment, since that is their business. Their poll did appear in a publication by the same medical society that publishes NEJM.

Of course, the poll from IBD has already been cited in this thread, and its results were worse than Medicus' poll data. Your response?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

And one other thing, I've noticed the Obamacare supporters will not address the elephant standing in the corner of the room.

Medicare is broke.

BROKE!

Of course don't take my word for it:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/tr09summary.pdf

If the government cannot keep a program solvent for a segment of its population, with all working people paying Medicare taxes to support that program, what makes you think they can keep Obamacare solvent?

These are the same folks that said when Medicare was enacted, the cost would only be $12B in 1990.

Somebody care to take a stab at what Medicare cost in 1990? ($98B).

I've read that some folks believe Obamacare's true pricetag will not be $1T over ten years, but closer to $3T.

Hope y'all got everything paid for and lots of groceries in the pantry...the only way this country can get by without default facing those kinds of debt loads is through growing the money supply into hyperinflation.

Of course, you'll have rationed health care, when you have that heart attack from losing everything you've saved a lifetime for...


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

Originally Posted by notenoughtime 
"Some of you are getting your facts wrong. Medicare reimbursment for a pa/arnp is 85% of what medicare allows in our area. I have read post since a few days ago and now getting discouraged. My husband is an MD in solo practice in rural kansas. And the $ your are talking about are just not there. Maybe in the big city or if you are working for a hospital or large group. I will never encourage our children to go into medicine because of the 60-80 hour work weeks, the middle of the night er calls. What you may not understand it doesn't just stop when you see the patient in the room. You have dictation and must code the level of visit (that means meeting the requirements that is put into place by CMS) then you have staff send in the claim. Then you wait to see if you have all the modifers and codes right. Some codes are automically flagged then they want more information or if they have to many UAs in one month they want to know if it is medically necessary. I could go on and on. They have now mandated that they will review 10 charts every 45 days to make sure in compliance with medicare, copies and copies to be made and sent off. I could not even count how many times he has missed supper with our family and the holidays. But this what his dream was to be a doc and loves his patients. What saves us also it is a small community and we know each other. This is a comfort for them that they can call the house and talk to him if sick or just concerned about themselves or a friend. Back to the money, it is not there. Just as any business times are tough. We are on the bottom of the list, food, medicine,electric,gas all come first. And to top it all off he is working on his MBA in healthcare because of what is happening. Medicine is just like any business if you can't pay your expenses and make a salary you aren't going to last long. Just remember those number they throw out there are not realistic for all docs. I was teasing him he may have to go get a second job, that may be the truth before long only when would he have time. I am feeling very sad what is happening to our country and that we are losing our choices. Just sad, really sad."

I went to college in the early 80s. I had always wanted to be a physician. I realized, though, that was was too smart to be a doctor. I wanted a life and I was smart enough to realize I would not be able to be the kind of dedicated physician I would want to be and be the mommy I wanted to be even more. I became a high school biology teacher for a time. I then became a mommy.

My hubby was self employed for many years. The photography business took a big hit after 9/11. It took an even bigger hit with the advent of digital photography. DH had a photography lab and was primarily a commercial photographer. That business dried up. He was in his 60s at that time and was too old to get a job working for someone else. 

We realized I'd have to get a job. I went back to school and graduated six years ago at age 40.I'm a registered nurse in central IL. Again, I thought of going to medical school. Again, I decided I was too smart for that. My reason, though, had changed a lot. I realized that as a nurse I could make more money than I could if I was a physician. Sure, most physicians have higher annual salaries than most nurses. That's not because they make a higher hourly rate. It's because they work more hours. 

I make about $28.50/hour. I gross about $1140/week. If I worked the hours a physician works I'd make much more. Let's say I worked 80 hours. At time and a half for those 40 hours, I would make another $1710 for a total of $2850/week. This adds up to an annual salary of $148,200. A previous next door neighbor (when we lived in the suburbs just about four years ago) was a pediatric hospitalist and he didn't make nearly that much money.

When I first graduated from nursing school I considered going to Chicago and working weekends. Five years ago I could have made $60/hour working night weekends on a general medical floor. I work telephonically as a nurse and my employer has difficultly attracting nurses from the Chicago area because they make more than $30/hour.

Physicians don't make enough per hour to make it worth all the headache in my opinion. Unless you've personally been responsible for making life and death decisions for another person you just can't imagine how mentally taxing it is. Physicians get sued, they are away from their families. They must do a lot of continuing education, they are responsible for billing (mistakes can come down on their heads even if the biller isn't even in their own office), hiring other professionals and paraprofessionals, etc. 

You couldn't pay me enough to be a physician. This health care "reform" seems to get most of its "savings" by reducing reimbursements to those who work very hard to keep the rest of us alive.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Jolly said:


> And one other thing, I've noticed the Obamacare supporters will not address the elephant standing in the corner of the room.
> 
> Medicare is broke.
> 
> BROKE!


While we're on the subject:



> Memo Purportedly Urges Dems to Keep Quiet on Critical Health Care Topics
> By Maxim Lott
> - FOXNews.com
> 
> ...


Click here to read the entire article.


----------



## Betty Jean (Jan 7, 2009)

I emailed both senators from my state this morning and asked them to vote NO on the pending health care reform bills. The are both dems, but I still felt it important to urge them to represent the voters (the majority of whom voted against the dem candidate in the presidential race) in this state rather than their "party". 

Aside from the unconstitutionality of mandating heath care coverage, I believe it will create an onerous burden on the states, who will HAVE to raise state taxes to compensate. 

So, while the debate rages about the bills being "deficit neutral" (which I don't believe for a minute) on a federal level, I have yet to hear much talk about what it will mean to those of us who pay state taxes. At least those of us who live in states whose reps did not broker sweetheart a deal in exchange for their vote. 

All I see is the potential for more and more and more of my paycheck to be taken and re-distributed.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> And one other thing, I've noticed the Obamacare supporters will not address the elephant standing in the corner of the room.


And the CBO estimates that this will actually _reduce_ the deficit. (Have you read the Congressional Budget Office's projections? Since this is a thread about "facts" not "I've read somewhere..."
But I'll assume you're another who doesn't believe them anyway and prefers the blogs that tell you what you want to hear. 



> As for the Medicus Survey, you might want to read how it was conducted:
> 
> http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/...-health-reform
> 
> ...


Would this be a backpedal, perhaps? 
Just yesterday you were sure it was the NEJM. Now you'll admit that it's just the same publisher. 
(The local newspaper office printed my wedding announcements, but that doesn't mean they had anything whatsoever to do with my wedding. Or even what was on the announcement.  )

And I've noticed that yesterday you were lauded the NEJM and their results, but when given a link to a study they actually did do (with numbers you don't like), well then this sales pitch of a newsletter should hold more sway? 
Seriously??

Did you read their last paragraph? 


> What does this mean for physician recruiting? It's difficult to predict with absolute certainty, but one consequence is inevitable. After health reform is passed and implemented, physicians will be more in demand than ever before. Shortages could be exacerbated further beyond the predictions of industry analysts. *Therefore, the strongest physician recruiters and firms will be in demand.* Additionally,* hospitals and practices may be forced to rely on unprecedented recruitment methods to attract and retain physicians*. "Health reform, even if it's passed in a most diluted form, could be a game-changer for physician recruitment," said Bob Collins, managing partner of The Medicus Firm in Texas. "As competitive as the market is now, we may not even be able to comprehend how challenging it will become after health reform takes effect."


The whole thing is a SALES PITCH. 
They're telling hospitals and clinics how dire this is going to be and that to stave off shortages, what they really need to do is sign on with their company! lol


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I think Angie's right. 
People are getting entirely too far away from what are actually the facts here. :shrug:

So, I think I'll follow her lead and wait until facts are again in play.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> And one other thing, I've noticed the Obamacare supporters will not address the elephant standing in the corner of the room.
> 
> Medicare is broke.


Maybe $138 billion from the health care bill will help fund Medicare.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I just heard that the CBO said they have to adjust their projection, but I haven't searched it out on the internet.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> I just heard that the CBO said they have to adjust their projection, but I haven't searched it out on the internet.


Sure, any changes to the reconciliation bill will need to be taken into account. Expect adjustments all through this process.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> And the CBO estimates that this will actually _reduce_ the deficit. (Have you read the Congressional Budget Office's projections? Since this is a thread about "facts" not "I've read somewhere..."
> But I'll assume you're another who doesn't believe them anyway and prefers the blogs that tell you what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> ...


I've read the CBO analysis.

Have you?

The fact is that the CBO analysis is based upon the figures contained within the bill. That is the way the CBO functions. 

Would you bet your life this bill will come in at, or below budget?.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> And the CBO estimates that this will actually _reduce_ the deficit. (Have you read the Congressional Budget Office's projections? Since this is a thread about "facts" not "I've read somewhere..."
> But I'll assume you're another who doesn't believe them anyway and prefers the blogs that tell you what you want to hear.
> 
> 
> ...


I asked you to look at the methodology of the poll. It is contained within the link I gave you.

Please quit posturing and address the methodology of both the Medicus and IBD polls. Are they right or are they wrong?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Sure, any changes to the reconciliation bill will need to be taken into account. Expect adjustments all through this process.


If Deem and Pass is used, there can be no changes, unless done in separate bills, IIRC.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

And, how 'bout some input from a former director of the CBO:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-19/health-cares-fuzzy-math/?cid=hp:vertical:r


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> If Deem and Pass is used, there can be no changes, unless done in separate bills, IIRC.


No, that's not so at all. With deem & pass the senate bill will be passed along with a reconciliation bill. That reconciliation bill can be changed right up to the deem & pass vote.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Please read the rules of deem and pass, or "self-executing plan"


http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

And the ramifications before you decide of the accuracy of anyone's information put forth here.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

AngieM2 said:


> Please read the rules of deem and pass, or "self-executing plan"
> 
> 
> http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf
> ...


If I read that correctly, it's up or down, no amendments allowed.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Opinion, of course, but I did get a chuckle out of this one a friend sent to me:

_Let me get this straight......

we're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,

to be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What could possibly go wrong? _


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> I asked you to look at the methodology of the poll. It is contained within the link I gave you.
> 
> Please quit posturing and address the methodology of both the Medicus and IBD polls. Are they right or are they wrong?




I read it. 
I don't trust the "findings" of a commercial entity whose purpose is to sell their product. It's a conflict of interests. :shrug:

I _do_, however, trust the NEJM.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Thank you Jolly - I'll go read it again.
but good to have the facts... here are some more to consider if it is used:



http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm...://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/byrd_rule.htm

Here is a rule of what happens if it is used:

SUMMARY OF THE BYRD RULE

Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill or resolution or conference report thereon. The definition of what constitutes "extraneous matter" is set forth in the Budget Act; however, the term remains subject to considerable interpretation by the presiding officer (who relies on the Senate Parliamentarian). The Byrd rule is enforced when a Senator raises a point of order during consideration of a reconciliation bill or conference report. If the point of order is sustained, the offending title, provision or amendment is deemed stricken unless its proponent can muster a 3/5 (60) Senate majority vote to waive the rule.

Subject matter - The Byrd rule may be invoked only against reconciliation bills, amendments thereto, and reconciliation conference reports.

Byrd rule tests - Section 313(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act sets forth six tests for matters to be considered extraneous under the Byrd rule. The criteria apply to provisions that:

* do not produce a change in outlays or revenues; 

* produce changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision; 

* are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure; 

* increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provision's title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee's reconciliation instructions; 

* increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral; 

* contain recommendations regarding the OASDI (social security) trust funds. 

Exceptions to the Byrd Rule - Section 313(b)(2) allows certain otherwise covered Senate-originated provisions to be excepted from the Byrd rule if the provisions are certified for exemption by the Senate Budget Committee chairman and ranking minority member, as well as the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction. The permitted exceptions are:

* a provision that mitigates direct effects attributable to a second provision which changes outlays or revenue when the provisions together produce a net reduction in outlays; 

* the provision will result in a substantial reduction in outlays or a substantial increase in revenues during fiscal years after the fiscal years covered by the reconciliation bill; 

* the provision will likely reduce outlays or increase revenues based on actions that are not currently projected by CBO for scorekeeping purposes; or 

* such provision will likely produce significant reduction in outlays or increase in revenues, but due to insufficient data such reduction or increase cannot be reliably estimated. 

Effect of points of order - The effect of raising a point of order under the Byrd rule is to strike the offending extraneous provision. If a point of order against a conference report is sustained, the Senate may consider subsequent motions to dispose of that portion of the conference report not subject to the point of order.

*Waivers - The Byrd rule is not self-enforcing. A point of order must be raised at the appropriate time to enforce it. The Byrd rule can only be waived by a 3/5 (60) majority vote of the Senate. *


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> Opinion, of course, but I did get a chuckle out of this one a friend sent to me:
> 
> _Let me get this straight......
> 
> ...



When are people going to get this?!?! 

Congress etc. ARE NOT EXEMPT. 

They would have to carry insurance just like anyone else. And they already do.

So far as the rest? Why bother?? People are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what (which is why this BS about Congress being exempt KEEPS COMING UP in spite of obvious facts)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> If I read that correctly, it's up or down, no amendments allowed.


They added amendments just yesterday.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> I read it.
> I don't trust the "findings" of a commercial entity whose purpose is to sell their product. It's a conflict of interests. :shrug:
> 
> I _do_, however, trust the NEJM.


The Medicus survey was a random sample survey and they used only those surveys which were returned. That's a fairly common manner of polling, much as Arbitron commonly will use.

Now, please address whether the methodology of the polling data creates suspect results.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Jolly said:


> If Deem and Pass is used, there can be no changes, unless done in separate bills, IIRC.


 Yes that is correct as ALL of the things contained in All bills go then "As Is."
That is why people are demanding a Complete Vote, not this Deem And Pass stuff.
Because then everybody can go home and say this" Look I voted for a Rule Deem and Pass) I didn't vote for the entire health bill and did not know that was also contained in the "rule"
That way they can say No I did Not Vote For The Health Bill"
Nice way of doing a "cop out" to maybe save their own hide.
I hope people don't forget this in November and then again in 2012.
And why do think this "health Bill" will Not Go into effect until 2014 to 2015? it is After the 2012 elections AND Fours Years of collecting taxes~! 
How dumb to they think the American people are?
But the Taxes will start right after Obama signs the bill if indeed it does get that far.
And that sure is not going to help those that do not have insurance now does it? And I thought that is what the health bill was all about.
No it isn't it is lowering the playing field take from the rich give to the poor. Redistribution of wealth. Plain and Simple.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

below is where the health link goes;

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm...tt=2&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http://www.opm.gov/insure/


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> When are people going to get this?!?!
> 
> Congress etc. ARE NOT EXEMPT.
> 
> ...


Erin - please give me the page, or a link that goes to a Congress or this bill that shows that this does apply to them. I have nothing to check to make my own conclusions to your assertions.

Thanks,


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Yes that is correct as ALL of the things contained in All bills go then "As Is."


Wrong, WRONG, WRONG! The reconciliation bill can have anything in it that they want in it, and it can be changed right up to the time they vote on it. Where are you people getting the idea that the reconciliation bill can't be changed when it's changing every day?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> They added amendments just yesterday.


I'm sorry, but I can't find that info.

Link, please?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't find that info.
> 
> Link, please?


Good grief, look at post #800.



Txsteader said:


> Just wanted to make sure everyone was reading the same bill (didn't go through all the pages on this thread to verify).
> 
> There's a link to the House reconciliation bill, dated 3/18, which is only 153 pages.
> 
> http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/03/18/house-reconciliation-bill-full-text/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Wrong, WRONG, WRONG! The reconciliation bill can have anything in it that they want in it, and it can be changed right up to the time they vote on it. Where are you people getting the idea that the reconciliation bill can't be changed when it's changing every day?


 This is what people are ticked about.


> *Many of the most controversial provisions of the Senate bill â its restrictions on abortio*n, for instance â cannot be addressed via a reconciliation bill.


 Once Done, it is a done deal, all the other stuff follows without any chance of being addressed.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/so-whats-in-the-reconciliation-bill-anyway/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> This is what people are ticked about.
> 
> Once Done, it is a done deal, all the other stuff follows without any chance of being addressed.


Well, only budgetary items are supposed to be included in a reconciliation bill, but since virtually everything costs money they fudge that rule quite a bit.

But that's different from saying that there can be no changes. That's simply not true.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Friday, March 19, 2010
Caterpillar: Health Bill Would Cost Company $100M More

Yes that is a good way to get America back to work now isn't it?

More like adding to the unemployment more.



> CHICAGO--Construction-equipment maker Caterpillar (CAT) said Friday that the currently proposed health-care reform package will increase the company's health costs by $100 million in the first year alone.
> 
> In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Caterpillar said the insurance coverage mandates and higher Medicare taxes would immediately raise the company's costs by at least 20%.


 More fuel to add to the fire as to why America is Ticked off.
And do not Want this Health Care Package to Pass

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/caterpillar-health-bill-cost-company--million/


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Wrong, WRONG, WRONG! The reconciliation bill can have anything in it that they want in it, and it can be changed right up to the time they vote on it. Where are you people getting the idea that the reconciliation bill can't be changed when it's changing every day?


I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement. If they kept adding amendments, wouldn't the CBO have to continually update their estimate numbers? I mean, Congress could throw in an amendment that says taxes will be raised by 100%.....how could they vote w/out an updated CBO estimate? And still post the thing online for 72 hours for the public to read?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement. If they kept adding amendments, wouldn't the CBO have to continually update their estimate numbers? I mean, Congress could throw in an amendment that says taxes will be raised by 100%.....how could they vote w/out an updated CBO estimate? And still post the thing online for 72 hours for the public to read?


Sure, the CBO would have to keep up with it.

I'm watching a live stream right now, and it sounds like they will not do deem & pass. It will be voted on as separate issues, and the democrats believe they have the votes for both.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Erin - please give me the page, or a link that goes to a Congress or this bill that shows that this does apply to them. I have nothing to check to make my own conclusions to your assertions.
> 
> Thanks,


Angie, 
this is just common sense...

_Everyone_ is supposed to have insurance, yes? 
Congress HAS insurance via their employer, yes? 

The _only_ way they could be "exempt" would be if every one of them DROPPED their insurance, didn't have to carry it, and didn't have to pay a fine.


ETA: If you believe the suggestion that they _are_ somehow exempt, the onus is on _you_ to prove it. 
_I_ can't prove a negative.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> The Medicus survey was a random sample survey and they used only those surveys which were returned. That's a fairly common manner of polling, much as Arbitron commonly will use.
> 
> Now, please address whether the methodology of the polling data creates suspect results.


The _methodology_ is not suspect. The final results ARE. 

This is a SALES PITCH. It's in their best interests to find something that will _agree_ with the promotion of their sale. 
Ie, it's a serious conflict of interests. 


I have yet to hear your opinion on the _actual_ findings of NEJM.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> To answer your question directly, Nevada tort reform mainly involved capping non-economic damage awards at $350K. What that means is that for things like pain & suffering a jury can't award more than $350K unless it involves hard damages (lost wages, medical bills, loss of property, etc.). There were a few other provisions, but the damages cap was the primary issue.


IMO, the problem isn't the few headline cases where the payout is tens of millions of dollars. The problem is the thousands of cases where the insurance companies tells the doctor that its cheaper to just pay than go to court.




Nevada said:


> Your suggestion that the case damages could swing either way is devoid of all logic. You go to court to establish damages, so if damages can't be established a loss means no award.


You seem to be naive. As I said what sense does it make to spend $10,000 to not spend $5,000? Legal cost can EASILY run $10K.




Nevada said:


> If the doctor has been damaged by the patient than he needs to file a counterclaim, but he doesn't deserve what you were going to sue him for if you lose.


You seem to have misunderstood. Losser pays means the looser pays the winner's legal cost. Then if you are being sued for $5,000 and you are would win in court it makes sense to spend $10,000 on legal fees because when you win your cost are zero dollars. This means if you don't have a good case you are not going to file a suit. IMO, this would cut the number of "nickle and dime" suits which companies basically pay w/o even investigating because its cheaper to pay.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You seem to have misunderstood. Losser pays means the looser pays the winner's legal cost. Then if you are being sued for $5,000 and you are would win in court it makes sense to spend $10,000 on legal fees because when you win your cost are zero dollars. This means if you don't have a good case you are not going to file a suit. IMO, this would cut the number of "nickle and dime" suits which companies basically pay w/o even investigating because its cheaper to pay.


I suppose that could be a factor. But personally I think that it's in bad taste to force someone to pay legal fees who is disabled, which a lot of people involved in a lawsuit like that will be. That will often be the case even in disputes where the Dr wasn't found to be responsible for damages.

Normally legal fees are only awarded for contract disputes (i.e., enforcing a contractual agreement) and in cases that the judge believes are frivolous. I don't see the point to forcing the loser to pay when the case isn't frivolous.

Personally, I've always represented myself in civil matters. Lawyers are not only expensive, but I'm always disappointed in their lack of knowledge of the details of cases. I normally talk to a lawyer about my rights and obligations before I get started, but I keep track of my own details as I file pleadings.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> I hope people don't forget this in November and then again in 2012.


Interesting how you are so concerned about democrats keeping their jobs.



arabian knight said:


> And why do think this "health Bill" will Not Go into effect until 2014 to 2015?


It DOES go into effect before 2014. In fact a number of provisions go into effect after the first year of passage.

The first thing people will see is a new policy from their insurance company. They need that because the insurance companies need to update policies for:


Eliminating caps.
Dependent children being covered until age 26.
Preventive care will be required to be offered free.
A new independent appeals process will be set up.
There will be no exclusion of children with pre-existing conditions.

Other provisions that will be seen the first year are:


The Medicare Part D doughnut hole will also be done away with during the first year.
Small business tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums will be available to firms that offer coverage, so a lot more people will have subsidized coverage available.

I think people will like what they get the first year, and when they see that no one is trying to kill-off grandma they'll see through the republican rhetoric.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> The _methodology_ is not suspect.


I would agree.

Now, address why so many physicians would consider retirement, if Obamacare passes.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Angie,
> this is just common sense...
> 
> _Everyone_ is supposed to have insurance, yes?
> ...


That's not a negative.

Either they are, or they aren't.

Where is it at in the bill?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

The "exemption" was from the public option that was originally considered. The current bill does not yet include that, so technically they are not "exempt"; until of course, the public option is resurrected as we all know it will be.

Congress is however, exempt from this legislation by virtue of the fact that they have the benefit of taxpayer funded healthcare that they get to keep the rest of their lives. Nothing they do now will in anyway impact that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> The "exemption" was from the public option that was originally considered. The current bill does not yet include that, so technically they are not "exempt"; until of course, the public option is resurrected as we all know it will be.
> 
> Congress is however, exempt from this legislation by virtue of the fact that they have the benefit of taxpayer funded healthcare that they get to keep the rest of their lives. Nothing they do now will in anyway impact that.


Last I saw the public option was back in, on page 1167 of the reconciliation bill.

******
Subtitle B&#8212;Public Health Insurance Option

SEC. 221. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.&#8212;For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the &#8216;&#8216;Secretary&#8217;&#8217 shall provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (in this subdivision referred to as the &#8216;&#8216;public health insurance option&#8217;&#8217 that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle. In designing the option, the Secretary&#8217;s primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.
http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I think people will like what they get the first year, and when they see that no one is trying to kill-off grandma they'll see through the republican rhetoric.


It's not the _first_ year that worries me. It's what happens into the future, when government has that much power to tie everything we do to health care costs. It worries me because I don't think they're being honest about the costs. And it worries me that Congress has seen fit to burden the public with another entitlement program.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Last I saw the public option was back in, on page 1167 of the reconciliation bill.


I wasn't aware of that. They would be exempt then, since Congress is unlikely to take the logical step of paying the fine rather than paying for insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> It's not the _first_ year that worries me. It's what happens into the future, when government has that much power to tie everything we do to health care costs. It worries me because I don't think they're being honest about the costs. And it worries me that Congress has seen fit to burden the public with another entitlement program.


