Search forums

Forums

Export thread

That Healthcare Thing

Mar 20, 2010#1

JONJONAUG

What will happen if this is passed

Top 10 facts to know about Health Care reform

Top 5 lies about Health Care reform

First year after enactment if this passes (most of this immediate):

WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT
*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the \\"doughnut hole\\" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

Links of GOP and their supporters being asshats:

Holy shit, this is the most heartless thing. Guy with Parkinson's comes to a health care rally and is berated by anti-reform protesters who mock him and throw dollar bills at him while chanting slogans.

Rep. Scott Garrett cites fake memo

Steve King calls for open revolt

Crap, I have no idea how to stop this video from taking up so much room and just making it a regular link. Anyway, Bachmann is still a total lying bitch.

Links of Democrats and their supporters being asshats:

Stop being a fucking attention whore, Stupak. And Harry Reid, if you're going to promise that reconciliation will work provide some support for this

Mar 20, 2010#2

AshburnerX

Open revolution... over fucking HEALTH CARE? If it wasn't going to happen over the Bush Regime, it's not going to happen just because you have to pay more in taxes. Honestly... I know a lot of us secretly hope to see a revolution in our lifetimes, but lets hope it's over something that actually has MEANING.

Better yet, lets hope it doesn't happen at all.

Mar 20, 2010#3

@Li3n

Well last time you had open revolution over a tax on tea... which was the only tax the kept after eliminating the other ones they wanted trying to appease you guys...

Mar 20, 2010#4

AshburnerX

@Li3n said:
Well last time you had open revolution over a tax on tea... which was the only tax the kept after eliminating the other ones they wanted trying to appease you guys...

Mar 20, 2010#5

LordRendar

AshburnerX said:
Honestly... I know a lot of us secretly hope to see a revolution in our lifetimes.

No.No you dont. And pray that you don't have to.Was born during one,and have been through one in the Philippines where we had to hide in the mountains for 2 months,because we wrote Anti-Government Pamphlets and the governor of our Island was told to end us.

Mar 20, 2010#6

AshburnerX

LordRendar;357459][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:
Honestly... I know a lot of us secretly hope to see a revolution in our lifetimes.

ME!!!! said:
Better yet, lets hope it doesn't happen at all.

I am not so callus as to want the nation plunged into Chaos. But I do understand why people would want it to happen.

Mar 20, 2010#7

LordRendar

AshburnerX;357468][QUOTE=LordRendar;357459][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:
Honestly... I know a lot of us secretly hope to see a revolution in our lifetimes.

ME!!!! said:
Better yet, lets hope it doesn't happen at all.

I am not so callus as to want the nation plunged into Chaos. But I do understand why people would want it to happen.[/QUOTE]

Pardon. I didnt see that last bit there. I apologize.

Mar 20, 2010#8

WolfOfOdin

I went out to dinner with one of my professors from college a week or two ago and we talked about the cultural disparity in our country right now. The major point we came across is that we've created two radically opposed cultures in this country, between the 'Left' and the 'Right'. The problem is that these two seem to be butting heads more and more each day, growing evermore vitriolic and hateful in their rhetoric. Situations like this tend to...not end well.

Mar 20, 2010#9

Krisken

WolfOfOdin said:
I went out to dinner with one of my professors from college a week or two ago and we talked about the cultural disparity in our country right now. The major point we came across is that we've created two radically opposed cultures in this country, between the 'Left' and the 'Right'. The problem is that these two seem to be butting heads more and more each day, growing evermore vitriolic and hateful in their rhetoric. Situations like this tend to...not end well.

Yes, and leaders from both sides use this as a vehicle for raising money for future campaigns. Since there is no accountability for their actions and no way to reduce it, the us/them mentality is being ingrained into our culture. I predict it won't be long before we see issues arise like other areas of the world that deal with two diametrically opposed viewpoints become more violent.

Mar 20, 2010#10

strawman

The healthcare plan, as-is, will cost EVERYONE who currently has coverage more money. It doesn't reduce costs at all. It doesn't pay for itself.

The American public has rejected it - polls show that less than 50% of us want it.

The only reason the democrats are considering pushing it through is because they don't want to start again, even though many of them disagree with the senate version (which is the only version they have a chance in a million of passing). They've pushed aside a lot of important concerns (such as unemployment extension) for this bill, and are not now willing to lose what little ground they've claimed.

Obama himself didn't get nearly what he wanted out of it, yet he has lost a full year pushing this unpopular bill on us, and is so invested that he would count himself a failure if this one plank of his grand platform was missing.

We're passing the wrong bill that no one wants for the wrong reasons, it's going to cost the American public BILLIONS to implement, we know it's going to be unfunded, and only ever partially met by the people congress has decided get to bear the burden of implementing it.

Looking at the whole debacle objectively, it's nothing short of hilarious. There's a chain that's binding everyone to their course of action, and they have no choice but to pull themselves, and us by extension, to this silly place.