Well, you've got a decision to make. You're either in the side of the American people, or you're on the side of the insurance companies. I see no middle ground on this issue.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Well, you've got a decision to make. You're either in the side of the American people, or you're on the side of the insurance companies. I see no middle ground on this issue.


I'm on the side of the American people, which is why I choose to fight tooth and nail against this legislation. You're right though, there is no middle ground.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> I wasn't aware of that. They would be exempt then, since Congress is unlikely to take the logical step of paying the fine rather than paying for insurance.


No, they won't. 

For the sake of argument, we'll even assume the public option gets in.



It's called the public _option_, for a reason. It's _optional_. 
The other _option_ is private insurance. 

If they carry one or the other (just like everyone else), THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> I would agree.
> 
> Now, address why so many physicians would consider retirement, if Obamacare passes.


Based on your _sales brochure_? 
The one that the NEJM's study contradicts? That one? 

You're saying that a _sales brochure_ should be considered more valid than one of the oldest, most respected, medical journals in the country? 
Seriously?? I just have no idea where to go with this... 

I guess if you want to believe you sales pitch, be my guest. I'm going to have to stick with the medical journal. :shrug:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Well, you've got a decision to make. You're either in the side of the American people, or you're on the side of the insurance companies. I see no middle ground on this issue.


I'm on the side of the Constitution, which is on the side of the American people. And no, there is no middle ground.


----------



## Stann (Jan 2, 2005)

ErinP said:


> When are people going to get this?!?!
> 
> Congress etc. ARE NOT EXEMPT.
> 
> ...


You've got to be kidding. Do you really believe that Government Electeds get the same type of health coverage and health service than the average JOE CITIZEN.

Do you really believe that? Oh, my. I think so.

Let me give you one piece of advice. If you believe everything that the U.S. Government tells you, either written or spoken, you will be disappointed.

Eh, it doesn't bother me tooooo much. My brother's a physician. I'm pretty satisfied. If the death panel won't cover me, my brother'll tell me what I'm dying of... since I tend to like to know what's coming.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> Based on your _sales brochure_?
> The one that the NEJM's study contradicts? That one?
> 
> You're saying that a _sales brochure_ should be considered more valid than one of the oldest, most respected, medical journals in the country?
> ...


Again, you will not answer the question. Any politician would be proud of you. There are two surveys, both with acceptable methodology, that tell us Obamacare will lead to an increased amount of physicians planning to retire, at a time when many areas of the country are woefully underserved already.

Quit hemming, hawing and doing the question side-step.

Please tell us why these physicians are heading for the retirement bench if this is such a wonderful bill.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Stann said:


> You've got to be kidding. Do you really believe that Government Electeds get the same type of health coverage and health service than the average JOE CITIZEN.
> 
> Do you really believe that? Oh, my. I think so.
> 
> ...


Here's what FERS offers:

http://www.opm.gov/retire/insurance/index.asp

Please notice there are no pre-existing conditions, you cannot be turned down for coverage, you cannot have your coverage taken away, etc...


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> The Medicus survey was a random sample survey and they used only *those surveys which were returned*. That's a fairly common manner of polling, much as Arbitron commonly will use.
> 
> Now, please address whether the methodology of the polling data creates suspect results.


Based on what you describe, that's not a random survey. Only those sufficiently motivated will return the survey, which guarantees bad results. Just because the survey was distributed randomly, does not mean it was returned randomly. It's bogus. The pollster has lost control of the sample. therefore it cannot be assumed it's random



ErinP said:


> The _methodology_ is not suspect. The final results ARE.


Both are highly suspect, see above.


Oh, a little research shows this entire discussion is based on a lie



Jolly said:


> Sure.
> 
> _(CNSNews.com) - Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
> 
> ...


NEJM never published the survey, as Erin suspected it's garbage. I, for one, am shocked

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003170036


----------



## Ohiogal (Mar 15, 2007)

http://moneynews.com/Headline/Obamacare-Middle-Class-Insurance/2010/03/19/id/353314

Apparently, the people who are REALLY going to bear the brunt of this are the middle class. The very people who pay the bills now are going to be priced out of health care in favor of the uber-rich and the illegals.

I'm for the American People, who has their roots and liberties tied to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. What should be happening is that EACH STATE which is accorded independant sovereign rights according to the Constitution, should be governing this affair, which would ensure that there be checks and balances on taxing of the people, because the people will have a VOICE in this.

I can only hope that some of the Dem's go straight and do not vote on this collection of bills so that we can start over again addressing it in pieces in a bi-partisan fashion. If nothing is done, and costs continue to climb, people simply won't pay for health insurance, and those companies will be eliminated over time due to free market constraints. It will be a long way around the problem, and its overdue.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> Based on what you describe, that's not a random survey. Only those sufficiently motivated will return the survey, which guarantees bad results. Just because the survey was distributed randomly, does not mean it was returned randomly. It's bogus. The pollster has lost control of the sample. therefore it cannot be assumed it's random
> 
> 
> 
> Both are highly suspect, see above.


By your definition, no survey is random.

When Gallup calls you up to participate in a survey, any survey, you have the option of declining to participate. If you decline to participate your result is not counted. 

In the MEDICUS case, two thousand surveys were sent out at random to their database (if I know headhunters, having a medical license puts you in their database). They counted the responses of those surveys which were returned.

Now, if you want to make the case that the survey is biased, you may have more of a peg on which to hang your hat. But even conceding that the physicians who returned the survey were perhaps more engaged in the process than those who did not, the company still received a very good return mailing, above what one normally sees.

And of those returns, a much higher percentage of physicians were planning to retire than normal, even considering an abbreviated sample. Therefore, the question is legitimate.

If this bill is so good, why are doctors leaving?

Even considering the Obama administration has promised the AMA that physicians will get separate $320B this year as part of a doc fix for Medicare?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> I can only hope that some of the Dem's go straight and do not vote on this collection of bills so that we can start over again addressing it in pieces in a bi-partisan fashion. If nothing is done, and costs continue to climb, people simply won't pay for health insurance, and those companies will be eliminated over time due to free market constraints. It will be a long way around the problem, and its overdue.


If you are a middle income taxpayer, you will not have the option to not purchase insurance. Purchase is mandatory.

If you do not purchase insurance, the House Bill would have sent you to prison. The Senate bill is more lenient - it allows the IRS to go through all of your financial accounts without benefit of subpeona, to ascertain whether or not you are hiding money. If you have the money, you will be fined. The IRS can subsequently garnish any tax refunds, etc., to collect their money.


----------



## Ohiogal (Mar 15, 2007)

Jolly;

I was referring to a "post bill" scenario. As in what we have today continues on. The laws of Capitalism are that once a product becomes too expensive, it doesn't sell. And the company goes bankrupt. The same would happen with "health care". If people stop buying into it, it will go "bankrupt" and services will stop being offered.

I also think we are going to see a lot of people stop working, because they don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare via a huge tax on their wages.

My tax bill is already at 55% of what I gross, due to federal/state/local taxes. I've sat down and added it up, and its just incredible what I work for and I fund via taxes. Pretty soon it won't pay me to work at the job that I do and continue to pay these taxes. I'd be working for $3 an hour and having 25+ years of experience and a college degree and handling a high stress profession which will ultimately give me health problems. 

Doesn't make sense to sacrafice my health to provide health care to an illegal, does it?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Ohiogal said:


> Jolly;
> 
> I was referring to a "post bill" scenario. As in what we have today continues on. The laws of Capitalism are that once a product becomes too expensive, it doesn't sell. And the company goes bankrupt. The same would happen with "health care". If people stop buying into it, it will go "bankrupt" and services will stop being offered.
> 
> ...


A letter from a doc, that addresses your point:


_I have been a doctor for 19 years. 4 years in the Army and 15 years in private practice. I belong to a doctor owned group of approx 350 doctors in a multi-specialty practice. We employ 4000 people. In addition to being touted as one of the very best clinics in the nation (Acclaim Award winners) we have donated over a million dollars to the local city in grants, scholarships and charity. Regularly voted as top places to work by our employees. US healthcare at its very best. I am very proud of what we do and we provide tremendous care and value to our patients.

We seek to maintain a 3-5% profit margin annually. We operate in the very precarious business model of enormous volume, low margin. As any business owner knows, this is high-risk-low-margin of error model. Consequently any small changes to cash flow vectors, mandates widespread internal policy and practice corrections. Tiny changes = massive consequences.

As many people may know, Medicare and Medicaid, the current government paid âinsurerâ â pays approximately 70% of the cost of care. ie its more expensive for doctors to care for these patients than we get reimbursed for. Say you are a contractor. Imagine the government mandating a significant number of your jobs whereby your out of pocket costs are ~ 30% + greater than your income. That is Medicare and Medicaid. In perspective, our group alone, year 2008 lost ~$12 million caring for our government patients. This is despite taking over 1 1/2 years to help move our fee-for-service traditional Medicare patients over to Medicare Advantage plans, which are privatized versions of Medicare that reimburse betterâ¦still not covering costsâ¦but lessen our losses significantly.

Many people ask, why do private health insurance premiums continue to escalate? The liberals want you to believe its a combination of profiteering and waste. When in fact its due mainly to two other processes. The first is obvious: every year it costs more to care for patients and premiums are trying to keep up with this rising cost. But secondly, and less often discussed, is that every year private delivery systems lose more and more money caring for our government patients. Someone has to make up for these losses in order for your hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, pharmacies, group practices to remain solvent and profitable. Every year these delivery systems open their books to the private healthcare insurers â and the insurers must â they must in order for the entire system at large to stay functional, increase the amount they pay out to cover these losses. If they dont, both the delivery systems and the insurers die. So to keep the boat afloat, the payouts by private insurers MUST increase to subsidize the ever increasing losses doctors incur by taking care of our government patients. So, in a way, you could say that your increasing premiums are a tax that you are paying to cover the losses that are Medicare and Medicaid. Itâs a clear and inarguable private subsidation of government cost. Enough said on that.

So to really feel the consequence and full impact of Obamacare, one must simply see the economic dominos. Most people can see how this bill will rapidly reduce private insurance plans and rapidly expand government plan patients. And take whatever number that is being reported, and multiply that by 3. That has been the experience in both Mass and Hawaii. Both government plans were overwhelmed with the enrollees as they significantly underestimated the government migration.

Ok, so now- how can anyone not see the obvious outcome? Government patients = significant loss of profitability. Initially the private insurers will do their best to continue to subsidize this loss, and there will be a huge escalation of premiums. But within a few months this will be unsustainable. Its a cycle that cannot be stopped. Higher premiums = higher recidivism to government plans = higher premiums etc. Within months, every single hospital, every single doctor office, clinic, nursing home, pharmacy â every delivery system reliant on private insurers will no longer be profitable. ie they will go bankrupt. These will most certainly be the headlines to come: Hospital XYZ shockingly announces bankruptcy; Hospitals can no longer remain open; Clinics across the country file for bankruptcy; Loss of Pharmacy access shocks the Nation; Doctors going bankrupt en masse creating healthcare delivery and access to care crises; Where can you go to get care?; Loss of access reported Nationwide

Yes a crises. A crises of access due to widespread business failure. You will not be able to get care for as long as it takes for the government to devise their emergency bailout package and as long as it takes for those insufficient dollars to try and get those doors back open again. But it will be too late, and it will be too expensive. There is absolutely no way that our government can capitalize our entire healthcare system. Try as they might, only a percentage of what we have now will ultimately survive. And those that do survive will be a shell of what they once were. The conditions will be frightening, and the consequences will be dire. The degree of disarray will be unimaginable and the underlap in access to care will be gaping.

I will not expand this discussion to predict what this means to our economy at large because I am not an economist. But anyone can be close to predicting what I am suggesting. Factors such as loss of work hours due to illnesses not treated, pressure on all the other private business models; let alone the out and out loss of enormous capital via the bankruptcy of this entire healthcare industry can clearly be the death nail to our country and imo is a clear and present threat to our very sovereignty. This can make the housing collapse look like a speed bump. This will be massive and rapid and lethal and complete.

I am not certain why this very obvious outcome has not been openly discussed more often â ie the rapid and massive bankruptcy of all of your health care providers and their delivery systems. But this is the inevitable outcome should this bill ever become law and implemented.

Thanks for reading. Please ping, copy and email your friends and try and get this word out. I know itâs a very late hour â but I do think the implementation is not an inevitability as multiple lawsuits may keep it on hold for a while â so public opinion will still be vital for many more months to come.

Unbelievable times. Please do your part and email and make the phone calls. This plea comes an honest and heartfelt love of our country and its citizens, and an honest and heartfelt love of my profession, avocation and the welfare of my patients._


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

Ohiogal said:


> http://moneynews.com/Headline/Obamacare-Middle-Class-Insurance/2010/03/19/id/353314
> 
> Apparently, the people who are REALLY going to bear the brunt of this are the middle class. The very people who pay the bills now are going to be priced out of health care in favor of the uber-rich and the illegals.
> 
> ...


We agree with you..

Rick and Ann


----------



## JHinCA (Sep 20, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> It's not the _first_ year that worries me. It's what happens into the future, when government has that much power to tie everything we do to health care costs. It worries me because I don't think they're being honest about the costs. And it worries me that Congress has seen fit to burden the public with another entitlement program.


Exactly!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ok say this bill about health care passes today, Now what lies ahead?
I have heard that Mark Levin and his company Landmark legal are ready to sue, as well as AGs from across the country, because of the unconstitutionality of forcing citizens to buy insurance. 
The behind the scenes is of them fast tracking it into the Supreme Court...
Which I say Go Get Em..


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> By your definition, no survey is random.
> 
> When Gallup calls you up to participate in a survey, any survey, you have the option of declining to participate. If you decline to participate your result is not counted.


Nice try, but not true. I suggest you brush up on polling and perhaps statistics


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Stann said:


> You've got to be kidding. Do you really believe that Government Electeds get the same type of health coverage and health service than the average JOE CITIZEN.


I said nothing of the sort. There's no doubt in my mind they have better coverage than I. (Shoot, someone with _Medicare_ has better coverage than I! lol)
My point was that IF THEY HAVE COVERAGE (and you just agreed they do), THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT. Which means, _that_ fondly-touted argument is complete and utter bull hockey.




> If this bill is so good, why are doctors leaving?


THEY AREN'T. 
That's the point that's being made. 

Your sales brochure flies in the face of what the NEJM actually DID find. (Have you _read_ their study yet??)
Your Medicus group NEEDS their "study" to prove the need for their service. 

It doesn't make a lick of difference what the _actual_ findings were, what they _published_ is going to be WHAT THEY WANTED PEOPLE TO SEE because it's what is going to make their sale.
They had a vested interest in making those numbers say _exactly_ what they WANTED them to say.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Dems have the votes, it will pass the house


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Ok say this bill about health care passes today, Now what lies ahead?
> I have heard that Mark Levin and his company Landmark legal are ready to sue, as well as AGs from across the country, because of the unconstitutionality of forcing citizens to buy insurance.
> The behind the scenes is of them fast tracking it into the Supreme Court...
> Which I say Go Get Em..


Yup, but alas our courts are corrupt.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

I somehow doubt the supporters of this bill will own up *when* it fails to produce the desired results...

Personally,it matters little to me.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> I somehow doubt the supporters of this bill will own up *when* it fails to produce the desired results...
> 
> Personally,it matters little to me.


It's becoming evident, in other discussions here, on the radio and around the 'net, that a lot of supporters of this bill haven't actually READ the bill.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

ErinP said:


> I said nothing of the sort. There's no doubt in my mind they have better coverage than I. (Shoot, someone with _Medicare_ has better coverage than I! lol)
> My point was that IF THEY HAVE COVERAGE (and you just agreed they do), THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT. Which means, _that_ fondly-touted argument is complete and utter bull hockey.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm just using national numbers to buttress what I see every day at work. 

Of the group I work with two out of five guys are going within 48 months. One is plausible, since he's in his 60's, but a lot of docs work later in life than that, and he is suspect since he has been offered a professorship at a medical school. The other guy just flat out says he's not killing himself for the money the government is going to offer, he'd rather deal with real estate. These guys are not family practice guys, these guys are specialists with incomes in excess of $300K.

But I'm not talking about just the group I work for...in our fairly tight knit medical community, I've heard a lot of talk from different docs about their future plans. If they follow through, we will lose our only rheumatologist, one of our best orthos, two eye guys and several family practice and internal med guys.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I've been in the hospital biz almost 30 years. Laugh, point fingers, play a kazoo for all I care...I'm telling you that docs will leave because of Obamacare, unless something drastically changes.


----------



## Stann (Jan 2, 2005)

From a L.A. attorney's blog, patterico's pontifications
http://patterico.com/2010/03/21/rip-usa/

_With Stupak & Co. selling out their principles for an unenforceable executive order, revocable at will, it&#8217;s clear that ObamaCare is going to pass. I have said it time and time again: this legislation fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the people.

And it&#8217;s not likely to go away. Expansion of government is historically a one-way ratchet. We&#8217;re still stuck with the New Deal, and we will never be rid of the impossible burdens it has placed on our government in the form of entitlements we can&#8217;t afford. We&#8217;re still stuck with the &#8220;Great Society&#8221; &#8212; the fabled &#8220;welfare reform&#8221; of the Clinton era being nothing but a tiny Band-aid on a gushing, cavernous chest wound &#8212; and we&#8217;ll never be rid of the culture of listlessness and criminality it spawned.

In truth, the American experiment began to end during the New Deal era, when the Supreme Court ruled that people couldn&#8217;t grow their own crops on their own land for their own purposes if Congress said they couldn&#8217;t. This is just the logical end-point.

I started this post wanting to talk about how to reverse this, because obviously that has to be the goal. But I&#8217;m just not in the mood. Like you, I&#8217;m just too angry to think constructively.

...

_

He's right.


----------



## Stann (Jan 2, 2005)

Jolly said:


> A letter from a doc, that addresses your point:
> 
> 
> _I have been a doctor for 19 years. 4 years in the Army and 15 years in private practice. I belong to a doctor owned group of approx 350 doctors in a multi-specialty practice. We employ 4000 people. In addition to being touted as one of the very best clinics in the nation (Acclaim Award winners) we have donated over a million dollars to the local city in grants, scholarships and charity. Regularly voted as top places to work by our employees. US healthcare at its very best. I am very proud of what we do and we provide tremendous care and value to our patients.
> ...


I don't think the economists will let the U.S economy go broke. So, what do they do? THEY'LL FORCE THE PHYSICIANS TO RATION HEALTHCARE, EXTREMELY, EXCESSIVELY, AND DANGEROUSLY FOR THE ELDERLY.

The U.S. Government is a propagandist entity, always deceptive, always promoting it's agenda to further enrich the wealthy. They won't tell you that "you" are being denied due to rationing. But, guess what? You know what. How can you imagine any other solution to their self-imposed dilemma?

JMO.

BTW, again JMO... the liberals are liars. the Republicans are liars. The both support soaking the middle class (they'll never admit to that) by forcing to pay more and more for big government. Liberals win since they will control the destiny of our society. The Republicans win since those that are wealthy will always be given the tax breaks that make them immune to any liberal laws.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suppose that could be a factor. But personally I think that it's in bad taste to force someone to pay legal fees who is disabled, which a lot of people involved in a lawsuit like that will be. That will often be the case even in disputes where the Dr wasn't found to be responsible for damages.



Its a major factor in all tort cases not just medical cases. How many 'slip and fall' cases are settled out of court because its cheaper to pay the $5K than go through a legal battle which would cost the business more than that? A lot of insurance companies won't even think about taking a case to court if they can settle for under $10K. Its cheaper to settle and just raise the premiums on everyone to cover the cost.





Nevada said:


> Normally legal fees are only awarded for contract disputes (i.e., enforcing a contractual agreement) and in cases that the judge believes are frivolous. I don't see the point to forcing the loser to pay when the case isn't frivolous.



The point is to prevent cases from being filed. Most state judges are elected. Think about the political commercials an opponent is going to put on the air if a judge tosses out a slip and fall case. _"Do you really want a judge who won't give *YOU* your day in court? This is just what judge Joe Smuck did to Jim Oopse. Jim was severely injured in a fall in a business and judge Smuck refused to even all Mr Oopse to have his day in court! Vote for Harry Hicup, he'll give *YOU* your day in court!!!"_ Now if you are a judge are you going to throw out a personal injury case?





Nevada said:


> Personally, I've always represented myself in civil matters. Lawyers are not only expensive, but I'm always disappointed in their lack of knowledge of the details of cases. I normally talk to a lawyer about my rights and obligations before I get started, but I keep track of my own details as I file pleadings.



Again its an overall cost issue. A business owner doesn't have time to do this. He has a business to run. He can't ignore his business while he 'plays lawyer'. Also in todays courts you can't in a lot of cases. Do you know where to go to hire an expert witness to review the data provided by the other side's expert witness? Would the expert even talk to you?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The point is to prevent cases from being filed.


No. The point isn't to prevent lawsuits from being filed. The point might be to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed, but there nothing wrong with seeking remedy in court. Heck, wealthy reopublican corporations do it all the time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No. The point isn't to prevent lawsuits from being filed. The point might be to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed, but there nothing wrong with seeking remedy in court. Heck, wealthy reopublican corporations do it all the time.


Are not frivolous lawsuits by there very name lawsuits?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Are not frivolous lawsuits by there very name lawsuits?


But frivolous lawsuits are not the majority of lawsuits. Remember, lawyers are reluctant to bring frivolous lawsuits because doing so risks their licenses to practice law. It still happens, but judges are on the lookout for them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But frivolous lawsuits are not the majority of lawsuits. Remember, lawyers are reluctant to bring frivolous lawsuits because doing so risks their licenses to practice law. It still happens, but judges are on the lookout for them.


The point is to reduce the cost of a business to fight lawsuits which would mean they would have a reason to fight rather than settle a $5K slip and fall claim which would reduce cost all around. Ask around. Ask someone if their insurance has ever told them they were just going to settle a case because it would be cheaper than taking it to court.

Its these cases most of which never get before a judge are one of the things driving the need for tort reform.

Another is the fact the system seems to think an individual has no responsibility for his own action. This is clear to anyone who reads the warnings on a mower or chainsaw.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The Medicare Part D doughnut hole will also be done away with during the first year.


It is interesting how much misinformation has been written about this. No it is not going to happen the first year, nor the 2nd year, it will take 10 years before it is done away with.


> * The Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole will gradually narrow every year until it is eliminated entirely by 2020. In the meantime, if your drug expenses cause you to fall into the doughnut hole, you will receive a 50 percent discount on all brand-name drugs.*


 Well that still puts a lot of Seniors in hardship.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/


----------



## MullersLaneFarm (Jul 23, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ok say this bill about health care passes today, Now what lies ahead?
> I have heard that Mark Levin and his company Landmark legal are ready to sue, as well as AGs from across the country, because of the unconstitutionality of forcing citizens to buy insurance.
> The behind the scenes is of them fast tracking it into the Supreme Court...
> Which I say Go Get Em..
> ...


Our courts are necessarily corrupt, they just have nothing to do with truth and justice, rather policy and procedure and which party can outlast/outpay the other.

So, AK, is there a web page up showing which states' AG are suing the federal gooberment?

Thanks muchly


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> It is interesting how much misinformation has been written about this. No it is not going to happen the first year, nor the 2nd year, it will take 10 years before it is done away with.
> 
> Well that still puts a lot of Seniors in hardship.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/


Wait a sec...

Are you actually complaining that you aren't getting _enough_ socialized health care??


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Wait a sec...
> 
> Are you actually complaining that you aren't getting _enough_ socialized health care??


 No just that when some post the donut hole does away I just posted yes it does but not entirely for 10 years, Just wanted to get the whole truth out just not part of it. Now if it was to close in one year I may go and get on one of those RA drugs, but I can't because of that donut hole.
The Donut Hole should NOT have been there in the first place~!
My Mom and Dad get into it in 3 months~then $3,600 right out of their pocket before insurance picks back up again. Just looking out for them also.


----------



## gottahaveagoat (Jun 5, 2006)

redtx said:


> This thread is interesting, but I was just wondering if anyone besides me is a small business owner who writes that check every quarter to the insurance company, and has watched the amount grow over 300% in the last ten years? I keep seeing that everyone is worried about their insurance costs going up, but the fact is they have been going up for years. That is one reason wages haven't gone up and companies are moving offshore. Don't get me wrong I am not at all happy with the plans coming out of Washington and I have my doubts as to weather anything they come up with will do any good, but what we have right now is not really workable. I am looking at dropping coverage or closing the doors and everyone that I know who is also running a small business is in the same boat.
> 
> On another note, I keep seeing the fact that most Americans are happy with the insurance they have, but you do realize that most Americans have government subsidized health insurance, about 60% through Medicare, medicade, and government employment. While I am real glad that you all are happy with the insurance my taxes are paying for, how long do you think we folks in the private sector are going to go along with this when we canât afford to cover our employees or ourselves?


I am a small business owner too, 9 employees. We pay our employees premiums every month. We have done this as a fringe benefit per say. BUT I do not appreciate the goverment forcing me to cover my employees. I think as a business owner I should have the choice if I want to cover my employees. If my employees don't like what I have to offer then they can go someplace that gives them what they want. We have been in business since 1966 but with govement forcing me to pay for something, who knows how long this is going to last. The goverment is going to soon be tell us all what we can and can't eat, If it's not be healthy for us then we shouldn't be eating it. Where I can and can't get care, if they think it cost to much they will pay X number of dollars and the rest will be for us to pay. Since they are paying for our health care they will think they have the right to decide anything they want about our care. Do you people really want them to decide if you need a treatment they don't think you need? I know I don't. I'm an adult I can decide what I need done and who is going to treat me. Dang it, what happen to our free country with our rights? This goverment wants to tell us how to do everything. We are adults and can make an adult decision. If we want to eat, drink or smoke as an adult that is our decision not the goverments! No I'm not over weight and have never smoked and drink maybe once a year. Funny how goverment has no problem over spending my money!! As for any of you who do not have health care I'm sorry. I know what that's like I've been there. It is scarey BUT you do not want the goverment to decide this for you. Insurance cost do need to be much much cheaper, but govement forced insurance is not the answer. You are going to see an end to small business. Our govement is taking away our rights people.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

As a small business owner,will you keep offering health insurance after this bill takes effect?

Knowing your employees can buy health insurance for very little money,I wonder if small businesses not forced to buy health insurance(50 employees and you are forced to provide insurance) will keep doing so.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> As a small business owner,will you keep offering health insurance after this bill takes effect?
> 
> Knowing your employees can buy health insurance for very little money,I wonder if small businesses not forced to buy health insurance(50 employees and you are forced to provide insurance) will keep doing so.


Yes, small business owners will offer health care insurance to their employees. That's because small business owners will receive tax credits for offering health care insurance, effectively providing a discount to small business employees. You are in favor of tax cuts to small business owners, aren't you?

Where do you propose small business employees find health care coverage for "very little money" without a public option?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Post the tax credits a small business owner will receive please and we can then see if it will offset the cost of providing health insurance.

Also could you provide where a public option is offered?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Post the tax credits a small business owner will receive please and we can then see if it will offset the cost of providing health insurance.


*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319



oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Also could you provide where a public option is offered?


There is no public option. I only asked where you thought small business employees were going to find health care converge for "very little money", as you suggested.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada,will it pay the full cost of the insurance for small businesses?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

A 10% tax on INDOOR tanning salons????


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Nevada,will it pay the full cost of the insurance for small businesses?


Of course not. Why would you think small business deserve free health care coverage?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

So why would they offer it if it costs them money?

Their employers can simply go get their own insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> So why would they offer it if it costs them money?
> 
> Their employers can simply go get their own insurance.


For the same reason any other business offers health care benefits; because good employee packages attract good employees. Employees will also accept lower pay in exchange for generous benefits, so it really doesn't cost as much as it might seem.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that you don't know more about running a small business, since you actually run one.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

LOL...there are something close to 20% people unemployed in this nation(U-6),people with college degrees are flipping burgers....

Companies have no need to offer benefits,people are glad to just get a job...

and I don't run a business,I am now one of the unemployed...


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> A 10% tax on INDOOR tanning salons????


That actually makes a lot of sense to me. It's because it's been proven to cause all sorts of cancers, which the taxbase will now be helping to subsidize the insurance for. So, yea, I want those who are stupid enough to go indoor tanning to pay more, since I'm going to have to pay for them in the end. You pay for them now if you have insurance, you just don't know it.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

You are then in favor of taxing obese people more??


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> LOL...there are something close to 20% people unemployed in this nation(U-6),people with college degrees are flipping burgers....


Yep - good ol' housing and banking crisis sure screwed it up. Although, part of that is that we've created an overrun of workers with college degrees and since the baby boomers aren't retiring, there's nothing else for these folks to do. Once the boomers get out of the way, you'll see those numbers fall.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

What jobs EXACTLY are these people going to get?

Most everyone who even sees a recovery have said it will be a jobless one...


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

If we could isolate what causes obesity, then yes - if it were a choice that was clear cut, like tanning is.

I'd love to tax junk food, and give tax breaks for local food. Right now, the producers making money are the large factory farms who outprice the small farm - because that's subsidized. So those doritos have government money in them, but that fresh apple that you buy at the farmers market doesn't (most likely). 

So...yes! I'd love to make it so that it's cheaper to eat healthier and more expensive to eat crap. That would help people significantly - and help small farmers too!


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> What jobs EXACTLY are these people going to get?


The jobs that the baby boomers retire from. 

This is not a new concept and it actually would have happened regardless of the economy - has nothing really to do with the downturn, other than the numbers being bumped up a bit.

There will still be jobs here, if we're smart about it. They won't be the same jobs. But they will exist. Most likely it will be the creative jobs - the ones where you actually need a degree - because it's just cheaper for companies to outsource right now. Unless you legislate that and make them stay in this country to hire. That's part of the brain drain. Things like IT went to India, where you can hire a programmer for a fraction of the price.

We just have to get smarter about it, and we're not.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> If we could isolate what causes obesity, then yes - if it were a choice that was clear cut, like tanning is.


LOL....well that woudl be people eating more then their body needs..contrary to what fat people say.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> The jobs that the baby boomers retire from.
> 
> This is not a new concept and it actually would have happened regardless of the economy - has nothing really to do with the downturn, other than the numbers being bumped up a bit.
> 
> ...


NAME some of these magical jobs that will soon be available...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> For the same reason any other business offers health care benefits; because good employee packages attract good employees. Employees will also accept lower pay in exchange for generous benefits, so it really doesn't cost as much as it might seem.


Once health insurance is relatively cheap through fedgov. subsidies it no longer is really THAT attractive a benefit...

The only reason it is now is because buying health insurance is expensive...once it is cheap why would an employee care if it was offered,they would rather have the extra money in their paycheck.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> LOL....well that woudl be people eating more then their body needs..contrary to what fat people say.


Actually this is not the case. It's not as easy as that. Sorry. There are some reasons for it that I could go into, but the science is *really* boring. 



> NAME some of these magical jobs that will soon be available...


Sure, I know of several people that are actually GOING to retire soon. One is a Systems Engineer, another is an AVP, another is a CTO. There's a glut up at the top because the baby boomers are working longer. This cascades down through a company, and it means there is no room for entry level people. We knew this was going to happen because of the population of the boomers. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

They aren't magical jobs, they are just...jobs. They will open up, and they will stay here because they can't be outsourced...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Something that has popped into my head...

It would be interesting for people to put in their current salary into the link,see what they would have to pay in premiums and total out of pocket expenses for insurance and THEN go try and find a policy that meets the out of pocket expenses...

Then we could figure out how much of the tab the fedgov. will have to pick up.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

The open market part isn't set up yet though oz. Not sure how that'd work.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Actually this is not the case. It's not as easy as that. Sorry. There are some reasons for it that I could go into, but the science is *really* boring.


No...actually it IS as simple as that...if you do not eat,you CANNOT gain weight...funny how this 'obesity' problem is a modern matter...




> Sure, I know of several people that are actually GOING to retire soon. One is a Systems Engineer, another is an AVP, another is a CTO. There's a glut up at the top because the baby boomers are working longer. This cascades down through a company, and it means there is no room for entry level people. We knew this was going to happen because of the population of the boomers. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
> 
> They aren't magical jobs, they are just...jobs. They will open up, and they will stay here because they can't be outsourced...


You do know that 100,000 people have to become employed EVERY month just to maintain our current unemployment rate right???

So to reverse the incredibly high rate we have now will take some major retirement numbers...


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> The open market part isn't set up yet though oz. Not sure how that'd work.


LOL....yet the bill passed and you support it...


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

I support that it will get set up - but you have to have the bill in order to have the exchange - it's kind of like planning to have a farmers market, you have to have a farmers market before you have stands...but you have to have stands before you actually have a farmers market - the bill is the planning.



> No...actually it IS as simple as that...if you do not eat,you CANNOT gain weight...funny how this 'obesity' problem is a modern matter...


Um - also not true with many medical conditions. 

When I was very very poor as a single mom, I ate less than 500 calories a day, and did not lose weight. No, I didn't gain any, that happened on a normal 1200 calorie diet.

What changes it for me is stopping eating crap processed food. If I'm good about it I can eat up to 2000 calories per day (even more). Bad about it? The weight piles on - I'm mildly insulin resistant we've found, and have PCOS. 

It's not as simple as you like to make it.

The reason this is a uniquely modern problem is that we have uniquely modified our foods in modern time so that food is not what it was before. We've also become more sedentary, but I can hardly be classified as a sedentary person.



> You do know that 100,000 people have to become employed EVERY month just to maintain our current unemployment rate right???


Can you tell me where this figure comes from? Are we laying off 100k people a month? Seems that would make more news than it is.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Initial unemployment claims for the week ending March 13th was 457,000. That is the number of people laid off that week applying for unemployment benefits- way over 100k... http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm This was actually good news because it was less than the number of people filing initial claims the week before.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> I support that it will get set up - but you have to have the bill in order to have the exchange - it's kind of like planning to have a farmers market, you have to have a farmers market before you have stands...but you have to have stands before you actually have a farmers market - the bill is the planning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again...if you do not eat you CANNOT gain weight,you might not intially lose weight but in the end you will,it IS as simple as that...but WAY off topic...





> Can you tell me where this figure comes from? Are we laying off 100k people a month? Seems that would make more news than it is.


That is the number the fedgov. has come up with as to how many potential new workers enter the workforce every month.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> Again...if you do not eat you CANNOT gain weight,you might not intially lose weight but in the end you will,it IS as simple as that...but WAY off topic...


Yea, sure - if I eat nothing eventually I would lose weight and die. But 2 years of a 500 calorie diet didn't do it. *sigh* 



> That is the number the fedgov. has come up with as to how many potential new workers enter the workforce every month.


Okay - THIS number jives with what I'm saying. Because there's about 74 million boomers getting ready to retire.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Not with the staggering losses they have taken in the last couple of years...


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

That figure is from late 2009. So, yea, it's a few months old. 

In fact, just a few years ago (as late as late 2008) they were predicting that businesses were going to have a heck of a time filling those positions because there wouldn't BE enough workers to fill them. So...maybe it's just going to be a wash now - either way - they are going to start retiring soon which will hopefully provide some relief.


----------



## gottahaveagoat (Jun 5, 2006)

wannabefarmwife said:


> That actually makes a lot of sense to me. It's because it's been proven to cause all sorts of cancers, which the taxbase will now be helping to subsidize the insurance for. So, yea, I want those who are stupid enough to go indoor tanning to pay more, since I'm going to have to pay for them in the end. You pay for them now if you have insurance, you just don't know it.


Sorry, I do not agree. It is the choice of the adult who enters that tanning salon. If they decide they want to take that risk, let them. Who cares! It is that adults choice. Why should the goverment get to tell us what is right or wrong for us to do? That is bull. I could care less what adults choose to do. I'm an adult, let me make my own choices. Heck doesn't everything cause cancer? Almost daily they come up with new study that proves that it causes cancer. We are all going to die anyway and I will take my chances on what "I" choose to do to my body. (no I don't tan) 
Who knows what is next? They are going to pick and choose as they want. Heck, tomorrow they could decide water straight from a well is bad for us, that we should be drinking "their" special water that they put all their vitamins in. If we don't we will all be unhealthy. Then anyone who drinks well water will have to pay a tax (to cover our part of the insurance) if we drink that water. When will it end? I thought our Country was about our Freedom, Freedom of choice. This is being taken away from us more and more all the time. We are being taxed to death!!!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Ok, I have asked this in another thread and got no answer. Does anyone KNOW the answers? 

1.Since it does allow increases based on inflation is that medical care inflation or on like a CPI based system? 

2.Does it allow for the prices to increase for the 4 years until this takes effect?

3.What about negative inflation? Will prices go down?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

As the AG from FL said, we are now being taxed for just living.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

gottahaveagoat said:


> I am a small business owner too, 9 employees. We pay our employees premiums every month. We have done this as a fringe benefit per say. BUT I do not appreciate the goverment forcing me to cover my employees.


Are you _planning_ on getting 41 more employees sometime soon? Since you have to have at least 50 employees before being "forced" to cover employees....



oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Once health insurance is relatively cheap through fedgov. subsidies it no longer is really THAT attractive a benefit...
> 
> The only reason it is now is because buying health insurance is expensive...once it is cheap why would an employee care if it was offered,they would rather have the extra money in their paycheck.


So why do businesses in European countries with hybrid versions (that is, a public system, as well as private insurance) offer insurance? 
Afterall, it would save them so much more if they didn't offer insurance...

(I mentioned this in the other thread, my brother gets insurance via his employer in Ireland, _and_ is able to use the public system)


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I'm not big on things European.

I thought we were going to be a better place, a more free world than they...kinda why we fought that pesky war and wrote that radical document (the Constitution of the United States of America).


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

America is not Canada, America, is not Europe, America, is not Ireland.
America Split from England, To Set It self apart from the Rest of the World, as a Free thinking, Free People, That want Freedom from their Government.
So why in the world do some now think we should "Be Like Other Countries?"
America has been just fine doing its own thing for close to 250 Years.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> I'm not big on things European.
> 
> I thought we were going to be a better place, a more free world than they...kinda why we fought that pesky war and wrote that radical document (the Constitution of the United States of America).


Focus guys. 
This has _nothing_ to do with Europeans. 

It was a reply to all the histrionics about employers dropping private insurance. There are countries who _already have_ a hybrid version in place and have for a number of years. They even have an actual "public option."
Yet many businesses _still_ provide employee insurance. 

These are not uncharted waters.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Over on GC (again, where I can't post), stranger posted:

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
*
Not true - fearmongering. P21-22 talks about doing a study in order to set insurance rates. In that study, they want to audit the books of some employers that self-insure in order to set the rates appropriately.*

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

*Highly misleading. There will be a committee, just as there is one for all insurance companies, where they decide what treatments are covered and which are not. This does not mean that I, joe schmoe, am going to have to go in front of a government committee to beg for my cancer treatment. It means that they are going to get together to decide that breast implants are out, and MRIs are in - same as happens today.*

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

*Page 29 deals with copayments. Are you sure you have the right page? *

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

*VERY misleading. P42 applies to insurance companies that wish to participate in the exchange. In order to participate in the exchange, they have to meet certain criteria. It has absolutely nothing to do with *you**

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

*Totally untrue. Page 50 says nothing about illegal immigrants. It says that state laws apply and that they can't discriminate against you for oh...being female. Or blind. *

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued! 
*Also totally not true. Looked the whole way up to page 64 and it talks about standardizing how they process electronic transactions...which doesn't sound horrible. Says nothing about a National ID Health Card at ALL. Where are you getting this stuff?*

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. 

*See above. This is bull.*

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

*Also not true. This is a plan for retirees not covered by social security. Says absolutely nothing about unions, community organizations, or ACORN. Fearmongering again.*

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

*Um. Sure. Okay, I'll give you this one. They mandate that in order to participate in the exchange, private health care plans have to have a few different levels of coverage - basic, enhanced and premium. *

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

*Again, highly misleading. They are specifying that in order for a company to participate in the exchange, there need to be 3 different levels of service offered. I see nothing about rationing. *

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

*JUST FLAT OUT WRONG. Linguistic appropriate services means nothing about illegal aliens. Did you know that there are parts of California that until quite recently belonged to Mexico, and the native speakers there are quite positively citizens but happen to speak spanish as a primary language? Has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with legality. *

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

*Again, bull pucky. Says nothing about ACORN or Americorps. Says that the Commission will outreach for people who may not be able to understand the bill so that they can get healthcare.*

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)

*We already went over this one. Again...totally misleading. *

Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

*Taken out of context. They are talking about newborns who do not have insurance on the exchange. So, extending coverage to brand new babies. *

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

*Again, misleading. This is talking about initial incentives and I believe it had to do with the public option. Doublechecking my facts, but since the public option was struck - it really doesn't apply here.* 

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

*Again, was talking about the public option. Regardless of that - it's not true - if you read the surrounding paragraphs, they are talking about which providers are considered in-network and out of network - just like you currently have with your insurance company.*

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

* This has to do with the exchange. If an employer offers insurance, the employer does have to enroll the employee in a plan. I'm not sure how I feel about this one, but since it's the only possibly vaguely true piece of information here, I'll leave it be.*

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. 

*P126 isn't that, I'm going to assume you mean p146. Employers will have to pay for their health insurance, yes, but commensurate with the number of hours that they work. This is to prevent what happens now, where they have people work 39 hours a week to avoid paying benefits. *

Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

*Yup, in order to avoid companies getting around it.*

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

*This is correct.*

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. 

*They also don't get services. They are exempt now from paying taxes. This has nothing to do with their legal status.*

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records. 

*Yep - if you're claiming that you can't afford health insurance and you need the subsidies, the gov't has the right to review your information. I would hope this would be the case - this prevents the fraud that so many were worried about.*

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."

*They are talking about how to determine if it's saving the country money or not, and how to make adjustments to it. *

Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors.

*Untrue. P239 deals with non-therapy ancillary services. It's just saying that the gov't will review services that are non-therapeutic and ancillary - like bed linen washing - to ensure that costs for nursing homes are in-line. Non-therapeutic means nothing to do with physicians. *

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same!

*Again - just flat out wrong. Lines 6-8 have nothing to do with anything (they are some legal babble about the non-therapy ancillary services). *

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. 

*Nope, this deals with allowable rate adjustments in order to be considered in-network. Again - flat out wrong.*

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

*Mandates? Incentivizes. If the county is really efficient, they get a bonus. Woo hoo! No wasted tax dollars here. *

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

*p268 doesn't refer to power driven wheelchairs at all. It's about appeal procedures that physicians can use if they feel something that they reported on is in error. Ooh ooh, I think I found what you were talking about p277 DOES say that they should change the language from power driven wheelchair to complex rehabilitative power driven wheelchair.*

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

*Just what bill are you talking about? This is about CA and MSAs. On page 281 it does talk about adjusting costs so that Cancer hospital costs are covered, because cancer hospitals are more expensive and so their costs would fall out of line with "normal" hospitals. Not sure what this has to do with rationing of any sort - seems like it's a good thing.*

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).
*
We must be off track or your page numbers are off. Because 280 doesn't say anything about that. In fact, your page numbers for the rest of this babble are off, so I'm going to stop here for right now.*

*I would urge you all to actually read the bill instead of relying on others interpretations. You might be pleasantly surprised. *


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You have not heard yet from the seniors, wait till the nearly 25 million seniors that on Those Advantage Programs have to go and get over coverage in a couple of years at a higher cost. And nothing takes place this year on the donut hole, and will not close completely for 10 years. And in the mean time those that hit the donut hole although getting some help it is isn't that much and it will be be a hardship for many.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

I'm just addressing the misinformation that has been spread so far. I'm not arguing philosophically for or against right now - just telling you what is actually IN the bill.

Okay, on this death panel thing...

There's this thing called Advance Care Planning (starts on p435). It's between you and your doctor, and here is what it covers (if you haven't discussed it with your doctor for the last 5 years):

Subsection A. You can talk to your doctor about planning for advanced care
Subsection B. They will talk to you about living wills, durable power of attorney and how to use them.
Subsection C. They will explain to you the roles and responsibilities of a health care proxy
Subsection D. They will talk to you about the resources available (toll free number etc.) that assist you with advanced care planning (legalities etc.)
Subsection E. They will explain the continuum of end-of-life services and support available including pallative care and hospice
Subsection F. If you haven't discussed it within the last 5 years, they will explain how orders for life-sustaining treatment etc. work (e.g. the order that you provide that says whether you should remain plugged in or not in the event of life-sustaining treatment necessity.)

It also says (p439) that you can have these conversations more often than the 5 years if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program. 

Then there are some things on p440-443 about how physicians should report this conversation and ensure that the orders are transferred from hospital to hospital (making sure your wishes are carried out), and how it gets put in the medicare handbook.

These are the only mentions of end-of-life counseling in the bill. I did extensive searches for death (which really only mentioned how coverage is to be dealt with) and death panels and came up with nothing. I'd love for someone to fill me in as to where they are finding that information actually IN the bill.

Okay - next point - I'll deal with arabian knight's comment in a minute after I read thoroughly and understand it. Give me a few here.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Ok all you supporters, answer this!

Why not address the cause of the high healthcare prices instead?
Maybe the high drug costs like Zevalin, a $24,000-a-month treatment for lymphoma or the $324,000 price tag for open heart surgery?
Why is this being called a healthcare bill if it is really a health insurance bill?

There is already Medicaid in place for the low income people that cannot afford insurance. If 133% of the federal poverty level is too low why not just raise it? 
I mean really it is pretty low. Who can live on $10,830/yr? Thats only $5.20/hr. Minimum wage is $7.25


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> You have not heard yet from the seniors, wait till the nearly 25 million seniors that on Those Advantage Programs have to go and get over coverage in a couple of years at a higher cost.


We'll see what falls out on that. My friend is a Medicare Advantage patient, so I hope that they extend the program for her. It's okay either way though, since she's been only been on the plan a month. We'll adjust if we have to. 



arabian knight said:


> And nothing takes place this year on the donut hole, and will not close completely for 10 years. And in the mean time those that hit the donut hole although getting some help it is isn't that much and it will be be a hardship for many.


_The approximately 4 million Medicare *beneficiaries who hit the so-called âdoughnut holeâ in the programâs drug plan will get a $250 rebate this year.* Next year, their cost of drugs in the coverage gap will go down by 50 percent. Preventive care, such as some types of cancer screening, will be free of co-payments or deductibles starting in 2010._
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35984435/ns/health-health_care/


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

These are the rest of the points from that other thread - I'm having to do some digging because the page numbers are off. My responses are in bold.:

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

*This is actually on p307 and applies to post-acute care (e.g. post-care after emergency room visits). If you are readmitted within 30 days (for the same thing) the payment to the dr. is reduced, yes. I actually don't have a problem with this, because I do know how many people are sent home, and then have recurring problems because their doctor didn't get it right. This should, hopefully, reduce early releases of patients for the purposes of clearing beds.*

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

*p327 Untrue. No prohibition. They must report how much they own of a hospital etc. in order to prevent doctors from self-referring (e.g. referring patients only to hospitals etc. where they have ownership, and thus fiscal benefit). There are exceptions to this and on p329 it specifies how much you can own in a hospital to be considered exempt from the self-referring ban. It does not tell you how much you can own, it just says "don't self-refer in the interest of not allowing competition"*

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)

*No, the govt is putting some limitations on how much they can expand and how often in order to get some of the exceptions listed above. This again, is to promote competition in medical care.*

Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
*
I can't find anything about this at all. I know our page numbers are out of synch, but...I really can't find this.*

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
*
pp 341-346. Has nothing to do with rationing, and everything to do with ensuring that each geographic area has equal access to quality care. *

Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)
*
Um. No. Not HMOs. Medicare Advance plans yes - if they don't have a quality status of 4 stars of higher. And it just means that they can't participate in the program, not that they can't exist*

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

*If by restrict you mean "makes sure people can enroll at specific times to prevent fraud" then...yes. It says that you can only enroll when you are diagnosed, or during an open enrollment period (if you have special needs). Basically to prevent people from deciding that they don't need special help, then all of a sudden they have a crisis and enter the system. This prevents fraud.
*
Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

*This is on p389, and is for people in rural areas. It provides for the establishment of tele-health for people who don't have easy access to a dr. or hospital in order to help them triage issues (if they are enrolled in medicare). I actually have a tel-a-nurse with my private plan and love it for things that I'm not sure whether I need to go to the dr. about or not. Seems like a valuable service for seniors in rural areas.*

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)
Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)
Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)
Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.
Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)
Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

*Okay - I already addressed all of this malarkey in the above post. It's all bunk - it has nothing to do with orders to die from the government. It's pure fear-mongering and absolutely disgusting and in poor taste IMO.*


Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

pp470-481 There is a pilot program for providing medical homes - these are typically homes where patients that have medical needs that are above and beyond self-care or assisted living, but are not quite dependent enough to require nursing homes. There are provisions for private ones (so, think profitable) as well as non-profit ones. Not sure how a link to ACORN is made, but man, I have a lot of acorns...and the stupid squirrels are stashing them everywhere. Maybe that's the link.

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

*What? Because they cover it??? This is insurance coverage to ensure that our marriages and families stay strong. Often when there are marital problems, counseling is REALLY helpful. Many private companies do not cover it, making it cost-prohibitive for people who really could use it to save their families. Why is this objectionable???*

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services
*
What does rationing mean to you? Because when I picture rationing I get "one visit per year", and that's not at all what is in the bill. What it says is that mental health services are included.*


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Wow!! A big whopping $250 rebate, man I'm impressed!! That's sarcasm if ya missed it...


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Next up...vaccines are:

Covered by medicare (p494)
Included as Preventative care (p777)
And there are plans for providing public health clinics where children can have access to vaccines (p1840)

No mention of mandatory, homeschooling or anything else like that.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> Why not address the cause of the high healthcare prices instead?
> Maybe the high drug costs like Zevalin, a $24,000-a-month treatment for lymphoma or the $324,000 price tag for open heart surgery?
> Why is this being called a healthcare bill if it is really a health insurance bill?
> 
> ...


Please understand that I'm going through this to correct misinformation - not advocating for or against. I do strongly feel, however, if you're going to rail about something that it ought to at least be accurate.

Okay - so, onto the high healthcare prices. There are a number of provisions in the bill that should help to establish reasonable prices for all of the above - some of which I have listed, as well as the incentives for hospitals to be efficient and effective. This is part of the regulations that the poster who I had initially quoted was railing about "telling physicians how much they can earn". More or less, what they are doing is saying what the physicians can charge in order to be considered "in-network" which will help keep the prices competitive and reduce the cost of health care. 

So, that's in there!


----------



## MullersLaneFarm (Jul 23, 2004)

wannabefarmwife said:


> The jobs that the baby boomers retire from.
> 
> This is not a new concept and it actually would have happened regardless of the economy - has nothing really to do with the downturn, other than the numbers being bumped up a bit.
> 
> ...


I'm a baby boomer that is unemployed for the first time in 36 years. Yup, IT is my gig and the only jobs out there are contract ones that will keep me from home 6-9 months, then it is back to being jobless.

:grit:


----------



## redtx (Jun 8, 2002)

Well Ambereyes why don't we just cut off funding altogether for Medicare Advantage plans as we have for several other welfare programs? See what kind of insurance coverage seniors can get on the private market and at what price without the taxpayer subsides.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Please understand that I'm going through this to correct misinformation - not advocating for or against. I do strongly feel, however, if you're going to rail about something that it ought to at least be accurate.
> 
> Okay - so, onto the high healthcare prices. There are a number of provisions in the bill that should help to establish reasonable prices for all of the above - some of which I have listed, as well as the incentives for hospitals to be efficient and effective. This is part of the regulations that the poster who I had initially quoted was railing about "telling physicians how much they can earn". More or less, what they are doing is saying what the physicians can charge in order to be considered "in-network" which will help keep the prices competitive and reduce the cost of health care.
> 
> So, that's in there!


So cutting the pay for doctors is your solution for cutting healthcare costs?

It's not the average malpractice insurance premiums now close to $100,000/yr for obstetricians and neurosurgeons. That is an average of 10 cents out of every dollar you pay goes to the malpractice insurance.

According to Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year, and, since 1975, direct costs of litigation avoidance have grown at more than 10 percent annually.

It's not the mandating them to carry it until they die? If you close your business do you still have to carry liability insurance? 

I would think that would be a start to cut costs.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I'll tell you what ain't bull: Medicare only pays x number of dollars for a diagnosis. It doesn't matter if the patient responds to treatment, or not, the dollar amount becomes fixed.

So the impetus is to treat 'em and street 'em.

Now you're telling me we will still be reimbursed x dollars for the diagnosis, and we are under the gun to street the patient, but if we send them out the door too soon, we will not be reimbursed properly for the readmit.

You know, a guy named Heller wrote a book about stuff like this...the main character was fighting in a war...seemed like he couldn't fly his mission unless he was crazy, but if he was crazy they couldn't clear him to fly...hmmmm...

Oh well, let me tell you about the real world...two weeks ago I was working at a rural hospital and we had a patient who had ran out of Medicare dollars for their diagnosis. They're in an end-stage spiral, but you can't keep patients for nothing...if you do, you don't have a hospital very long. So we bundle this patient up, tell the family we are going to kick 'em back to the nursing home.

The family doesn't like it much, but tough cookies.

The patient is transported back. Death occurs within six hours. 

Your tax dollars at work....


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

redtx said:


> Well Ambereyes why don't we just cut off funding altogether for Medicare Advantage plans as we have for several other welfare programs? See what kind of insurance coverage seniors can get on the private market and at what price without the taxpayer subsides.


Not sure what you are talking about in connection with my post.. Why not just close the donut hole now instead of playing these silly waiting games?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

From the closed thread:


> Originally Posted by tamsam
> I may not be very good at math but here goes. If a family of 4 has no income but unemployment and they are just barley making it, how are they going to pay for insurance. Is there going to be an insurance made for them?





> Originally Posted by ErinP
> Yes.
> There are going to be tax credits on a sliding scale based on income. (this just reinforces my theory, btw, that most people are against this simply because they don't understand what's IN it.)


Ok, so I will be mandated to buy health insurance out of my unemployment money and HOPE to get my money back in April when I file my tax return?(after I have starved to death)


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Actually, I would bet it's like any other tax credit in that you can have it spread out through the year. 
(Ie, if you usually get the full $1000 per child tax credit, you can have it spread out through the year, rather than just getting it back in April)


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

May I suggest that each person that has internet (that's us) do their own research and see if you believe any of the posters here conclustions as to what this means. There is nothing here that says anyone that is posting conclusioins is in any position to make those statements as to interpretations. Read for yourself. See what is true, then apply that finding to statements here if you wish. Learn what is going on - how it will effect you - for yourself.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> Actually, I would bet it's like any other tax credit in that you can have it spread out through the year.
> (Ie, if you usually get the full $1000 per child tax credit, you can have it spread out through the year, rather than just getting it back in April)


You can get the reduction of taxes spread out all year but since unemployment is usually under the minimum amount that is taxable you can have $0 taxes withdrawn, although they won't add the money to your check. Will they? (Never been able to do it so not sure)

I believe EIC is the only one able to be added and I believe even that is limited to certain employers(not unemployment).


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> Wow!! A big whopping $250 rebate, man I'm impressed!! That's sarcasm if ya missed it...


Sorry, I don't get it. Why is a $250 rebate something to get sarcastic about?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Sorry, I don't get it. Why is a $250 rebate something to get sarcastic about?


Very simple the donut hole after the first 2700 dollars is paid by medicare the patient is responsible for the next $3,453.75, that is a vast difference in comparison to $250. 

http://www.livestrong.com/article/14963-what-is-the-medicare-donut-hole/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> Very simple the donut hole after the first 2700 dollars is paid by medicare the patient is responsible for the next $3,453.75, that is a vast difference in comparison to $250.
> 
> http://www.livestrong.com/article/14963-what-is-the-medicare-donut-hole/


Well, it isn't a factor for my friend. She was on Medicare Part D last year but stayed under $500. I'm very careful about the meds that Part D pays for. I go overseas for any expensive meds.

It's no longer a factor though. She's now on a Medicare Advantage HMO that has no doughnut hole. As long as that program holds out we don't need to worry about it.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I cant quote the entire bill like some, I cant claim to have figured out how it all works like some (when even congress, medical professionals, and lawyers havent figured it out) but I have read enough to know this:

1. Provisions of this may help some folks.

2. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that small businesses of under 50 employees will drop their employee coverage or revert to the government coverage now that its available. Mid level business of over 50 employees may just suck up the fine...its a heck of a lot cheaper and businesses make business decisions like that every day.

3. This is a continuing erosion of our freedoms (did anyone hear the quote from Rep Dingell?) and gives the Federal government way too much control at the expense of state sovereignty.

4. Anyone who thinks this will cut the deficit is not being honest with themselves.

5. Since there is virtually no government agency or program in our history that is cost effective or really efficient I am confused why supporters think this monster is going to be so different.

6. Republicans are a bunch of goofballs for not having something viable as an alternative and I will vote against them out if they are an incumbent in my state too.

7. I think this is just the start of a planned expansion of federal control and it will lead to some states exercising their own plans to expand their control over us un-educated masses.

8. This bill will not stand as written, it will be challenged in court, parts will be over-turned when the other side regains control eventually but we will be stuck with government healthcare for good just like Social Security.

9. I dont think the affect this will have on the economy, how governmental and private employment or business will be impacted is known. I.e., I have military medical which is exempt from us having to purchase additional insurance but does this mean I can now put my 24 year old son on my insurance? If my daughter already has insurance can I put her on my insurance too so she is double covered? Can I purchase this new low cost insurance to supplement my military medical insurance so I am 100% covered?

And finally, I have to question the sanity of anyone who thinks turning over monitoring of the mandatory medical insurance to the IRS was a good idea. 

It will be an interesting year.


----------



## GoatsRus (Jan 19, 2003)

I just want to thank you for taking the time to look up all that information. Your notes have helped me a great deal. Take a deep breath because it's a long fight and some will keep beating the dead horse.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Well, it isn't a factor for my friend. She was on Medicare Part D last year but stayed under $500. I'm very careful about the meds that Part D pays for. I go overseas for any expensive meds.
> 
> It's no longer a factor though. She's now on a Medicare Advantage HMO that has no doughnut hole. As long as that program holds out we don't need to worry about it.


That's good but what about the ones that just can't afford more coverage? I volunteer to help out with seniors in our area and can tell you there are quite a few that just can't spend another dime, it just isn't there. So glad you are not worried, even though there are alot of people that have to.


----------



## redtx (Jun 8, 2002)

Well Ambereyes my point is if you don't like the conditions on my charity don't take it. That is what Medicare Part D is after all, charity. The idea behind the donut whole is to make you ask your doctor when he prescribes something if there might be a cheaper option, thus saving the taxpayers, who subsidize the Part D, plans money. Now you could have a plan like many of us under 65 that requires us to meet or annual deductible before it pays for any drugs, $2500 to $10.000 in many cases, while we subsidize the Part D plans. Which would you prefer? No law says anyone has to sign up for a Part D plan, if people don't like it they can buy their own insurance.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

redtx said:


> Well Ambereyes my point is if you don't like the conditions on my charity don't take it. That is what Medicare Part D is after all, charity. The idea behind the donut whole is to make you ask your doctor when he prescribes something if there might be a cheaper option, thus saving the taxpayers, who subsidize the Part D, plans money. Now you could have a plan like many of us under 65 that requires us to meet or annual deductible before it pays for any drugs, $2500 to $10.000 in many cases, while we subsidize the Part D plans. Which would you prefer? No law says anyone has to sign up for a Part D plan, if people don't like it they can buy their own insurance.


You are not understanding what I am saying, the president is spouting off about how wonderful his bill is and I am saying it is not as advertised!!!! I don't want this bill it is nothing but a largess for insurance companies and big pharma.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

I do agree - read the actual bill rather than the hyperbole. (On either side)

There are some people that think that tort reform is the answer. I would like to see tort reform as much as the next guy (really, I would) in all areas, because I honestly see many of the issues in this country being related to the ability to sue everyone and their brother for tiny issues BUT:

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

Some tort reform already accomplished
http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm

Some more information about it:
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html

http://www.thenewyorkmedicalmalpracticelawblog.com/2009/08/why-is-tort-reform-so-uninformed/

Those were the first few links after googling "will tort reform work". There's an example in Ohio, where it did, but will it actually make healthcare affordable? Well, I'm just not sure about that. It did improve some things though, and I do wish it was part of the bill, but not a replacement for the bill.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> I just want to thank you for taking the time to look up all that information. Your notes have helped me a great deal. Take a deep breath because it's a long fight and some will keep beating the dead horse.


You're welcome  I don't mind people being for or against it - that's fine, you know? But I guess I just have a real issue with misinformation  

One should know exactly what one is protesting, advocating, or fighting for (or against). Otherwise, you run the risk of looking like these people:

Warning, the below URL does not necessarily represent my views, nor am I saying that it is indicative of all Tea Party-ers, but it IS indicative of people being very much less than fully informed, and still deciding to protest (though...they aren't even sure what they are protesting)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448[/ame]


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> That's good but what about the ones that just can't afford more coverage? I volunteer to help out with seniors in our area and can tell you there are quite a few that just can't spend another dime, it just isn't there. So glad you are not worried, even though there are alot of people that have to.


She doesn't pay any more for the Medicare Advantage HMO than for bare-naked Medicare. In fact, since prescriptions are included in the program she was allowed to drop Medicare Part D, which saves her about $30/month.

The problem with the Medicare Part D doughnut hole is that a lot of seniors aren't web savvy enough to research their options. They don't search the Internet for the best Part D providers, they don't study the impact that certain meds will have on the Part D premium, and they don't know of alternate sources for expensive meds. The result is that they get screwed.

One more problem is that a lot of seniors really don't want to hear about it. It seems too complicated to them. I've tried to explain it to a few, but I see their eyes rolling back in their heads. They would prefer to be fleeced over being confused, and I'm sure that the pharmaceutical companies are fine with that.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

AN excerpt from PNHP:


_*

Pro-single-payer doctors: Health bill leaves 23 million uninsured
Created Monday, March 22, 2010

A false promise of reform


Contact:
Oliver Fein, M.D.
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, [email protected]

The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program, www.pnhp.org. Their signatures appear below.

As much as we would like to join the celebration of the House's passage of the health bill last night, in good conscience we cannot. We take no comfort in seeing aspirin dispensed for the treatment of cancer.

Instead of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.

The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:

â¢About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering. 
â¢Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles. 
â¢Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform. 
â¢The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured. 
â¢People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows. 
â¢Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates. 
â¢The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017. 
â¢Women's reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and for all other medical services.
It didn't have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers, could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.

Similarly, the expansion of Medicaid - a woefully underfunded program that provides substandard care for the poor - could have been done separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade its quality.

But instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today.

This bill's passage reflects political considerations, not sound health policy. As physicians, we cannot accept this inversion of priorities. We seek evidence-based remedies that will truly help our patients, not placebos.

A genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.

By replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary, wasteful administrative costs. That's enough to cover all the uninsured and to upgrade everyone else's coverage without having to increase overall U.S. health spending by one penny.

Moreover, only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital planning.

Polls show nearly two-thirds of the public supports such an approach, and a recent survey shows 59 percent of U.S. physicians support government action to establish national health insurance. All that is required to achieve it is the political will.

The major provisions of the present bill do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to "wait and see" how this reform plays out, we cannot wait, nor can our patients. The stakes are too high.
*_


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Wait, Jolly - you're quoting people that are trying to promote a single payer system...which was the public option piece that got removed (because of all the hooplah) from the bill. 



> PNHP views this campaign as part of the campaign for social justice in the United States. PNHP opposes for-profit control, and especially corporate control, of the health system and favors democratic control, public administration, and single-payer financing.


You can't have it both ways, I'm sorry. *shaking head* Which is part of what I see wrong with this bill and people protesting. Things get taken out which are rather crucial because of the crapolah around it.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

salmonslayer said:


> 2. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that small businesses of under 50 employees will drop their employee coverage or revert to the government coverage now that its available. Mid level business of over 50 employees may just suck up the fine...its a heck of a lot cheaper and businesses make business decisions like that every day.


But only small businesses OVER 50 will have a mandate to insure employees. 
Ie, whether businesses UNDER 50 keep insurance or not has nothing to do with the mandate...



> 3. This is a continuing erosion of our freedoms (did anyone hear the quote from Rep Dingell?) and gives the Federal government way too much control at the expense of state sovereignty.


Funny, that was the usual argument against Civil Rights legislation, too. (Anyone remember the Little Rock Nine?)



> 4. Anyone who thinks this will cut the deficit is not being honest with themselves.


Or else we believe the non-partisan CBO who's job is, and _has always been_, to crunch the numbers and say whether it will or won't work as expected. 



> 5. Since there is virtually no government agency or program in our history that is cost effective or really efficient I am confused why supporters think this monster is going to be so different.


Cost effective and efficiency are both extremely subjective terms. It's both impossible to argue for _or_ against that point. 



> 7. I think this is just the start of a planned expansion of federal control and it will lead to some states exercising their own plans to expand their control over us un-educated masses.


It's also impossible to argue against conspiracy theories. That's the very nature of a conspiracy theory afterall. You _have_ to agree with the theory. 
If you think it's nuts, well then you must be "in on it." :TFH: lol



> And finally, I have to question the sanity of anyone who thinks turning over monitoring of the mandatory medical insurance to the IRS was a good idea.


They aren't "monitoring insurance" anymore than they're monitoring my mileage or new(er) computer (both deductions on my taxes, btw)



> It will be an interesting year.


That it will.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Oh - and one other thing I wanted to address...

Someone mentioned "not to believe" people's interpretations, and I did want to say "you're right" BUT the legalese in these bills is very difficult to interpret.

I used to work at a company where I had to read the environmental regulations put forth by the EPA, and all the fine print, and ensure that the company was in compliance (we also had state DEP to work with too! And then there was figuring out what to do when something fell "between" the regs). I will give you a few tips:

1. Ensure that you read the WHOLE section. While people can argue legally that a part of a section applies out of context, it usually doesn't hold up in court. A lot of the original statements that were made by the poster (that I explained) were taken out of context, and you can't do that with a bill (or any other piece of legislation or mandate).

2. Be sure to read definitions closely. 

3. Be sure to read all of the different modifications - usually I do searches on terms used in the section I'm reading. Sometimes there are mods outside the original pages (even in amended amendments). It can be tricky to keep track of.

4. Remember that the writers of the bill or piece of legislation MUST define things very narrowly in order for the law to apply. So, if the bill says newborns, it means newborns. It doesn't mean children under 5, or 10, or 15, or special needs kids, or senior citizens. It can't be expanded, though you can conjecture that it's where it's going if you want - but call a spade a spade and be fair - call it conjecture. 

5. Again - remember which subsection you're in and look at how the things around it apply. Read it word for word, and reference back and forth. That's the ONLY way to know what's actually in the bill. You can't read one page and say "THIS IS IN THE BILL" because very very very rarely does anything fit on one page. And if it does, it's probably a tiny piece of the picture.

I think that's it for my tips and tricks. Just wanted to clarify that sure - it's my interpretation too. But it's based on quite a bit of knowledge of how to read regs.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

Erin, Actually no business, regardless of size is mandated to provide coverage. They can either provide coverage, OR pay the fine. In many cases, the fine will be less, I can't say in absolute terms that employers will choose the less expensive fine, but it only makes sense that they will. 

I encourage people to look a short distance down the road before they assume this is a huge gift to insurance companies. Drug companies perhaps, but insurance companies, no.

Edited for spelling.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Stephen in SOKY said:


> Erin, Actually no business, regardless of size is mandated to provide coverage. They can either provide coverage, OR pay the fine. In many cases, the fine will be less, I can't say in absolute terms that employers will choose the less expensive fine, but it only makes sense that they will.


True enough. 
I should have said, "only business with OVER 50 employees will be expected to pay a tax should they opt not to insure employees."


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> But only small businesses OVER 50 will have a mandate to insure employees.
> Ie, whether businesses UNDER 50 keep insurance or not has nothing to do with the mandate...


 I said that if you read my post. I am saying that many businesses with under 50 employees currently provide some sort of HC for employees but will drop it since there is now an alternative.



> Funny, that was the usual argument against Civil Rights legislation, too. (Anyone remember the Little Rock Nine?)


 Equating this civil rights is pretty offensive. You obviously did not read Dingell's quote.



> Or else we believe the non-partisan CBO who's job is, and has always been, to crunch the numbers and say whether it will or won't work as expected.


 Again, do a little research. The CBO only analyzes the assumptions given, it does not try to predict what will actually occur (at least according to the CBO).



> Cost effective and efficiency are both extremely subjective terms. It's both impossible to argue for or against that point.


 The "point" which seems to be lost to some is that the government is not set up for efficiency or to be cost effective...they may be the only ones that could provide universal HC and that may be a laudable goal but its silly to use efficiency or cost effectiveness as a justification.



> It's also impossible to argue against conspiracy theories. That's the very nature of a conspiracy theory afterall. You have to agree with the theory.
> If you think it's nuts, well then you must be "in on it." lol


 Hmm, I used to be stationed in San Francisco....you need to travel more to understand what can happen when government gains too much control.



> They aren't "monitoring insurance" anymore than they're monitoring my mileage or new(er) computer (both deductions on my taxes, btw)


 The IRS has been tagged with monitoring compliance with the mandatory insurance provision once it takes effect in 2014....good place to look for a job I guess.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

wannabefarmwife said:


> You're welcome  I don't mind people being for or against it - that's fine, you know? But I guess I just have a real issue with misinformation
> 
> One should know exactly what one is protesting, advocating, or fighting for (or against). Otherwise, you run the risk of looking like these people:
> 
> ...


I wish there were more people like you posting on this subject, instead of people who are NOT wise enough to know that they aren't wise enough to know it all. (Where did I hear that before?  ) 

I do see people here making good points on both sides. Then I see others only looking to validate their political identities by demonizing the other side - completely rude and small-minded and NOT focused on the issue at hand. (actually, I'm not sure if I saw that in this thread or the other, or both, and don't have time to go looking now)


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Wait, Jolly - you're quoting people that are trying to promote a single payer system...which was the public option piece that got removed (because of all the hooplah) from the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways, I'm sorry. *shaking head* Which is part of what I see wrong with this bill and people protesting. Things get taken out which are rather crucial because of the crapolah around it.


I know who I am quoting. What I see, albeit through a different lens than the authors of the piece, is many of the same arguments I've made over the past several days. This thing is unsustainable, it does not do what many purport that it does, Medicare will be whacked severely and people will be mandated by law to buy insurance they cannot afford.

Thomas Sowell had a nice article today about the cost of this thing, along with the hows and whens it will collapse of its own weight...the first ten years it may work, because we are prepaying the bills, even though it will cost us a trillion dollars. After ten years when it becomes pay-as-we-go, there is no way, no accounting trick, that will make the numbers work. Obama knows this and is counting on the inability of pols taking back any entitlement.

Lastly, I had a nice conversation with a couple of docs today. One happens to be one of the smartest physicians I know, along with being a very successful businessman. It was his opinion that the quality of American medicine will probably continue for ten to fifteen years, at which time this ball of yarn collapses, leaving single payer government run healthcare, with a majority of the best and brightest physicians either leaving the field or engaging in private, fee-for-service (such as they do in India) practice only. We'll be stuck with civil service docs, punching their eight hour clocks...seeing their quota of twenty patients a day, treating only that which is right in front of them and not much else.

That's a pretty grim future.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Jolly,but don't you see,that will be FAIR....everyone would get the same treatment....albeit poor treatment but such is life....


----------



## Mrs.Swirtz (Jan 13, 2009)

They are going to put the IRS in charge of it. What do you think of that? In Massachusettes if you can't prove that you have health coverage then you don't get your state taxes back. And now the IRS is going to be in charge of our healthcare!!??


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Stephen in SOKY said:


> Erin, Actually no business, regardless of size is mandated to provide coverage. They can either provide coverage, OR pay the fine. In many cases, the fine will be less, I can't say in absolute terms that employers will choose the less expensive fine, but it only makes sense that they will.
> 
> I encourage people to look a short distance down the road before they assume this is a huge gift to insurance companies. Drug companies perhaps, but insurance companies, no.
> 
> Edited for spelling.


Actually for the short term it will be a money tree for insurance companies. Just as credit card reform was a short term cash hog for those companies. Don't believe me take a statement from before the CC reform and look at one today. You will notice that the interest rate is just a bit higher (say 50% or so) and the grace period has disappeared all together. Thank you for your help US government.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

And to our resident expert:

What say you about the bill not covering pre-existing conditions for children?


----------



## paintlady (May 10, 2007)

We are self employed- we farm. Between DH and I we pay out $12234.00 per year for health coverage with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The rates went up this month. We have $3000.00 deductibles each and an 80/20 copay. 
I had a knee replaced 6 years ago which is considered a preexisting condition should it come apart or wear out and I have to have it done over. That cost $37,000.00 6 years ago. I also had an MRI done on my other knee which I tore the cartiledge in almost two years ago. The MRI cost over $4000.00. Blue Cross paid $180.00 of that. 
I have talked to other farmers here along with other self employed people such as beauticians, day care people etc. The general concensus is that none of us are going in for things like mammograms, colorectal screenings etc, in other words, preventive things because the insurance doesn't pay squat for these things. I am at the age where I should be doing these things but I am not about to pay thousands more out of my pocket which my worthless insurance should be covering. 
For those people that say it is unconstitutional for the government to make everyone have insurance than I say this- The state of MInnesota IE> government has MANDATORY car insurance for Minnesota residents. I have been driving for 37 years and have never had an accident or traffic ticket.. but I have payed literally thousands of dollars out over the years in car insurance. 
Around here Blue Cross is the only insurance company. I tried looking into other online insurances and was told not to drop Blue Cross because they wouldn't cover me again should I ever want their services again. They are a cold blue monopoly and are in my opinion a huge rip off. I would welcome a better system.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

sounds to me like pocketing (saving) the $12k a year makes FAR more sense... then take out a "disaster-only" policy (incredibly affordable) and pay for your own medical procedures out of the yearly amount set aside for medical.

just "thinking out loud" there...


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Scoured the bill for preexisting condition limitations for children, and can't find a thing. 

What I did find was this:
SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLU- 

SIONS. 
5 
A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any 
6 
pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 
7 
2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or other- 
8 
wise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under 
9 
the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based 
10 
on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 
11 
2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation 
12 
to the individual or dependent. 
13 
7 

Is there a specific section that you're referring to?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

paintlady said:


> For those people that say it is unconstitutional for the government to make everyone have insurance than I say this- The state of MInnesota IE> government has MANDATORY car insurance for Minnesota residents. I have been driving for 37 years and have never had an accident or traffic ticket.. but I have payed literally thousands of dollars out over the years in car insurance.


No, it is NOT MANDATORY, don't drive = No Insurance. 

You have a choice!!!!

Do I have a choice here? It's gonna cost me money NO MATTER WHAT!!!!

(not that I condone the mandatory car insurance but at least you have a choice)

Also in most states if you have a $30,000-$50,000 secured bond you don't need car insurance


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

blooba - you do have a choice. Do not live and breathe, and then you too will be the same as a person with no car to insure.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

AngieM2 said:


> blooba - you do have a choice. Do not live and breathe, and then you too will be the same as a person with no car to insure.


lol, true but I'll leave that up to the gooberment since I trust them with their decisions over my LIFE anyday because they are ALWAYS right.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Scoured the bill for preexisting condition limitations for children, and can't find a thing.
> 
> What I did find was this:
> SEC. 111. PROHIBITING PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLU-
> ...


Karen Lightfoot, one of the staffers who represent the House Commerce Committee, which wrote the bill, says it's not. At least not as Obama has portrayed it.

An excerpt from the AP news report:

_ WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. 
_


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> _The approximately 4 million Medicare *beneficiaries who hit the so-called &#8220;doughnut hole&#8221; in the program&#8217;s drug plan will get a $250 rebate this year.* Next year, their cost of drugs in the coverage gap will go down by 50 percent. Preventive care, such as some types of cancer screening, will be free of co-payments or deductibles starting in 2010._
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35984435/ns/health-health_care/


 No that is not what it says~! This is what it says: 


> *The Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole will gradually narrow every year until it is eliminated entirely by 2020. TEN years if my math is correct. In the meantime, if your drug expenses cause you to fall into the doughnut hole, you will receive a 50 percent discount on all brand-name drugs.*


 And Click on the Link and fill it in appropitaly to get the answer. Which is what I quoted.
And Big Whoop,,,, a 250 dollar rebate against $3,600 That one must spend while in the donut hole~!~!! WOW that is going to help a lot now isn't it????
Geesh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ambereyes said:


> That's good but what about the ones that just can't afford more coverage? I volunteer to help out with seniors in our area and can tell you there are quite a few that just can't spend another dime, it just isn't there. So glad you are not worried, even though there are a lot of people that have to.


 Ya nice for some that can "Travel Over seas to get cheaper drugs~!
My folks get in the donut hole in the First Three Months. and they sure as heck can't go over seas nor would they ever want to~!
And I myself would hit the Donut hole in the first TWO months. And NO there is no other drug out there here in this country OR anyplace else that would equal the drug the doc want to put me on and I agree which I should be put on!. We have the latest and Best Meds for RA in America~!
That is what is wrong with all the programs in other countries they are NOT getting the latest and greatest Best Medicine that is available.
And now thanks to O soon that will be the case for people in America that have Severe RA. And that are allergic to most that are on the market, and must rely on the latest~!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

blooba said:


> lol, true but I'll leave that up to the gooberment since I trust them with their decisions over my LIFE anyday because they are ALWAYS right.


 Where is the Sarcastic look at the end of your post?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Where is the Sarcastic look at the end of your post?


What didn't that sound sincere? :rotfl:

Them wasting my money is one thing, them wanting to waste my health is another.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I haven't had time to read through the entire thread, so this might have been mentioned before.

One of the first things that is scheduled to happen is a 10 percent tax on using tanning booths. So, if you haven't already gotten your base tan burned in, you might want to do it soon if you want to avoid the extra tax.

I always feel a little out of place going into one of those places and stripping down to my overalls and t-shirt to work on my farmer's tan. So, I'll probably end up doing it outside on our place again this year.

But, for those you who like standing in those modified bug lights, do it now or it will probably wind up costing you more.


----------



## paintlady (May 10, 2007)

> No, it is NOT MANDATORY, don't drive = No Insurance.
> 
> You have a choice!!!!


Do I have a choice here? It's gonna cost me money NO MATTER WHAT!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obviously you live in the city. The closest town here is 15 miles away so NO I don't have a choice. My point was that the government gets into everyones business in one way or another.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

paintlady said:


> For those people that say it is unconstitutional for the government to make everyone have insurance than I say this- The state of MInnesota IE> government has MANDATORY car insurance for Minnesota residents. I have been driving for 37 years and have never had an accident or traffic ticket.. but I have payed literally thousands of dollars out over the years in car insurance.


Your *state* government has the constitutional authority (your state Constitution) to require you to have auto insurance if you choose to own a car and drive it on a public roadway. The *federal *government does not have the constitutional authority to require you to have medical insurance just because you are alive.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

This is a simple issue. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to do the things they have set out to do. Even if you like the things in the bill, ask yourself this question. If Congress can act outside the constitution to enact this legislation, what is to stop them from doing anything else they decide to do? Do you want to live in a country where the legislators have absolute authority over you?


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> This is a simple issue. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to do the things they have set out to do. Even if you like the things in the bill, ask yourself this question. If Congress can act outside the constitution to enact this legislation, what is to stop them from doing anything else they decide to do? Do you want to live in a country where the legislators have absolute authority over you?


First, Congress has extremely broad powers under the commerce clause, so it's highly doubtful it's unconstitutional. Second, why don't you just have your state opt out?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Deacon Mike said:


> First, Congress has extremely broad powers under the commerce clause, so it's highly doubtful it's unconstitutional. Second, why don't you just have your state opt out?


They do not have the authority to force me to buy medical insurance under any clause of the constitution. My state is opting out, but that does not undo the damage done by this legislation.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> Karen Lightfoot, one of the staffers who represent the House Commerce Committee, which wrote the bill, says it's not. At least not as Obama has portrayed it.


She can say that as much as she wants, but I would challenge anyone to find anything stating other than what was posted. Go look for yourself.


----------



## krische1012 (May 3, 2009)

deaconjim said:


> This is a simple issue. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to do the things they have set out to do. Even if you like the things in the bill, ask yourself this question. If Congress can act outside the constitution to enact this legislation, what is to stop them from doing anything else they decide to do? Do you want to live in a country where the legislators have absolute authority over you?


Thank you deaconjim...it is very simple, you are exactly right.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> They do not have the authority to force me to buy medical insurance under any clause of the constitution. My state is opting out, but that does not undo the damage done by this legislation.


Your state is filing suit, that's not opting out. They can opt out within the bill


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Deacon Mike said:


> Your state is filing suit, that's not opting out. They can opt out within the bill


Can you tell me about that state opting out? I've missed that in the scans of the bill and the reconilliation amendment that I've looked at, etc.

Please, can anyone tell about this feature.
Cause iif t is true, I must talk to the ATTy Gen's of 11 states that are suing and the other 20+ that are working on suing, etc.

Angie


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Deacon Mike said:


> First, Congress has extremely broad powers under the commerce clause, so it's highly doubtful it's unconstitutional. Second, why don't you just have your state opt out?


Ah. . .exactly in just living commerce? Specifically interstate commerce?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Deacon Mike said:


> Your state is filing suit, that's not opting out. They can opt out within the bill


The bill is unconstitutional, so there won't be a need to opt out within the bill.



> RICHMOND - Virginia's General Assembly has become the first state legislature to tell the Obama administration that a mandatory national health insurance plan won't play in the Old Dominion. The Senate-amended House Bill 10 breezed though the House Wednesday, 80 to 17, with plenty of support from Democrats. Governor Robert McDonnell told CBS-6 Wednesday that he'll sign it. "We never gave Washington the power to force us to buy any products of any kind," said Del. Charles Poindexter, (R-9th District). "Insurance is a product. They're saying I have to buy insurance." He's proud that Virginia was the first state to strongly take a stand.


As a matter of fact, this just happened today:



> *Gov. Bob McDonnell signs Virginia Health Care Freedom Act*
> 
> RICHMOND - Governor Bob McDonnell (R) signed Virginia&#8217;s opposition to the Democratically led federal health care reform bill Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> ...


----------



## coffee (Mar 17, 2009)

If you're uninsured, you could receive a tax credit to help pay for coverage if needed -
9 out of ten if you can not afford insurance ,, you don't have to worry about tax as you don't make enough to pay tax , so what good is a tax credit ..
Im self employed and a tax credit will do me no good at all..
now will you have insurance or will you pay your rent ??? oh maybe not eat .
most do not have insurance because they can not afford it 
if you can not afford insurance and they fine you ,, now pay the fine and you can afford insurance less . what did any one gain ?????
just let a rich man tell you what is the most important thing you need to spend the money on :grumble::grumble:, because he has no Idea how it is not to have an extra mil or two in the bank ,,, 
next time when I vote ,, all I will ask is did you vote for the health bill . 
What really makes me mad is ,, the IDIOTS that voted on it have no Idea what ALL was in this bill .. no one read all the  bill . they only know what they were told


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> The bill is unconstitutional, so there won't be a need to opt out within the bill.


Jim, tell me you've read the constitution. _You_ don't get to decide what's constitutional or not, that's why we have the courts.

Second, federal law is supreme over state law, so all Virginia did today is waste the taxpayer's money grandstanding


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Deacon Mike said:


> Jim, tell me you've read the constitution. _You_ don't get to decide what's constitutional or not, that's why we have the courts.
> 
> Second, federal law is supreme over state law, so all Virginia did today is waste the taxpayer's money grandstanding


Yes, I've read the Constitution, especially Article 1 Section 8. I've also read the 9th and 10th amendments. I can find the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but I can't find the authority to require interstate commerce. Could you please direct me to that particular section?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Can you tell me about that state opting out? I've missed that in the scans of the bill and the reconilliation amendment that I've looked at, etc.
> 
> Please, can anyone tell about this feature.
> Cause iif t is true, I must talk to the ATTy Gen's of 11 states that are suing and the other 20+ that are working on suing, etc.
> ...


There seems to be a _lot_ of confusion about this. 

It's only 11 or 12 Atty. Gens that are filing suit. The 20+ is those who are working on blockage _legislation_. Completely different process.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> Yes, I've read the Constitution, especially Article 1 Section 8. I've also read the 9th and 10th amendments. I can find the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but I can't find the authority to require interstate commerce. Could you please direct me to that particular section?


I think Mike's point was that it doesn't make a lick of difference if _you_ think it's Constitutional. Or me. Or any of the other people on this board. 

The only people who _truly_ get a say in the constitutionality of laws are those folks who get to wear the black dresses.  
And that's the way it's supposed to work. _According_ to the Constitution.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ErinP said:


> There seems to be a _lot_ of confusion about this.
> 
> It's only 11 or 12 Atty. Gens that are filing suit. The 20+ is those who are working on blockage _legislation_. Completely different process.


There are overlaps. Virginia has passed blockage legislation, and has filed suit. Thank you Gov. McDonnell.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

coffee said:


> 9 out of ten if you can not afford insurance ,, you don't have to worry about tax as you don't make enough to pay tax , so what good is a tax credit ..
> Im self employed and a tax credit will do me no good at all..
> now will you have insurance or will you pay your rent ??? oh maybe not eat .
> most do not have insurance because they can not afford it
> ...


You're obviously one who has _not_ read the bill.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

This evening on the news, they pointed out that in this big big bunch of laws and such that the immediate law taking care of the pre-existing clause for children was, ummm, left out? That there will now have to be a ruling made by the HHS to have it start now instead of 2014.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> She can say that as much as she wants, but I would challenge anyone to find anything stating other than what was posted. Go look for yourself.


 Its all over the news...the Dems are trying to fix that little faux pax right now.



> Second, federal law is supreme over state law, so all Virginia did today is waste the taxpayer's money grandstanding


 You pretty much summed up why most of us are so concerned...


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Can you tell me about that state opting out? I've missed that in the scans of the bill and the reconilliation amendment that I've looked at, etc.
> 
> Please, can anyone tell about this feature.
> Cause iif t is true, I must talk to the ATTy Gen's of 11 states that are suing and the other 20+ that are working on suing, etc.
> ...



It's all in the bill, section 1332 



> PART IV--State Flexibility to Establish Alternative Programs
> 
> Sec. 1331. State flexibility to establish basic health programs for low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid.
> 
> ...


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ErinP said:


> I think Mike's point was that it doesn't make a lick of difference if _you_ think it's Constitutional. Or me. Or any of the other people on this board.
> 
> The only people who _truly_ get a say in the constitutionality of laws are those folks who get to wear the black dresses.
> And that's the way it's supposed to work. _According_ to the Constitution.


The "folks who get to wear the black dresses" work for us, as do the people who pass the laws. Their job description is spelled out plainly in the Constitution, so I fully expect them to be aware of the limits it places on them. As it is our duty as a citizens to supervise the conduct of our employees, it is our responsibility as well. If we do not have that basic knowledge, we are at the mercy of those we have hired to serve us.

And that's the way it's supposed to work, according to the people who wrote the Constitution.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> The "folks who get to wear the black dresses" work for us, as do the people who pass the laws. Their job description is spelled out plainly in the Constitution, so I fully expect them to be aware of the limits it places on them. As it is our duty as a citizens to supervise the conduct of our employees, it is our responsibility as well. If we do not have that basic knowledge, we are at the mercy of those we have hired to serve us.
> 
> And that's the way it's supposed to work, according to the people who wrote the Constitution.


Actually, that's precisely WHY they're appointed for life. So that they _aren't_ swayed by public opinions. 
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the Supreme Court.


Their job is very simple. They interpret the Constitution to the best of their ability AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE what anyone else thinks.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Actually, that's precisely WHY they're appointed for life.
> So that they _aren't_ swayed by public opinions.
> 
> Their job is very simple. They interpret the Constitution to the best of their ability AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE what anyone else thinks.
> ...


I have no argument with that part. It is with those in Congress who are choose to ignore the Constitution that bothers me. I can do something about them.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Remember,the USSC found that slaves could NEVER be citizens of the USA....

Just saying.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Sure and Plessy vs. Ferguson said "separate but equal" was a fair education policy. 

Fifty years later, in Brown vs. the Board of Ed., they also found that the "separate but equal" is a contradiction in terms. Which just goes to prove that while the Constitution is fairly static, the _interpretation_ of it changes with the times. 
(Again, that's the purpose of the SC)



> I have no argument with that part. It is with those in Congress who are choose to ignore the Constitution that bothers me. I can do something about them.


Of course. As is your right. 
Whether it's Constitutional or not, though, is only your opinion. I happen to think you're gravely mistaken. 
But the point is that neither of us matter. There are only 9 opinions who matter when all is said and done.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Sure and Plessy vs. Ferguson said "separate but equal" was a fair education policy.
> 
> Fifty years later they also found that the "separate but equal" is a contradiction in terms. Which just goes to prove that while the Constitution is fairly static, the _interpretation_ of it changes with the times.
> (Again, that's the purpose of the SC)


We're all pretty well aware of the purpose of the Supreme Court. We're also pretty well aware of the purpose of a good civics education, and the need to understand the Constitution. The Supreme Court gets to rule on whether legislation is Constitutional, but we get to decide if our legislators get to keep their jobs.

Even if Obamacare were totally Constitutional, which it is not, it is bad legislation. I will hold my elected representatives accountable for their actions, and for the actions of the party with which they have chosen to align themselves. I suspect I won't be alone in that effort.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> We're all pretty well aware of the purpose of the Supreme Court.


Given the histrionics I've seen the last few months, no, I _really_ don't think that's the case. :shrug:


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Given the histrionics I've seen the last few months, no, I _really_ don't think that's the case. :shrug:


Given the legislation that you support, I really don't think you have a good grasp on the Constitution either, but that is just my opinion. 

To get back to your original point however, it does matter whether I believe the law is unconstitutional. It matters a great deal to my elected representatives who have to earn my vote. At this point, I'm in the mood for a clean sweep. 

The Supreme Court will have a chance to issue a ruling, and I believe they will overturn the law. I am aware however, that the SC has been wrong in the past, and it is entirely possible that they could be wrong again. In that case, I will acknowledge their error and continue in the effort to oust every socialist in Congress and get this idiot bill repealed.


----------



## sunny225 (Dec 4, 2009)

Bottom line is this country was founded by people who came here to be free. For the govt to mandate that the free people here have to buy insurance is totally unacceptable. If you want to buy insurance, buy it. For anyone to say/believe that I should have to buy insurance also is beyond stupidity.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wannabefarmwife said:


> She can say that as much as she wants, but I would challenge anyone to find anything stating other than what was posted. Go look for yourself.


I gave you the AP excerpt. It's a major news story and has been picked up by the network.

I do find it interesting that you have the hubris to second-guess the intent of the people who wrote the bill...that's not very Joe Friday of you...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

coffee said:


> If you're uninsured, you could receive a tax credit to help pay for coverage if needed -
> 9 out of ten if you can not afford insurance ,, you don't have to worry about tax as you don't make enough to pay tax , so what good is a tax credit ..
> Im self employed and a tax credit will do me no good at all..
> now will you have insurance or will you pay your rent ??? oh maybe not eat .
> ...


Yes you are so correct.
And here is a few smart words about the HC bill from
Maxine:


> Let me get this straight. We're going to be gifted with a health care plan *written by a committee *whose chairman* says he doesn't understand* it, *passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it*, to be signed by a president *who also hasn't read it and who smokes*, with funding administered by a *treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes*, to be *overseen by a surgeon general who is obese*, and financed by a country that's broke.
> What the heck could possibly go wrong.


 And that pretty much sums it up in a nut shell.


----------



## txquilter (Dec 29, 2009)

I am both amazed and impressed by this thread. I have tried to read through it and ingest everything being said and quite frankly my eyes and head are SPINNING! So many passionate differences of opinion.

We can argue and debate all day long but the cold hard truth is that the bill has been signed by the President and is now a law. That being said there are many organizations and states that are filing suit and challenging the constitutionality of this new law. 

I have worked through and tried to read the bill (now law) but have to admit that I do not have a law degree nor have I taken any law classes so it is a little like reading greek. This is completely intentional so that the normal citizen can not understand the document...

While I agree 100% that something must be done to reduce health care costs and hold insurance and drug companies in the U.S. accountable I do not agree with the fact that the federal government is mandating me as a citizen of this country to purchase something that I might otherwise not purchase. This in itself is unconstitutional and should be fought and challenged at the highest level.

I will admit openly on this forum that I am a registered Republican who did not vote for Obama nor did I vote for McCain in the last election. I am astonished that the Congressmen/Women and Senators have forgotten for whom they work and have openly and blatantly gone against the will of the majority. I along, with many of my friends, family and colleagues, will be working hard to ensure that fresh blood be seated in the November elections.

The only way we can make a change is to have our voices heard at the polls and send a clear message to those in Washington that if you choose to ignore the majority voice of the people you will need to find a new job when your term is up.

With all this said, I would really appreciate it if someone could post the "official" bill that was passed so we can review the final version.

Thank you for the education, background and history you have all provided thus far.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2010)

Automobile insurance is a straw man argument. Having a driver's license is a "privilege" not a right..not everyone can obtain a driver's license..that's why states have driver's tests, etc. In NO state is there a mandate that ALL citizens MUST purchase a privately sold product..Imagine a state trying to pass a law which dictates that ALL citizens of that state purchase automobile insurance..even if they have no car..??? 

States have public transportation too..but there is no mandate to use it..

IF the Federal government exceeds it's power under the Constitution and mandates that every American ( except American Indians for some reason) MUST purchase a privately sold product, then the Feds CAN mandate every citizen to buy ANY product in the name of "national security". or "public health".

Suppose the USA entered into a trade agreement with a ...oh I don't know..I'll use Argentina..and as part of that trade agreement, a mandate was placed upon Americans to purchase tomatoes from Argentina..silly, but you get the idea..closer to reality is automobiles..imagine the government being able to dictate that we all must purchase GM cars..since the government wants GM to remain viable? 

This health care bill is no different than those scenarios..no different at all.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

txquilter said:


> I have worked through and tried to read the bill (now law) but have to admit that I do not have a law degree nor have I taken any law classes so it is a little like reading greek. This is completely intentional so that the normal citizen can not understand the document...


No, that has nothing whatsoever to do with bills being written in legal-ese. It's because as a LAW, it has to be written in such a way that there is no confusion, no loopholes, no minutia that can be debated. (Or at least that's the theory). 
It's the same reason contracts are written in a complex manner. They HAVE to be in order to be as air-tight as possible



> States have public transportation too...


They DO??
What would that _be_, exactly??  (and the school bus does not count! lol)


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

( except American Indians for some reason) 

bosonlesley, that's because we already give American Indians free health care, paid for by you and me. They don't need insurance.


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

"The only way we can make a change is to have our voices heard at the polls and send a clear message to those in Washington that if you choose to ignore the majority voice of the people you will need to find a new job when your term is up. "

txquitter===
I couldn't agree with you more but the problem seems to be that these lying idiots spend their entire campaigns promising one thing and turn around and do the opposite when they're in office. And yes, we keep writing letters, making phone calls, voting the jerks out and another one just like it comes along with the same lines of bull and we believe it all over again. The only one done us any favors I can remember is the one who quit halfway through the term.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Yes you are so correct.
> And here is a few smart words about the HC bill from
> Maxine:
> 
> ...


Congress hasn't read it - wrong
Congress exempt from it- wrong
The bill pays for itself


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Deacon Mike said:


> Congress hasn't read it - wrong
> Congress exempt from it- wrong
> The bill pays for itself


Than that bill better go out and get a really good job because looks like I will be paying for it as of now.

Also Social Security was supposed to "pay for itself too" Guess what its now broke.

I can guarantee I could ask any congressman a few questions about this bill and they would not know the answer. 

Have you ever heard of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/
It's a whole lot better than this crap they are forcing on us, and us taxpayers pay for it.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

ErinP said:


> They DO??
> What would that _be_, exactly??  (and the school bus does not count! lol)


Lots of states fund public transportation. Some only finance city run options with loans and grants but some run the programs themselves look at NJ Transit


NJ TRANSIT FY 2010 TTF Operations
Program	FY 2009
Amount ($millions)
T32	Building Capital Leases	
$4.4
T09	Bus Capital Maintenance	
$34.9
T34	Rail Capital Maintenance	
$63.9
Total	
$103.2


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Oh - and one other thing I wanted to address...
> 
> Someone mentioned "not to believe" people's interpretations, and I did want to say "you're right" BUT the legalese in these bills is very difficult to interpret.


Yea, and no matter how much experience you have the law is still subject to many interpretations. If a law wasn't subject to interpretations there would be no need for judges. They're the only interpretations that count. But it is always good to hear another spin on the subject because this law can be taken alot of different ways.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Ya nice for some that can "Travel Over seas to get cheaper drugs~!
> My folks get in the donut hole in the First Three Months. and they sure as heck can't go over seas nor would they ever want to~!
> And I myself would hit the Donut hole in the first TWO months. And NO there is no other drug out there here in this country OR anyplace else that would equal the drug the doc want to put me on and I agree which I should be put on!. We have the latest and Best Meds for RA in America~!
> That is what is wrong with all the programs in other countries they are NOT getting the latest and greatest Best Medicine that is available.
> And now thanks to O soon that will be the case for people in America that have Severe RA. And that are allergic to most that are on the market, and must rely on the latest~!


Yea, that would be a great cost cutting measure to reduce healthcare costs instead of this freakin insurance mandate(which will raise costs).

In 2006, the United States accounted for three quarters of the world&#8217;s biotechnology revenues and 82% of world R&D spending in biotechnology. R&D expenditures equal $95 billion.

Since the Big "O" is so friendly with all his fellow Muslims and other foreigners why not have them step up to the plate and have them pitch in for all this R&D.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> Yea, and no matter how much experience you have the law is still subject to many interpretations. If a law wasn't subject to interpretations there would be no need for judges. They're the only interpretations that count. But it is always good to hear another spin on the subject because this law can be taken alot of different ways.


Wow blooba, we agree *laughing* that's a funny thing isn't it? 

That's right, it is subject to interpretation - but there are some things that have been stated that are flat out wrong (e.g. not vague in the least) - THAT isn't a matter of interpretation 

I'm going to drink another cup of coffee before I discuss any more, because I feel fuzzy headed, but I do want to urge people again not to go based on what they read in the news either way. It's well worth actually reading the thing. News sources any more are so biased and sensationalized (in both directions) that you definitely are not getting a clear picture. 

It's worth actually learning to read these things for ourselves - I actually view that as a duty of living in the United States. Originally the people who were supposed to represent us were supposed to actually represent us (e.g. be people just like us who were elected for a term, traveled to DC to make decisions and then went home). I think things would be very different if we still had a system like that. I'm not sure which way they would go - from the sounds of this thread they'd lean right, but popular vote typically leans left. That says something...not sure what though.

Okay, I'll stop rambling and drink more coffee


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Argh! And then I see this:



> Since the Big "O" is so friendly with all his fellow Muslims and other foreigners why not have them step up to the plate and have them pitch in for all this R&D.


He's NOT a Muslim. 

I'll address the rest later, but that's a bogus claim.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

paintlady said:


> Do I have a choice here? It's gonna cost me money NO MATTER WHAT!!!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> obviously you live in the city. The closest town here is 15 miles away so NO I don't have a choice. My point was that the government gets into everyones business in one way or another.


No, i DECIDED its worth having a vehicle so I carry car insurance.
BUT
You have plenty of choices: horse,walk,move, become self sufficent!! 

The government only gets into your life if you let them, for 2 reasons.
1. They are YOUR representatives!!! If you don't like what they do let them know or vote them out. Thats the nice thing about the US.

2. All other taxes and mandates are optional. Don't want to pay property tax= don't own property. Don't want to pay income tax = become self sufficent and don't make an income. Sure the government has overstepped the bounds and made it almost impossible to avoid them but that is no reason to let them keep going!!!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Argh! And then I see this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is there a difference between Muslim and Islam. If so I apologize to all the Muslims I may have offended. Oh maybe I should be politically correct and say "former" Islam. 









And I'm a "former" Olympic althete too......:hysterical:


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

He's not Islamic nor a Muslim. Not former, not current, not anything.

Gotta go to work. I'm really disturbed.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Deacon Mike said:


> First, Congress has extremely broad powers under the commerce clause, so it's highly doubtful it's unconstitutional. Second, why don't you just have your state opt out?


California (and many other states) have "opted out" of the federal marijuana laws, does that stop the DEA from busting the marijuana dispensaries? No, they may not shut them all down but they do alot of them. Why live in fear of being "punished" by the federal agents. 

Tthe IRS can pursue a felony conviction, which could include a fine of up to $100,000 and a maximum prison sentence of five years for every year for tax evasion. They can garnish your wages and bank accounts so they maybe just as scary as the DEA if not more.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

GrammasCabin said:


> ( except American Indians for some reason)
> 
> bosonlesley, that's because we already give American Indians free health care, paid for by you and me. They don't need insurance.


Yep, it's a treaty agreement. 
Just like education. 

Seems a fair trade for billions of acres of land. :shrug:



blooba said:


> Lots of states fund public transportation. Some only finance city run options with loans and grants but some run the programs themselves look at NJ Transit


Maybe_ metro areas_... 
(But that kind of _supports_ the point that those of us in rural areas have to have some kind of automotive transportation. NJ is not exactly a state with many rural areas.)



wannabefarmwife said:


> He's NOT a Muslim.
> 
> I'll address the rest later, but that's a bogus claim.


You're obviously new.  Good luck trying to convince people of this one. Whether it's true or not is completely irrelevant! lol


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ErinP said:


> You're obviously new.  Good luck trying to convince people of this one. Whether it's true or not is completely irrelevant! lol


You won't have trouble convincing me. Muslims worship Allah and the prophet Mohammed. Obama worships Obama, and his prophet is Rahm Emmanuel.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> I think Mike's point was that it doesn't make a lick of difference if _you_ think it's Constitutional. Or me. Or any of the other people on this board.
> 
> The only people who _truly_ get a say in the constitutionality of laws are those folks who get to wear the black dresses.
> And that's the way it's supposed to work. _According_ to the Constitution.


Ever heard about something called segregation? The USSC ruled it constitutional. After a bit the USSC discovered they had made a mistake, segregation was not constitutional. Now I'm sure this was just them suddenly noticed their error not the fact that the political winds were blowing the other way and people were starting to take matters into their own hands. After all judges are above politics, right?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> Ever heard about something called segregation?


Um yeah... A page ago I said:



> Sure and Plessy vs. Ferguson said "separate but equal" was a fair education policy.
> 
> Fifty years later, in Brown vs. the Board of Ed., they also found that the "separate but equal" is a contradiction in terms. Which just goes to prove that while the Constitution is fairly static, the interpretation of it changes with the times.
> (Again, that's the _purpose_ of the SC)



:shrug:


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

ErinP said:


> No, that has nothing whatsoever to do with bills being written in legal-ese. It's because as a LAW, it has to be written in such a way that there is no confusion, no loopholes, no minutia that can be debated. (Or at least that's the theory).
> It's the same reason contracts are written in a complex manner. They HAVE to be in order to be as air-tight as possible


Actually,It IS done to make it difficult for the ordinary citizen to understand...

Look at the BOR,it was easily understood for 100+ years...UNTIL lawyers decided it really couldn't mean what was actually written.

The more laws,the less justice.

Some old guy said that.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> Congress hasn't read it - wrong
> Congress exempt from it- wrong
> The bill pays for itself


Congressional staffers may have read it, but I doubt more than a handful of Congressman actually read the entire thing. I suspect none of those who read the whole thing actually understand everything in the bill or they still wouldn't be trying to tweak things through the fixit bills that they are now voting on.

Is Congress exempt? Not at this time...however, when single payer was still alive and kicking, my congress critter offered a bill which would have mandated Congress have the same healthcare as the single payer they were offering...the bill was shot down by the Democrats. So pardon me if I cast a jaundiced eye towards Congress retaining healthcare perks not available to me and you.

But the most *laughable* statement you made was that the bill pays for itself. It doesn't, not really. For a better explanation tham mine, I point you towards one of Thomas Sowell's columns:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell031610.php3

Of course, Sowell does not discuss the over $200B doctor fix that Congress must pass, before a majority of doctors bail out of accepting Medicare patients...as it now stands, a 21% cut in reimbursement is imminent with an additional 2%/year cut, and that just ain't gonna fly. Worse than working for nothing, is when you are losing money with every patient you see.

Congress can try to legislate healthcare access, but they are not the people who will deliver the healthcare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Given the legislation that you support, I really don't think you have a good grasp on the Constitution either, but that is just my opinion.


You don't believe that your attitude is just a little bit elitist? After all, your constitutional interpretations have differed from the Supreme Court and other constitutional scholars.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

--From a teacher in the Nashville area 



"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.' 


The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year... 

The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. 

We would choose our nominees.. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. 

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. 

We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. 

We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. 

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids. 

I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. 

I had never seen Olivia's mother. 

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. 

Jamie went first. 

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. 
He ended by promising to do his very best. 

Everyone applauded and he sat down. 

Now it was Olivia's turn to speak. 

Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down. 

The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." 

She surely would say more. She did not have to. 

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. 

Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it... She didn't know. 

The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream... 

Jamie was forgotten.. Olivia won by a landslide. 

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. 

They want ice cream. 

The other 48 percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess." 


This is the ice cream Obama promised us!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Deacon Mike said:


> The bill pays for itself


And I guess the Federal Government pays for itself too.

US Goverment Debt / Percentage of GDP Per CBO study 
1960	290.5 /56.0	
1970	380.9 /37.6	
1980	909.0 / 33.4	
1990	3,206.3	/55.9	
2000	5,628.7	/58.0	
2001	5,769.9	/57.4	
2002	6,198.4	/59.7	
2003	6,760.0	/62.6	
2004	7,354.7	/63.9	
2005	7,905.3	/64.6	
2006	8,451.4	/65.0	
2007	8,950.7	/65.6	
2008	9,985.8	/70.2	
2009	12,311.4	/86.1	
2010 (est.)	14,456.3	/98.1	
2011 (est.)	15,673.9	/101.0	
2012 (est.)	16,565.7	/100.6

So in other words if every dollar made in the United States was used to pay off our debt it still won't pay it off next year.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> This is the ice cream Obama promised us!


It's not like conservatives are any different. They offer their own version of ice cream; in their case it's tax cuts. How do they pay for tax cuts? They defer them as budgetary items for the next administration. With any luck the next president will be a democrat so you can blame the left for the budget shortfall when it arises.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

And you think this will be better with a republican administration?

I'll call bull puckey on that one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wannabefarmwife said:


> And you think this will be better with a republican administration?
> 
> I'll call bull puckey on that one.


Well swell. That's the end of your argument?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> It's not like conservatives are any different. They offer their own version of ice cream; in their case it's tax cuts. How do they pay for tax cuts? They defer them as budgetary items for the next administration. With any luck the next president will be a democrat so you can blame the left for the budget shortfall when it arises.


Oh, we can have a Laffer Curve discussion, but even JFK proved tax cuts spur the economy.

Where Republicans made their mistake was in not enacting spending cuts to dovetail with the tax cuts. They acted out their version of Dem-lite, and porked it out too. Plus, they did have a war to fund.

But at their worst, their spending habits pale in comparision to the Dems.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Um yeah... A page ago I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IOW you admit that the court IS political. Otherwise why did their view change? Or did someone suddenly discover a long lost page of the USC?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's not like conservatives are any different. They offer their own version of ice cream; in their case it's tax cuts. How do they pay for tax cuts? They defer them as budgetary items for the next administration. With any luck the next president will be a democrat so you can blame the left for the budget shortfall when it arises.


Yea, that JFK was a real hard core conservative wasn't he. Don't let the fact that every time taxes have been cut the amount of money coming into the US Treasury has increased slow you down any. We don't have a under tax problem, we have an over spending problem.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It's not like conservatives are any different. They offer their own version of ice cream; in their case it's tax cuts. How do they pay for tax cuts? They defer them as budgetary items for the next administration. With any luck the next president will be a democrat so you can blame the left for the budget shortfall when it arises.





wannabefarmwife said:


> And you think this will be better with a republican administration?
> 
> I'll call bull puckey on that one.


If I buy everything I want on a credit card and just pay the minimum amount due do I get ahead? Thats what we are doing right now.

Tax cuts alone will not solve this problem, we have to cut SPENDING before we can cut taxes!!!!
Does this health insurance bill cut spending? No, it increases it.

Even most of our "Republican" politicians are way too liberal to fix our money problems but they are better than this mindset.

Nevada, So are you blaming these trillions of dollars spent so far by Obama on Bush? Bush may have screwed up alot but Obama isn't "fixing" anything Bush had done. He is creating his own problems.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> Well swell. That's the end of your argument?


Nah - I was going to post more, but decided that it wasn't worthwhile to argue with people that believe that Obama is a muslim and that there's some grand plot to make us like Cuba or Russia. 

Peace out - it's been fun, but I'd rather have a civil debate with folks that actually want to discuss real issues.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Seems like a whole bunch of companies are faced with a huge increase in retirees medical benefits cost because of some unexpected reimbursement cuts buried in the bill and are now looking to dump a couple million retirees into the new government Medicare plan as a cost saving measure.

I think the true impact of this humongous bill wont be fully known for some time and I think some folks who are counting on this having a big impact on their lives will be sorely disappointed. Wannabefarmwife, you were given a link and a quote from a Congressional staffer about the pre-existing conditions provision for children not taking effect until 2014 due to an oversight in the bill and you just completely rejected the poster as a fear monger despite the evidence and the fact its all over the news. Are you really looking to debate issues or just validate your own hopes and beliefs?


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

salmonslayer, I scoured the bill for evidence and couldn't find it. I did not say that poster was a fear monger. 

I did say that another poster was fearmongering...who was. I read the sections that that poster referred to, (you too can do this), and did classify some things as fearmongering...because they were.

You too can read the bill. http://www.rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4606

In addition to reading it, I did detailed searches on "child", "asthma", "preexisting condition" and many other searches. Nothing turned up. 

Instead of believing news sources, why not read it for yourself?


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> Are you really looking to debate issues or just validate your own hopes and beliefs?


I was done with this thread, but I'll say this one more time.

I have not stated where my values lie on this in the least, other than to say that I'd rather pay for healthcare than a bogus war.

Does that mean I'm a liberal democrat?

NO!

Does it mean that I'm necessarily for the bill?

NO!

I'm struggling to see what the heck has got people carrying pitchforks. I'm also REALLY TIRED of people spouting off stuff that ISN'T in the bill.

By the way, did you know that the "left vs. right" thing is really a misnomer? It's a circle. Those on the extreme left are very close to those on the extreme right in beliefs. 

Do you want to know what I believe? Instead of poking and provoking...just try asking.

It'd get you further.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You don't believe that your attitude is just a little bit elitist? After all, your constitutional interpretations have differed from the Supreme Court and other constitutional scholars.


So have yours haven't they??


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It's not like conservatives are any different. They offer their own version of ice cream; in their case it's tax cuts. How do they pay for tax cuts? They defer them as budgetary items for the next administration. With any luck the next president will be a democrat so you can blame the left for the budget shortfall when it arises.


At least you admit that the Dems are just as bad as the Repubs...

Both spend with no way of paying for it.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> salmonslayer, I scoured the bill for evidence and couldn't find it. I did not say that poster was a fear monger.


 Its not spelled out clearly in the bill and that is my point. Many things in the bill are legalese and even congress and Obama missed this one.

The true impact of this bill, positive and negative wont be known for some time. I do think there are some good things in this bill but overall it was poorly prepared and really doesnt address the major issues involved with affordable healthcare.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wannabefarmwife said:


> salmonslayer, I scoured the bill for evidence and couldn't find it. I did not say that poster was a fear monger.
> 
> I did say that another poster was fearmongering...who was. I read the sections that that poster referred to, (you too can do this), and did classify some things as fearmongering...because they were.
> 
> ...


I consider a staffer officially speaking for the committee who wrote the bill a primary source. 

I assume the people who wrote the bill, know what is in the bill. If *they* don't, we are in deeper kimchee than even I thought.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> I'm struggling to see what the heck has got people carrying pitchforks.


In 1861, a federal power usurpation such as this had people carrying guns. Of course, I think those folks were made of sterner stuff than we.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Jolly - I can understand people's philosophies on that. I wish that they had done so when other administrations blatantly abused power too - like wiretapping citizens. That, I think, is part of my issue. 

Once again, and for the record, I don't mind that people have an issue with the Bill itself, or even with the philosophy behind it.

I don't necessarily agree with the bill, or much of what is in there, myself.

I DO have decided issues with people that say that there are things in the bill that plain old aren't there - which is not what I said about your comment, but the stuff that I corrected earlier. 

With your comment, I said - I can't find it in the bill - first I asked where you found it. You didn't have an answer. Which is fine - I disagreed that the person that you quoted was correct in saying that there was a loophole - that much looks pretty d*rned clear to me. 

If you would like to continue to personally attack me and my "hubris", you're welcome to, but I fail to see where I've been remotely vain in stating that when *I* read the bill *I* can't find a loophole and it seems clear to me. 

Keep in mind, interpreting federal legislation used to be my job. I worked for a company and kept them out of trouble with the EPA by interpreting regulations, providing reports, and doing projects that would allow them to stay in compliance with the regulations. 

So sure, could I be wrong? Absolutely - and I've stated when I have said something incorrect. Which is a lot more than ANYONE else that I've seen on this thread.

Peace.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

wannabefarmwife said:


> I'm struggling to see what the heck has got people carrying pitchforks.


I can tell you in two words:

Federal power.

Read world history, read American history, then read the Constitution to understand the significance.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Jolly - I can understand people's philosophies on that. I wish that they had done so when other administrations blatantly abused power too - like wiretapping citizens. That, I think, is part of my issue.
> 
> Once again, and for the record, I don't mind that people have an issue with the Bill itself, or even with the philosophy behind it.
> 
> ...


What you are saying is that you know more about the bill than the people on the commitee who wrote it. 

From Merriam-Websters:

_*Main Entry: huÂ·bris 
Pronunciation: \&#712;hyÃ¼-br&#601;s\
Function: noun 
Etymology: Greek hybris
Date: 1884
: exaggerated pride or self-confidence

â huÂ·brisÂ·tic \hyÃ¼-&#712;bris-tik\ adjective 
*_

My experience with the Feds (and I deal with the FDA [been fighting with them all day], OSHA, CDC and I used to be on a first name basis with some of the guys at BATF) is that much of even established law is open to interpretation. The healthcare bill is fresh-plowed ground, so if the people who wrote the thing tell me x is the same as y, that's the way it is.

And unless one wants to haul out the lawyers, which is usually an exercise in futility since the government is printing the money they use and we're not, one usually has to bite their tongue and go with what the agency tells you.

To do otherwise may fall into that extreme self-confidence stuff....


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

Melissa said:


> My thought has often been to just eliminate the entire insurance industry and watch prices level out to a point that people can actually afford to pay on their own. That is not a popular mainstream idea though.


Absolutely....why should there be a for-profit corporation as middleman between our families and their doctors.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

The pre-existing clause about children not being covered until 2014 is real, it's been on the mainstream media as well as cable news. It's going to be fixed by a bureaucrat, ie, the Dept of HHS director will be making a rule fixing it. This isn't fear mongering it's the truth. If they couldn't do the one thing that most people wanted how are we to trust what they are going to do later. It would be apparent that not everyone on capitol hill read the bill.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in-health-care-laws-apf-4272209396.html?x=0&.v=1


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

dahliaqueen said:


> Melissa said:
> 
> 
> > My thought has often been to just eliminate the entire insurance industry and watch prices level out to a point that people can actually afford to pay on their own. That is not a popular mainstream idea though.
> ...


Because those for-profit would kill to keep things the way they are, if they thought it would do any good.

This is a huge deal. There's more money involved in this debate than was involved in any war we've ever fought. We're talking trillions in revenue, and hundreds of billions in profit. They won't hesitate for a heartbeat to lie or bribe to get their way on this.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

dahliaqueen said:


> Absolutely....why should there be a for-profit corporation as middleman between our families and their doctors.


Because you chose to have one, or you did until this law was signed. Now you have no choice in the matter. You WILL have insurance or you will have to answer to the feds.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Deacon Mike said:


> Congress hasn't read it - wrong
> Congress exempt from it- wrong
> The bill pays for itself


Wrong on all three, and Hysterically wrong on the last one.
In fact even Nancy P said hardly anyone has read it and nobody will know what it says till it is signed.
And costing under a trillion is so laughable if it wasn't so sad, because the true numbers are between 2. Trillion and 2.5 Trillion.
Pay for itself. They have played with figures so much to make it Seem Like it is but it sure won't. And it won't in many ways.
They said SS would pay for itself also.
Is It paying for itself now?
A belly laugh on that.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You don't believe that your attitude is just a little bit elitist? After all, your constitutional interpretations have differed from the Supreme Court and other constitutional scholars.


You're right about my interpretations differing from the Supreme Court. For instance, I've never believed black people couldn't be citizens. I also don't believe there is a constitutional right to kill your children. The Supreme Court is made up of men, appointed by men, and they are fallible. That is why there are 3 branches of the government, each providing checks and balances to the other.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Argh! And then I see this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> On March 30, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the following proclamation:
> By the President of the United States of America.
> A Proclamation.
> *Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation*.
> ...


What Did Obama do on this Christian Day?


> Q The previous administration had a ceremony with prayers and speeches and such. Does he think -- the current President think that that was politicized in some fashion?
> 
> MR. GIBBS: No, I'm not going to get into that. Again, I think the President understands, in his own life and in his family's life, the role that prayer plays. And I would denote that administrations prior to the past one did proclamations. That's the way the President will publicly observe National Prayer Day. But as I said, privately he'll pray as he does every day.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-5509


Answer = NOTHING except laying his prayer rug down and yelling 
All hail Allah!!!

He held a h*ll of a shindig for Ramadan though. Here's video. http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-Speaks-Before-Ramadan-Celebration-Dinner

And in case you can't read Indonesian This is A 2007 Associated Press photograph,that was suppressed, shows the school register of the child who is today known as Barack Hussein Obama but was officially listed then as Barry Soetoro, whose citizenship was listed as "Indonesian" and whose religion was listed as "Islam." It's gettin too late to argue his citizenship but I guess the religion is wrong too. Hey, maybe thats my school register, not his.









Are you sure this is our President and White House?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

And I know he says he's no longer muslim BUT would you trust Osama Bin Laden if he says the same?

IF he has converted to Christianity can you find any pictures of him with a cross or even entering a Christian church? I know I can't, heck he doesn't even hold his hand to his heart during The Star Spangled Banner.

I can find him entering a mosque and joining the prayer to allah. A picture is worth a million words.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Wow blooba. I did a simple google search and found tons of images....

Like this one:




































He was not muslim. He did go to an indonesian school when he was a kid. That does not mean he was muslim.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Oh yea, and here's a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. Mine looks the same way (I also was born in Hawaii)


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Really not wanting to get into this...but what EXACTLY makes one a Muslim?


> As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother&#8217;s Christian background is irrelevant.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Wow blooba. I did a simple google search and found tons of images....
> 
> 
> He was not muslim. He did go to an indonesian school when he was a kid. That does not mean he was muslim.


Ok, ya found some pics but I can see why you would "lie" about your citizenship since only Indonesian citizens could get their schooling paid for but there is NO reason to lie about the religion since The Indonesian Constitution states "every person shall be free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice" and "guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief"


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Check out snopes-a great source for debunking rumors. 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

No actually By Islam Obama has no choice in the matter,he was born to a Muslim father,that makes him a Muslim.

There is no choice in the matter for those born to a Muslim father.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> Really not wanting to get into this...but what EXACTLY makes one a Muslim?


Believing in the faith? Worshipping in a mosque every...worship-time?

By the way - you quoted an opinion piece...which is obviously opinion - just pointing that out.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

By Catholicism's standards my mother is Catholic because she was born Catholic. Except that she's not.

Oh, and his Dad? He renounced Islam before he met Obama's mom. So...he still is not Muslim.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Believing in the faith? Worshipping in a mosque every...worship-time?
> 
> By the way - you quoted an opinion piece...which is obviously opinion - just pointing that out.


You seem unable to grasp this... Islam considers a child born to a Muslim father to be Muslim,no ifs ands or buts.

That is how Islam sees it.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Oh, and his Dad? He renounced Islam before he met Obama's mom. So...he still is not Muslim.


Yes,yes he is in the eyes of Islam.

Actually he is an apostate in Islam's eyes.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> By Catholicism's standards my mother is Catholic because she was born Catholic. Except that she's not.
> 
> Oh, and his Dad? He renounced Islam before he met Obama's mom. So...he still is not Muslim.


Then why did his father register Obama as Islam in school? Oh he must not have met his mom yet!!!


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Not that any of this really matters...


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> You seem unable to grasp this... Islam considers a child born to a Muslim father to be Muslim,no ifs ands or buts.


You posted that while I was still working on the other post. So you believe what Islam states as his religion to be true? Funny - you'll credit it with that while simultaneously claiming other things not to be the case.

I don't even see why this is such a huge deal, other than the fact that claiming that he's muslim (as in not Christian) is incorrect.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Check out snopes-a great source for debunking rumors.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp


And sorry, but snopes is good for some stuff but if you look at their sources, none of them are credible. A report is only as good as its sources. Show me some hard proof.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Show me the proof for that paper. Because the only places I can find that posted are on far right radical websites - definitely nothing credible.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Oh oh wait, Blooba...at that point, he was not with his father. That was his step-father...which is why he has that last name...so...that's actually incorrect - his father may well have not been Islamic when he was in school.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> . So you believe what Islam states as his religion to be true?


No,Islam believes that....




> Funny - you'll credit it with that while simultaneously claiming other things not to be the case.


No idea what you mean by this.




> I don't even see why this is such a huge deal, other than the fact that claiming that he's muslim (as in not Christian) is incorrect.


You don't,some would.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Here's politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/20/chain-email/obama-attended-an-indonesian-public-school/

And here's one from the right leaning Fox News that debunks quite a bit of it (Why it's in the sports section is beyond me):
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/16/capital-culture-indonesia-remembers-young-obama/


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Oh oh wait, Blooba...at that point, he was not with his father. That was his step-father...which is why he has that last name...so...that's actually incorrect - his father may well have not been Islamic when he was in school.


His stepfather was a Muslim too I believe,guess his momma had a thing for them....


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Yea, but Oz - it's still not true. He was not Muslim when Barack was born. So it's not only totally irrelevant...but it's also not true.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Yea, but Oz - it's still not true. He was not Muslim when Barack was born. So it's not only totally irrelevant...but it's also not true.


Says who?


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

The oft quoted "only fair and balanced news station", Fox News for one.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/16/capital-culture-indonesia-remembers-young-obama/


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Where did THEY get the information from?

Don't you ever question WHERE the info originally comes from?

Sorry but it appears this came from Obama's family.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

That article referenced someone who knew the family, not an actual family member. I also found it all over the web from a teacher that knew him etc. But I didn't consider those sources "credible". So, while yes, I consider it, man...it's kind of a stretch.

You can follow that path as much as you want, Oz - and truly we'll never fully "know", because he's (Barack Obama's Dad) not around to tell us. So people that knew the family are probably the only way we can tell - but that's pretty good evidence. I'm fully aware of that. 

I still don't know why it matters a whole lot, but asserting that he IS Muslim is incorrect. Asserting that there's a possibility that his father might have been muslim when he was born? Well, that's accurate (but why you would do that baffles me entirely).


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

His father was given a Muslim funeral...


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Can I see the source for that one, Oz?


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Can I see the source for that one, Oz?


It is from a book,but I personally distrust the author.

'Dreams from my Father' is the title.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Show me the proof for that paper. Because the only places I can find that posted are on far right radical websites - definitely nothing credible.


Well it looks like the coverup has been done. The photographer Tatan Syuflana's photos have gone "missing" for a few years of his career. It was an AP photo but if you search his photos now it goes from 2000 to 2009 now.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> His father was given a Muslim funeral...


Yea, but he may have been born Muslim and died Muslim but he couldn't have been Muslim when good 'ol Obama was born:smiley-laughing013:


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Welp, I'll have to get the book and read it now, won't I. Hope someone doesn't come and rip the pages out...


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> It is from a book,but I personally distrust the author.
> 
> 'Dreams from my Father' is the title.


Oh, do you mean the book that describes the author waking up in an alley with the chickens from his cocaine induced "sleep"?


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

You've got something wrong there...you don't sleep from Cocaine. It's an upper. Perhaps you mean some other drug.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> You've got something wrong there...you don't sleep from Cocaine. It's an upper. Perhaps you mean some other drug.


Well he only admits to using cocaine and marijuana. don't believe he says what he was on in that "episode"


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

Marijuana would cause it, as would alcohol. Those are both downers. Cocaine doesn't. Just sayin'


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

You crash eventually....just saying.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

wannabefarmwife said:


> Marijuana would cause it, as would alcohol. Those are both downers. Cocaine doesn't. Just sayin'


Yea good point, but I just don't beleive that the American people have elected someone in as president that has been "passed out in the alley with the chickens" while on the influence of any drugs(back in the 70's-80's cities had free range chickens,homesteading style) 

It's on thing for Clinton to sit in his mansion and smoke a joint, its another to be passed out in an alley.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Well this thread has certainly strayed. Islam and Judaism consider the children born of the father to be of that faith. For Jews, Israel also confers automatic citizenship even if they are US citizens and have never been to Israel..so what, the child or person in question has no choice and may not even be aware of it.

Was old Barry registered as a Muslim in Indonesia? Probably, my folks are even nuttier than his were and you know what..when i was 8 or 9 I really didnt have a choice in where my parents worshiped either.

I cant stand BO but I am having a hard time holding against him what happened to him as a child of a broken home. Did he get high in college? Well he says he did, Bush admitted it and was a recovering alcoholic, Clinton sort of admitted it and so far BO was the only one who just said he made stupid choices and actually talked about it...I give him props for that.

But this bill? Some of the self proclaimed legal scholars posting here ought to jump on a plane to DC because they apparently know more than the legal review team in Congress. You can quote isolated paragraphs that seem to make sense, you can do a word search, etc all you want but that is not how house and senate bills are constructed..they are not intended as linear documents and there are literally hundreds of federal employees that now have to figure out the impact of this bill and how it all will fit into the various agencies. This bill is a mess by all accounts and unfortunately, the Dems are willing to commit political suicide for their messiah and the Republicans (AKA the party of No) have nothing to offer as an alternative other than a flimsy set of ideas that were mostly adopted by this bill. Our Congress is a failure and we need to flush all of them out regarless of party affiliation come ext election.

And anyone that claims to have read the entire bill I would have to question their veracity....or sanity.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

That's awfully kind of you. I did read it. You can question my sanity if you'd like (I also used to read dictionaries and encyclopedias for fun), but I think that all citizens should read it before making judgments.

I'm sure that a legal team needs to interpret everything - that's fine - but there are a lot of claims here that really aren't in gray areas - which are the things I rebutted from the poster over on GC. And no, I wasn't reading isolated sections - I was reading them all, together, which is why it took me so long to rebut what that poster had said, who clearly had read just the subsections and didn't go back and forth. 

You can go read it too - read the pages that poster quotes, and see what you find. Which is why I corrected page numbers etc. It's not rocket science. Are there loopholes? Sure, I'll give you that. But since so many of the claims were so wildly off-center, and included things like ACORN, and Death Panels...well...yea...okay....

I'm not asking you to believe me. I wanted to verify those claims for myself, and what I found was that the claims were untrue. Are there loopholes that may permit them? Possibly. *shrug* But what was stated was that that was what those sections meant. And that's wrong.

It's like those in IT say - instead of RTFM, it should be RTFB. If one can't understand it, that's fine - but one should probably at least try before making wild-azz claims.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Did he get high in college? Well he says he did, Bush admitted it and was a recovering alcoholic, Clinton sort of admitted it and so far BO was the only one who just said he made stupid choices and actually talked about it...I give him props for that.


 So do you give the crackhead prostitutes props too if they admit their drug use? 

There is a big difference between "recreational" (Bush and Clinton) and "passed out in the alley". 

I have no problem with recreational use of marijuana(cocaine is really starting to push the limits) but when you allow any drug to rule you how are you supposed to be able to run the country. Thats more a question of character than just his history.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> I did read it. You can question my sanity if you'd like


 My hats off to you then. I am pretty educated and a speed reader and I couldnt wade through it without wanting to bash my head into a concrete wall.

You must be young and full of ideals instead of old and cynical like some of us but if you are looking for black and white; your just not going to find that in a congressional bill or frankly most legislation of any type. I agree that there are many wild and spurious claims but most of those wild claims have some basis for the concern (and a big part of that is the very poor way this was handled by the BO administration). What we can agree on is that nobody really knows the true impact of this bill and we will have to wait and see.

It would be my utmost wish that this bill provides medical care for those in need, eliminates barriers to obtaining affordable health care, gets the insurance industry under control, and all while reducing the deficit as promised without raising everyones taxes. It has never happened in the history of the US government but maybe 240 years of history will be overcome by this bill and 2/3rds of the citizens of this country are wrong.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> There is a big difference between "recreational" (Bush and Clinton) and "passed out in the alley".


 Recreational...hmmm are you interested in some land in Haiti per chance? If you believe Bill didnt inhale I dont know what to tell you..he lied and I just give a little more acknowledgment to someone who admits they failed as a person than one who lies. I dont like either of them but I am surprised you think lying is better than being truthful.



> So do you give the crackhead prostitutes props too if they admit their drug use?


 I would try to help any person that admitted such a thing...so I guess the answer is yes.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

salmonslayer said:


> Well this thread has certainly strayed. Islam and Judaism consider the children born of the father to be of that faith. For Jews, Israel also confers automatic citizenship even if they are US citizens and have never been to Israel.


Wrong. If a child has a Jewish mother then they are considered Jewish. If they have only a Jewish father then the Reform are the only ones that will consider them Jewish and then only if they are raised in the faith.

Israel also does not grant automatic citizenship, you have to meet certain requirements, and apply for citizenship. The "law of return" states that you must be Jewish (mother or maternal grandmother is Jewish) or the child or grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew or the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Wags, I know your Jewish but anyone worldwide who has a Jewish mother or father, is the spouse of a Jew or coverts to Judaism is considered a citizen of Israel. It was also expanded very broadly in the 70s to even include spouses a couple times removed. If your father is a Jew and your mother is a gentile you are eligible. Orthodox Jews dont always recognize them but the law of return is clear. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law of Return 5710-1950

I was stationed in Israel during the Ethiopian diaspora and it was a big topic because some tried everything to keep out the Ethiopians, your right though that the more traditional Jews follow the matriarch for establishing Jewish identity and I actually didnt know that.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

salmonslayer said:


> Wags, I know your Jewish but anyone worldwide who has a Jewish mother or father, is the spouse of a Jew or coverts to Judaism is considered a citizen of Israel. It was also expanded very broadly in the 70s to even include spouses a couple times removed. If your father is a Jew and your mother is a gentile you are eligible. Orthodox Jews dont always recognize them but the law of return is clear. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law of Return 5710-1950
> 
> I was stationed in Israel during the Ethiopian diaspora and it was a big topic because some tried everything to keep out the Ethiopians, your right though that the more traditional Jews follow the matriarch for establishing Jewish identity and I actually didnt know that.


Eligible does not mean automatic, you have to apply and not every Jew is accepted. For example, Messianic Jews are denied the right to make Aliyah.


----------



## wannabefarmwife (Mar 12, 2010)

> > You must be young and full of ideals instead of old and cynical like some of us but if you are looking for black and white; your just not going to find that in a congressional bill or frankly most legislation of any type. I agree that there are many wild and spurious claims but most of those wild claims have some basis for the concern (and a big part of that is the very poor way this was handled by the BO administration). What we can agree on is that nobody really knows the true impact of this bill and we will have to wait and see.


I completely agree that there's no black and white. I also agree that it is difficult to read the bill (again, I don't think it's rocket science...) considering that most Americans read at a 7-8th grade reading level. 

What I disagree with is the scare tactics that are used to discourage and frighten people from wanting to read the bill for themselves. 

I'm not sure why you call me young and full of ideals...is it because I believe that we shouldn't trust Lawyers, Politicians and News Anchors to interpret things for us? Is it because I don't believe the hate that is spewed by some, and wish to verify things on my own and come to my own conclusions?

I'd hate to see that be the case.

If we want to "take our country back", then I think we need to be able to read legislation, get truly educated into the process and make our choices accordingly instead of letting Glenn Beck and oh...who the heck is the guy on CNN.....sorry...with the white hair...argh!!!! Or maybe I'll pick on Jon Stewart. 

This was never meant to be a country ruled and dominated by the lawyers, television hosts and experts either.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Recreational...hmmm are you interested in some land in Haiti per chance? If you believe Bill didnt inhale I dont know what to tell you..he lied and I just give a little more acknowledgment to someone who admits they failed as a person than one who lies. I dont like either of them but I am surprised you think lying is better than being truthful.
> 
> I would try to help any person that admitted such a thing...so I guess the answer is yes.


definition of recreation: refreshment of strength and spirits after work

Definition for Control: to exercise restraining or directing influence over : regulate b : to have power over : rule c : to reduce the incidence or severity of especially to innocuous levels

So a joint after work is considered recreational. It don't matter if he inhaled or if he admits it. You still have control of the drug and situation.

Passed out in an alley was letting the drug have power over him hence the drug had control over him. Who or what else has he let have control over him?....oh wait... I know one...... the insurance companies.

Yea Clinton lying was wrong but it had NOTHING to do with his control. He was a Democrat so I don't put him at too high of standards with the whole lying thing.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

wannabefarmwife said:


> This was never meant to be a country ruled and dominated by *the lawyers*, television hosts and experts either.


Interesting that the vast majority of CONgress are lawyers...as is Obama...


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

As were the founding fathers 35 out of the 55 were lawyers. Being a lawyer has nothing to do with running this country. We have laws just like any other civilized country. Laws= Lawyers The problem is having so many laws that even contradict themselves.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Those lawyers wrote the Bill Of Rights,our lawyers 'write' 2000 pages of legalese that already needs revision...


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Those lawyers wrote the Bill Of Rights,our lawyers 'write' 2000 pages of legalese that already needs revision...


lol, yea that is a big difference but they write so much because they want to gain more control and still want to have their loopholes they they can slide through.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Learn the loopholes.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

AngieM2 said:


> Learn the loopholes.


Anyone find any loopholes in this health insurance law?
Only ones I have seen.
Being a Federal Employee
Being in a Union
Being Amish or Native American
Being a member of an objecting religion.

I'm thinking of starting an Anti heathcare and taxes religion. Do I have any followers?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Do we get holidays?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

AngieM2 said:


> Do we get holidays?


I think I will add in a holiday for everyday. You choose the days you celebrate...lol 

Starting with Jan 20, 2009 Communist Inauguration Day.

Definition of Communism
In a communist country, the government owns all businesses and farms and provides its people's healthcare, education and welfare. 

Sound Familiar?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Blooba, I guess you see drug abuse different than I (and I include alcohol as a drug). Bill admits to trying marijuana but not inhaling, GW was an admitted alcoholic with a wild past that included purported cocaine use but the only thing he admitted to was the alcohol, BO flat out admitted that he used drugs and was open about how that impacted him and how he made a conscious decision to get his life together. You believe Bill and GW and I dont but then we probably come from different backgrounds which colors our view...lets just say I used to be on intimate terms with the legal system.



> What I disagree with is the scare tactics that are used to discourage and frighten people from wanting to read the bill for themselves.


 I agree with you on this.



> I'm not sure why you call me young and full of ideals...is it because I believe that we shouldn't trust Lawyers, Politicians and News Anchors to interpret things for us? Is it because I don't believe the hate that is spewed by some, and wish to verify things on my own and come to my own conclusions?


 No again we really do agree here. The reason you sound young and idyllic is because you seem to fervently want to believe this bill and you post quotes out of it but dont seem to understand that what the bill says, how it is implemented and how the ancillary affects will play out cant be distilled from just reading it...the law is about interpretation. Its not a criticism..stay idyllic, I know that sometimes my cynicism clouds my view and I'm not necessarily happier being a cynic.



> This was never meant to be a country ruled and dominated by the lawyers, television hosts and experts either.


 Except for the lawyer part I agree with you. I personally think the advent of 24 hour news and 24 hour partisan talk shows is debasing the country. I am moving to my farm in 3 weeks and am toying seriously with dumping TV all together.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Blooba, I guess you see drug abuse different than I (and I include alcohol as a drug). Bill admits to trying marijuana but not inhaling, GW was an admitted alcoholic with a wild past that included purported cocaine use but the only thing he admitted to was the alcohol, BO flat out admitted that he used drugs and was open about how that impacted him and how he made a conscious decision to get his life together. You believe Bill and GW and I dont but then we probably come from different backgrounds which colors our view...lets just say I used to be on intimate terms with the legal system.


Ok, I suggest you go buy yourself a dictionary and read it since the public school system must have failed you.

Definition of Abuse : improper or excessive use or treatment

there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between drug use and drug abuse. You can use drugs all you want without abusing them.

He let drugs take control of his life, he let insurance companies take control of OUR lives, Whats next?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Except for the lawyer part I agree with you. I personally think the advent of 24 hour news and 24 hour partisan talk shows is debasing the country. I am moving to my farm in 3 weeks and am toying seriously with dumping TV all together.


Getting rid of TV maybe a good thing BUT hiding from what is happening in this country isn't gonna make it go away. This is the mentality of probably 70+% of our population. The only thing this accomplishes is trying to fix things AFTER its too late.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Ok, I suggest you go buy yourself a dictionary and read it since the public school system must have failed you.


 You know being rude isnt going to convince anyone that your points are valid my friend.



> Definition of Abuse : improper or excessive use or treatment
> 
> there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between drug use and drug abuse. You can use drugs all you want without abusing them.


 Under your definition of abuse, improper or excessive use of illegal drugs would be considered abuse correct? Well I consider use of illegal drugs to be improper so I am just not following your logic. You think using illegal drugs for recreation is okay I get it; I dont think its okay and feel its improper so we just disagree. 



> Getting rid of TV maybe a good thing BUT hiding from what is happening in this country isn't gonna make it go away. This is the mentality of probably 70+% of our population. The only thing this accomplishes is trying to fix things AFTER its too late.


 There is more to being informed than watching TV and I submit that TV is a very poor place to try to remain informed. 

I am a conservative not a Republican, I did not vote for this president, I am very opposed to the HC bill if you actually read any of my posts but I have to tell you, the constant stream of insults and attacks from the mostly right wing on anyone who has even a slightly different view other than "lets have a revolution" is disturbing. Civil discourse is gone, rationality seems to have flown the coop, and sadly we are all the poorer for it.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> You know being rude isnt going to convince anyone that your points are valid my friend.
> 
> Under your definition of abuse, improper or excessive use of illegal drugs would be considered abuse correct? Well I consider use of illegal drugs to be improper so I am just not following your logic. You think using illegal drugs for recreation is okay I get it; I dont think its okay and feel its improper so we just disagree.
> 
> ...


Yea, i guess that was a little rude and you could argue that is an improper use but what would the proper use be? It was put on this planet for a reason.
You should see some of the studies of marijuana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis
In moderation (not abused) it has many health benefits. (better than alcohol)

Yea Tv is a poor place to become informed although usually you can filter out the truth.

This thread has wavered so far away from the health insurance law its not funny. It's just that when peoples personal freedoms get taken away they get VERY defensive. We are in this country for its freedoms when those are taken away they are taking away our country.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

salmonslayer said:


> I am a conservative not a Republican


Man, I hear that a lot. I've concluded that the term "conservative" doesn't describe any political ideology at all. The term "conservative" is simply used to politically distance yourselves from unpopular republicans.

So when a self-professed conservative republican screws-up, calling yourself a conservative instead of a republican is just telling everyone that you're not like the conservative who screwed-up. It doesn't matter who it is, even the president, the first sign of a screw-up brands him as not being a *real* conservative, so he is demoted to a republican (or a RINO if it's really a bad transgression) so you aren't identified with him any longer.

I suppose it's necessary for conservatives to have that, since a disproportionate number of family values conservatives seem to get caught with their pants down. You need to have this as a defense mechanism.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada,are you a Democrat,leftist, or a liberal?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

for those that have been letting this thread rest, and all - you may have missed Tracy Rimmer's latest thread start... 

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=346762

Angie


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Nevada,are you a Democrat,leftist, or a liberal?


I consider myself a libertarian, since I support smaller government and fiscal conservatism, yet am a social liberal.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Man, I hear that a lot. I've concluded that the term "conservative" doesn't describe any political ideology at all. The term "conservative" is simply used to politically distance yourselves from unpopular republicans.


 Our it just means that some of us dont feel represented by the Republican party. As I stated, the Republicans came up with nothing worthy as an alternative to this bill and I am not a far right winger so I really dont fit into the new movements. 

Now I am curious though what new transgression by a Republican you are talking about; did another one get caught in the sack?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If you are for smaller government how in the world can you even think of supporting this health care boondoggle?
With 17,000 more IRS agents and a host of other either agencies to over see this health care or expanded beyond believe.
That sure isn't for small government at all, this health care. You can't be both for smaller government and a social liberal, which in itself speaks volumes.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I consider myself a libertarian, since I support smaller government and fiscal conservatism, yet am a social liberal.


Wouldn't that be a contradiction to your previous posts?:fussin:


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I consider myself a libertarian, since I support smaller government and fiscal conservatism, yet am a social liberal.


Libertarian???:smiley-laughing013:

And yet you support fedgov. welfare programs.

I doubt few libertarians support this entitlement program.

I think you might lean just a little to the left.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

salmonslayer said:


> Now I am curious though what new transgression by a Republican you are talking about; did another one get caught in the sack?


To be honest with you, I don't really worry about that a lot. I was taken aback by Larry Craig in particular because what he did was such a devastating way to humiliate his wife, but I don't really care what he does in the men's room. It's enough for me to just keep him away from livestock.

I suppose it's the social liberal in me that thinks everyone should be able to do what he wants. Kind of like the 60s creed of "do your own thing". At any rate, I don't see what it has to do with doing the job well, and that's what's really important.

When I was living in Saudi Arabia I had a Saudi national ask me what the point of American political scandals was. It seemed to be his attitude that when a man rises to a high enough station in society that he's earned the right to indulge himself a little bit; so although it may not be the moral thing to do, it was really his own business. I have to agree, so I don't harp on those incidents as much as others seem to.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Libertarian???:smiley-laughing013:
> 
> And yet you support fedgov. welfare programs.
> 
> ...


Very few socialists will admit to the name. Most prefer liberal or progressive, but some go even further.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Libertarian???:smiley-laughing013:
> 
> And yet you support fedgov. welfare programs.
> 
> ...


All libertarians lean left on social issues. They have to to keep government small. Our downfall in trying to get smaller government is our pet issues. We've all got them, and until we're willing to give them all up government will continue to get more restrictive. For example, are you willing to give-up the abortion issue in the name of smaller government? I thought not...

But you've got me wrong on entitlement programs. I'm not a fan of the big-spending social programs.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> Very few socialists will admit to the name. Most prefer liberal or progressive, but some go even further.


I don't mind the term "progressive", but that term doesn't really describe a coherent political philosophy. Basically it just describes someone who is open to new ideas, which I pride myself on.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada said:


> All libertarians lean left on social issues. They have to to keep government small. Our downfall in trying to get smaller government is our pet issues. We've all got them, and until we're willing to give them all up government will continue to get more restrictive. *For example, are you willing to give-up the abortion issue in the name of smaller government? I thought not...*


Abortion is not the fedgov's business at all...that equals smaller gov.
Marriage(gay or otherwise) is not the fedgov's business at all...THAT equals smaller gov.
Drugs are not the fedgov's business...that equals smaller gov.




> But you've got me wrong on entitlement programs. *I'm not a fan of the big-spending social programs.*


Yet you support THIS one...odd.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > But you've got me wrong on entitlement programs. *I'm not a fan of the big-spending social programs.*
> ...


Having worked in the medical industry for quite a long time, I've always been aware of how the government was paying for health care. It's not something that's discussed openly though, even during the health care debate. It's the dirty little secret that we don't mention in this country.

What you need to understand is that regardless of what the politicians tell us, the purpose of the health care reform bill is to get Americans contributing more towards their heal care so the government doesn't have to foot the bill any longer. That's the way it should be.

The fact is that this bill is a lot more budget neutral that most believe it to be. Al lot of republicans have noticed that the medical and insurance industries get a good deal out of this bill from individuals. That's not an accident either.

The way it stands today (until 2014 anyway), you can go to the hospital any time you like without insurance or money to have a $250,000 heart attack and walk out never paying a cent. It's those heart attacks that the government can't afford to get stuck with the bill for.

The point to health care reform is to stop huge unpaid medical bills, not give health care away. The idea of free medical care is just the way they're packaging health care reform for public consumption.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't mind the term "progressive", but that term doesn't really describe a coherent political philosophy. Basically it just describes someone who is open to new ideas, which I pride myself on.


That's what the socialists intended people to believe when they adopted the name. You should study the history of the progressive movement a little.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> For example, are you willing to give-up the abortion issue in the name of smaller government? I thought not...


No, I'm not willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent children to advance a political agenda, unlike some of the Democrats who supported this bill; but that has nothing to do with smaller government.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Having worked in the medical industry for quite a long time, I've always been aware of how the government was paying for health care. It's not something that's discussed openly though, even during the health care debate. It's the dirty little secret that we don't mention in this country.
> 
> What you need to understand is that regardless of what the politicians tell us, the purpose of the health care reform bill is to get Americans contributing more towards their heal care so the government doesn't have to foot the bill any longer. That's the way it should be.
> 
> ...


Well this still doesn't get people to pay for THEIR healthcare. It gets ME to pay for THEIR healthcare. 

Ok, since government was paying for it already and I am already paying taxes why change things?

All it changes is the middle man, instead of the government as the only middle man it has the insurance companies AND the government's hands in the pie.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> No, I'm not willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent children to advance a political agenda, unlike some of the Democrats who supported this bill; but that has nothing to do with smaller government.


But you see, everyone has their pet issue, and they all think their issues are important. You'll eventually get yours, but at the cost of everyone else getting theirs. In the end there will be laws against virtually everything. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves when you wake-up in a police state. I'll be living in a police state too, but at least I can say I told you so.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> But you see, everyone has their pet issue, and they all think their issues are important. You'll eventually get yours, but at the cost of everyone else getting theirs. In the end there will be laws against virtually everything. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves when you wake-up in a police state. I'll be living in a police state too, but at least I can say I told you so.


Wow, in this entire healthcare argument I never thought I would say good point Nevada.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Nevada,this bill requires massive fedgov. payments(tax credits) to any single person making less than $43,300...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Ok, since government was paying for it already and I am already paying taxes why change things?


Because the government can't afford it any longer. Take the issues one at a time and think about it.



Why should the government care of an insurance company accepts people with pre-existing conditions? Because they need everyone to be insured to keep the government from getting stuck with the bills.
Why should the government care of an insurance company drops someone when he gets cancer? Because they can't afford to have a cancer victim rack-up uninsured bills that the government has to pay.
Why should the government want people to be allowed to cover their children until they are 26? Because more people in their young 20s will be covered, making it so the government doesn't get stuck with the bill.
Why should the government care if we get preventative care? To lower medical bills overall.
How about lifetime and annual limits on private insurance? Because the government is getting stuck paying bills after those limits are reached.
Why an independent appeals process? Because private insurance companies are getting out of paying bills that the government gets stuck with.

Are you seeing a pattern developing here? The government can't afford to NOT do it.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Because the government can't afford it any longer. Take the issues one at a time and think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why mandate me to get insurance?
So I still pay all the previous taxes and pay for others healthcare on top of it.A $4,000/yr tax increase wouldn't fly to well.

Why subsidize more healthcare than Medicaid?
On our way to Communism.

My question for you is how is subsidizing MORE people's health insurance, paying the insurance companies profit on top of it, gonna lower government spending?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Why mandate me to get insurance?
> So I still pay all the previous taxes and pay for others healthcare on top of it.A $4,000/yr tax increase wouldn't fly to well.
> 
> Why subsidize more healthcare than Medicaid?
> ...


Because when YOU and everyone else has insurance there are no bad medical debts, so the government doesn't get stuck paying them. Insurance premiums pay the bills, not the IRS.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Because when YOU and everyone else has insurance there are no bad medical debts, so the government doesn't get stuck paying them. Insurance premiums pay the bills, not the IRS.


You act like the government was the only one paying for healthcare before this law was passed. 60% of the population was covered by their employers insurance. They picked up the majority of the costs (bad medical debt). 

The "IRS" is paying the insurance premiums instead of paying the medical bills directly. Whats the difference except we are paying for more people now and we also have to pay insurance companies profits?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Because the government can't afford it any longer. Take the issues one at a time and think about it.
> 
> Why should the government care of an insurance company accepts people with pre-existing conditions? Because they need everyone to be insured to keep the government from getting stuck with the bills.



No the government should not be in the business of providing health care PERIOD END OF SENTENCE. 




Nevada said:


> Why should the government care of an insurance company drops someone when he gets cancer? Because they can't afford to have a cancer victim rack-up uninsured bills that the government has to pay.



The government should not be paying for the health care of any one. Once you buy into your line of thought where does it end? Isn't food more important to more people than health care? So should not the government provide everyone with food? If so shouldn't the government be able to "level the food playing field" to make sure someone with a "Cadillac" food supply is taxed? What about housing? What about transportation? What good is a job if you can't get to it? Maybe the government should require everyone to buy food, housing and transportation insurance so someone else can pay for it.




Nevada said:


> Why should the government want people to be allowed to cover their children until they are 26? Because more people in their young 20s will be covered, making it so the government doesn't get stuck with the bill.


Again where does the government get the power to do this? 




Nevada said:


> Why should the government care if we get preventative care? To lower medical bills overall.


BUZZ sorry wrong answer. If you check you will find it will cost us more dollars to give people preventive care. Study and you will find the older people get the more money is spent on their health care. Therefore the more people you keep alive longer the more money you will spend. If you wanted to save money the government would only ALLOW people go go to doctors when they are very ill. 




Nevada said:


> How about lifetime and annual limits on private insurance? Because the government is getting stuck paying bills after those limits are reached.



Why? 




Nevada said:


> Why an independent appeals process? Because private insurance companies are getting out of paying bills that the government gets stuck with.


Again why?




Nevada said:


> Are you seeing a pattern developing here? The government can't afford to NOT do it.


Then why doesn't it just STOP!!!! When did it become the government's, and by extension MY, responsibility to take care of you or your business?

For someone who says he wants smaller government you seem to want to keep it getting more and more control of people's lives.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > How about lifetime and annual limits on private insurance? Because the government is getting stuck paying bills after those limits are reached.
> ...


You weren't clear about your question "why", but I'll guess that you're really asking "how". As in; how does the government get stuck with huge medical bills?

The how is easy. Let's say you go into the hospital and rack-up $100K in medical bills. Let's also say that your insurance lifetime limit has already been passed, so you have no insurance. You tell the bill collectors that you have no job and no money, so don't call anymore. They stop wasting their time on you, but they eventually write-off the $100K off their taxes as a bad debt.

With $100K off the gross income for the hospital, they will pay taxes on $100K less than they would have paid if you never showed-up at their hospital. If the hospital pays taxes in the 50% bracket, they will save $50K in tax payments that year. While you might look at that as money never paid in, believe me that the IRS and the government look at it as lost revenue, because it is.

If instead you had no lifetime limit and were covered with insurance for your hospital stay then the hospital would have collected $50K from you and the insurance company. No, they wouldn't get $100K from the insurance company for your $100K hospital stay. The insurance companies have collective bargaining agreements with hospitals, normally at around 50 cents on the dollar.

So you see, the hospital was only looking for $50K in the first place. And if they don't get it from an insurance carrier they'll get it from the IRS.

So if the hospital collects $50K from an insurance company instead of writing off $100K on their taxes, how much better does the IRS do? A $50K income instead of a $100K write off will net the IRS $25K in the black instead of $50K in the red. Get it now?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

.......lol

If the hospital doesn't get that $100k from him they just raise the costs for everyone else. They will produce enough money to stay profitable no matter what or close their doors. This does cost the government because of the 20% (or so) of people on Medicaid and Medicare.

Those medical bills do not just get written off as bad debt. It gets sold to a collection agency for usually around 10%-25% of cost. 

So yea the government will save a little if everyone is insured although they are more than negating the savings by covering more people,paying insurance profits, and really they are just saving the insurance companies money now since they have set premium prices at the current high prices.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But you see, everyone has their pet issue, and they all think their issues are important. You'll eventually get yours, but at the cost of everyone else getting theirs. In the end there will be laws against virtually everything. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves when you wake-up in a police state. I'll be living in a police state too, but at least I can say I told you so.


I don't consider dead babies a "pet issue", but you can if you wish. Carry on.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

deaconjim said:


> I don't consider dead babies a "pet issue", but you can if you wish. Carry on.


I gotta agree with him on this one. The government has no right to regulate what a person does to their body(until the baby is born of course). Federal funding of abortion is another issue since its your money doin something that you don't approve of but it shouldn't be an issue because we shouldn't be funding healthcare anyway.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

blooba said:


> I gotta agree with him on this one. The government has no right to regulate what a person does to their body(until the baby is born of course). Federal funding of abortion is another issue since its your money doin something that you don't approve of but it shouldn't be an issue because we shouldn't be funding healthcare anyway.


I'll be most happy to debate the issue with you on another thread, preferrably in GC.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Those medical bills do not just get written off as bad debt. It gets sold to a collection agency for usually around 10%-25% of cost.


They don't get that much from junk debt buyers. Usually 5% to 7%. But you're correct that they'll get what they can for the debt. Then they'll write-off the rest, 90% to 95% of the original debt.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> They don't get that much from junk debt buyers. Usually 5% to 7%. But you're correct that they'll get what they can for the debt. Then they'll write-off the rest, 90% to 95% of the original debt.


ok, but their overall budget accounts for non payment. and its not by the savings on taxes. Sure it helps but its not a valid argument.

Thats like the IRS saying I should be making $100,000/yr so they are counting on me to make that. 

Is your next idea a tax reform where I should make $100,000/yr so I am MANDATED to pay taxes on that whether I make it or not?

With this bill you are now saving the insurance companies money not the government. Where's the logic?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> I don't consider dead babies a "pet issue", but you can if you wish. Carry on.


I'm sure you don't. In fact I'm sure that you consider abortion to be an urgent matter with life & death consequences. What you're missing is that everyone feels that way about their pet issue. Gun control advocates consider their cause to be a matter of life & death, as do people who lobby to save whales from commercial whale hunters. Some people who passionately lobby for environmental issues believe that they're trying to save the entire human race, and possibly the whole planet from extinction of all living organisms.

So I understand the attitude that you believe your pet issue is more important than everyone else's, but you need to understand that you need to get in line with the rest of us. My pet issue happens to be ending war, and I also believe my issue to be a matter of live & death.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm sure you don't. In fact I'm sure that you consider abortion to be an urgent matter with life & death consequences. What you're missing is that everyone feels that way about their pet issue. Gun control advocates consider their cause to be a matter of life & death, as do people who lobby to save whales from commercial whale hunters. Some people who passionately lobby for environmental issues believe that they're trying to save the entire human race, and possibly the whole planet from extinction of all living organisms.
> 
> So I understand the attitude that you believe your pet issue is more important than everyone else's, but you need to understand that you need to get in line with the rest of us. My pet issue happens to be ending war, and I also believe my issue to be a matter of live & death.


I'll quote myself to avoid repeating myself (I think that's what I mean :shrug: )



deaconjim said:


> I'll be most happy to debate the issue with you on another thread, preferrably in GC.


----------



## redtx (Jun 8, 2002)

My my this is a long thread. 

A couple of things that don't fit the facts I have noticed on this page I think need to be noted.

1) 60% of the population is covered by government subsidized or paid for health 
insurance. NOT insurance through there private sector employer. The barn door has
been left open on that one and the cow is down the road. Should we have done
something different, maybe, but kicking everyone off Medicare, Medicaid, and yanking
the insurance from Government workers ain't gonna fly.

2) The loses on care to folks with no insurance or inadequate insurance are being pushed off on those of us who are carrying private insurance policies for our employees. Hence the 300% plus increase in our health insurance premiums. That lowers tax revenue and pushes jobs overseas etc. Bad dept to hospitals gets translated into hirer prices to the rest of us and since the number of us paying premiums is shrinking the prices are going up to levels we can't sustain. The point keeps getting missed, the real push for health care reform came from the business community, not the great mass of unwashed uninsured out there.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

redtx said:


> My my this is a long thread.
> 
> A couple of things that don't fit the facts I have noticed on this page I think need to be noted.
> 
> ...


Sorry bud but Most Americans (59.3%) receive their health insurance coverage through an employer (which includes both private as well as civilian public-sector employees) under group coverage, although this percentage is declining. Costs for employer-paid health insurance are rising rapidly: since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78%, while wages have risen 19% and inflation has risen 17%, according to a 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million), including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Public spending accounts for between 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending. 

So in other words, that 27% of the population spends twice as much in healthcare than the privately insured. Sounds like its very cost effective. Now how much will healthcare cost us now?

Also talking about pushing jobs overseas, where are private insurance call centers located? Hint: Not in the US. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010...ness-in-US-healthcare-law/UPI-66931269624575/


----------



## redtx (Jun 8, 2002)

Sorry sunshine that includes government employees, who pays for their insurance? Let&#8217;s see the taxpayer right? That is 11 or 12 percent of the work force say 15 percent of the population with family member etc. Also it doesn't take into effect folks that work for non profits etc that are subsidized. Like hospitals, many if not most are 802 tax exempts. That 60 % number is from Senate minority leader Senator McConnell, not a big fan of health care reform by the way.

Also, that 78% increase is across the board and doesn't take into effect the difference in premium prices between large and small businesses. And the differences between insurance markets, oh and cut backs in what the policies cover which is a price increase.
I can tell you that my premiums for my employees has gone from about $180.00 to $536.00 per month for single coverage in the last 10 years. About 300%. Before this financial meltdown the big issue among CEO's was health care costs. Look it up no secret there.

And so the call centers are going overseas to countries with universal health care and lower labor costs. They are also moving from California and the Midwest to the South because of lower labor costs except in our case it is to provide no health care. Right to work states and no unions to speak of = lower benefits cost = more profits. What is your point?


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

redtx said:


> Sorry sunshine that includes government employees, who pays for their insurance? Let&#8217;s see the taxpayer right? That is 11 or 12 percent of the work force say 15 percent of the population with family member etc. Also it doesn't take into effect folks that work for non profits etc that are subsidized. Like hospitals, many if not most are 802 tax exempts. That 60 % number is from Senate minority leader Senator McConnell, not a big fan of health care reform by the way.
> 
> Also, that 78% increase is across the board and doesn't take into effect the difference in premium prices between large and small businesses. And the differences between insurance markets, oh and cut backs in what the policies cover which is a price increase.
> I can tell you that my premiums for my employees has gone from about $180.00 to $536.00 per month for single coverage in the last 10 years. About 300%. Before this financial meltdown the big issue among CEO's was health care costs. Look it up no secret there.
> ...


Ok, I don't see what you are debating?

We have too many government employees?
Hate to tell ya but with this law we are gonna have even more. FEHB will still be in effect after this takes affect.

I don't know where Sen. McConnell got his numbers from but he probably said welfare pays almost 60% of healthcare costs, which it does. Although now instead of 27% of the population ,which is on welfare, paying double what people not on welfare paid it will be 100% of the population paying double. Is that cost effective?

You complaining about premiums raising now? Just wait!!!! 
This so called "bronze package" is gonna be 25% crappier than Medicare. So you will be wishing insurance covered the stuff it does now. 

And as for the call centers, yes they goto the lowest bidder, and that is in India. So in other words our tax dollars will be going to India via the insurance companies.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Ok, maybe your saying this is going to be more cost effective for businesses?
Yea,It passes the cost off of the business onto the government and the citizens(you and me). Although its gonna still cost businesses LOTS.


Txsteader said:


> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/de...hit-its-bottom-line-2010-03-25?dist=afterbell
> Quote:
> In the case of Deere, the higher costs represent nearly 12% of its projected fiscal 2010 profit of $1.3 billion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

And another thing...

Obama says we will cut Medicare to make the savings needed to run this bill revenue neutral. Yet...we are adding 7,000 more people to Medicare everyday. By the time this bill takes effect, we will have added many million more people to Medicare than we have now, we will have the effect of inflation to factor in, and we will still be able to make major cuts to the program?

I don't care how you slice it, there's just no way. What he's saying and what is in the bill, is devoid of reality.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> And another thing...
> 
> Obama says we will cut Medicare to make the savings needed to run this bill revenue neutral.


No one is going to cut Medicare benefits. You'll see legislation to shore it up. Congress has to; if for no other reason than to save their miserable jobs.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> No one is going to cut Medicare benefits.* You'll see legislation to shore it up*. Congress has to; if for no other reason than to save their miserable jobs.


 And here you have all the time been saying this health care bill did not cut Medicare Benefits.????
Now you are saying they will (have to shore it up) Another way of saying it was CUT, and they have to ADD things back into it because of the Health Care Bill. Hmmmmmmm
Now which is it?
Does the Health Care Bill Cut Medicare benefits?
Or does it not?
We have al;ways said it does, now you seem to be side stepping and saying they MUST add benefits back into it.


----------



## NamasteMama (Jul 24, 2009)

This may have been discussed, but because i have no desire to read the whole 40 page thread i'll ask away.

What do you all think about the real ID being snuck in there along with biometric id chips?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

NamasteMama said:


> This may have been discussed, but because i have no desire to read the whole 40 page thread i'll ask away.
> 
> What do you all think about the real ID being snuck in there along with biometric id chips?


sneaky and don't like it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And here you have all the time been saying this health care bill did not cut Medicare Benefits.????
> Now you are saying they will (have to shore it up) Another way of saying it was CUT, and they have to ADD things back into it because of the Health Care Bill. Hmmmmmmm
> Now which is it?
> Does the Health Care Bill Cut Medicare benefits?
> ...


I was referring to Medicare Advantage. I think Medicare Advantage is going no place. Look for legislation to be introduced.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I was referring to Medicare Advantage. I think Medicare Advantage is going no place. Look for legislation to be introduced.


I hope you are right.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I was referring to Medicare Advantage. I think Medicare Advantage is going no place. Look for legislation to be introduced.


Where is he gonna squeeze this in?

Export Reform(subsidize exports TO other countries???)-FYI this was done by Executive Order
Health Insurance Reform(passed)
Wall Street Reform (On the Senate Floor)
Financial Reform (In Senate Committee)
Immigration Reform (still being lobbied)
Lead Criminal Justice Reform(to prevent discrimination)
Department of Defense Reform 
Education Reform
Cap and Trade

Source: www.whitehouse.gov

Boy he still has alot to get done. Wonder what's next on his list? Voter Reform? I sure hope all these other "reforms" are as good as this Health Insurance Reform.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

blooba said:


> Where is he gonna squeeze this in?


Actually, it would be a good bill for republicans to introduce. They could purport themselves as the saviors of Medicare, then denounce any democrats who don't vote for it as being unpatriotic and hating America.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

It is all just a game isn't it???


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I was referring to Medicare Advantage. I think Medicare Advantage is going no place. Look for legislation to be introduced.


How are they going to pay for it?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Melissa said:


> It is all just a game isn't it???


A very serious one.

With huge financial consequences for all Americans.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> How are they going to pay for it?


Same way we paid for Iraq, with tax cuts.


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Same way we paid for Iraq, with tax cuts.


We must have a new credit card we could put it on. :shocked:










Sure glad National Defense takes up so much of our Budget.


----------



## clovis (May 13, 2002)

A fourty page thread on CSF?

This must be some sort of record!


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

well this is a record breaking law. 
First Ever Government Mandated Purchase of a Private Industries Product
First Ever Mandated for Every Single Person Tax
And a First Ever 20+% Increase in Taxes with a Single Law.

Even Social Security or Medicare were only 7.65%


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> No,, a newer one then that, Orencia.
> Remicade has to be taken along or should be with Methotrexate~~! Can't do that~!!!
> So I am not taking ANY RA drugs now,,,, SO I am BACK to just OTC Ibuprofen and Tylenol Arthritis. Which I had been doing for 25 years at the rate of 25 a DAY. Have not been up to that amount yet. But I can't afford to go back the Strong RA Meds`!!!
> So Medicaid / Medicare does not even come in the picture for my RA~!!!!
> So THAT is how well the Government Health Care system is working for me~!!!!! And it will only get worse if this health care bill gets passed and with that, the Advantage programs are Stopped~!!!


Don't Orencia and Remicade fall under Medicare Part B, and not Part D?

The reason I ask is that you brought those medications up because you were claiming that they pushed you into the Medicare Part D doughnut hole quickly. But Medicare Part B has no doughnut hole.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Don't Orencia and Remicade fall under Medicare Part B, and not Part D?
> 
> The reason I ask is that you brought those medications up because you were claiming that they pushed you into the Medicare Part D doughnut hole quickly. But Medicare Part B has no doughnut hole.


 Well to tell truth I am not sure.
I have been able to stay off of those high power drugs, so I have not researched it yet if it does or not.
And it would be only Orencia, because Remicade says you should also take it with Methotrexate, of which I am allergic to.
As it maybe covered under B because you have to go in and have it done because it is given by IV.


----------