And all I can see is that I'm paying $800/mo for inexpensive health insurance because I can't afford the comprehensive insurance at $1,200, but after this passes, I'm going to be charged $1,200 for what I already have, and if I can only afford $800 I might as well quit my job and go on the public system because it'll be better than what I can afford. And while some of that money will be going to people with legitimate health problems, most of it will really be going to people who make poor lifestyle choices.

I hope it doesn't pass, but I suspect the democrats will force it on us. Funny thing is that those in the house and senate don't have to pay for their health care. I'd like to see them vote for it only if they have to live by it.

Mar 20, 2010#11

JONJONAUG

stienman said:
The healthcare plan, as-is, will cost EVERYONE who currently has coverage more money. It doesn't reduce costs at all. It doesn't pay for itself.

Except it actually cuts costs in Medicare by 500 billion and the only people who will see an increase are those under individual plans who aren't insured through their company and don't have plans with the level of coverage required in the bill.

I'll agree that there are a lot of things that could've been improved on in the bill and a lot of things (public option being one of them) that should've been in it in the first place. But most of the stuff in the bill serves to regulate the insurance industry. While it does help big business by requiring Americans to have health care, it also does a lot to protect consumers and to aid people who can't afford it.

In other news: Stay classy, Tea Party.

Tea Party protesters being racist and having hilarious signs calling Obama an illegal immigrant and comparing him to Hitler. I for one, am completely shocked.

My personal favorite sign is the one that says that they're going to kill Congressmen if this Socialist Nazi bill gets passed.

Mar 20, 2010#12

WolfOfOdin

Jesus fucking christ!

What the hell people?! That's not how you get your message across, that's how you get seen as raving, bigoted lunatics and racist thugs. Is this honestly what discourse has finally degraded to in America? Throwing bricks through congressional office buildings? Out and out threatening MURDER towards congress?

I'm officially deeply worried now....if that group, with as much people as it has, gains a charismatic enough leader, the results will be....unpleasant.

Mar 20, 2010#13

JONJONAUG

Video and link to President Obama's latest speech on the subject

Secondary link for Tea Party protest

Mar 20, 2010#14

Dei

From what I hear there's already a piggyback bill in Congress to undo the cuts to Medicare. It might still be in committee or something. I don't know if that's true so I'm not going to go on and on about it. But I do know that I hate the way they are shoving this bill down everyone's throats. It's not going to fix anything, it's just going to make people pay for healthcare whether they want to or not, not help improve primary care doctor shortages in any way, and make over 50% of the U.S. Population angry.

Mar 20, 2010#15

Krisken

Dei said:
From what I hear there's already a piggyback bill in Congress to undo the cuts to Medicare. It might still be in committee or something. I don't know if that's true so I'm not going to go on and on about it. But I do know that I hate the way they are shoving this bill down everyone's throats. It's not going to fix anything, it's just going to make people pay for healthcare whether they want to or not, not help improve primary care doctor shortages in any way, and make over 50% of the U.S. Population angry.

Fox News? Is that you? I read "Shoving this bill down everyone's throats" and flashbacked to Stewart's video of Fox news anchors saying it over and over again.

Mar 20, 2010#16

JONJONAUG

Rep. Ryan (Dem. Ohio) calls on Republicans to distance themselves from Tea Party protesters.

Mar 20, 2010#17

Dei

If you think Congress passing a bill when more than 50% of Americans are opposed to it, and having to "find" deem and pass laws isn't shoving, then I don't know what is.

Mar 21, 2010#18

JONJONAUG

Dei said:
If you think Congress passing a bill when more than 50% of Americans are opposed to it, and having to \"find\" deem and pass laws isn't shoving, then I don't know what is.

Deem and pass has been used before, it hasn't been "found".

Also Dems have dropped that anyway.

Mar 21, 2010#19

strawman

JONJONAUG said:
Except it actually cuts costs in Medicare by 500 billion and the only people who will see an increase are those under individual plans who aren't insured through their company and don't have plans with the level of coverage required in the bill.

Mar 21, 2010#20

JONJONAUG

stienman;357884][QUOTE=JONJONAUG said:
Except it actually cuts costs in Medicare by 500 billion and the only people who will see an increase are those under individual plans who aren't insured through their company and don't have plans with the level of coverage required in the bill.

Mar 21, 2010#21

Troll

Dei said:
From what I hear there's already a piggyback bill in Congress to undo the cuts to Medicare. It might still be in committee or something. I don't know if that's true so I'm not going to go on and on about it. But I do know that I hate the way they are shoving this bill down everyone's throats. It's not going to fix anything, it's just going to make people pay for healthcare whether they want to or not, not help improve primary care doctor shortages in any way, and make over 50% of the U.S. Population angry.

So do you believe people should be required to purchase car insurance?

And do you think it was okay for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite the fact that it was strongly opposed in mamy areas of the country?

Regarding Steinman's comments: People are already paying for healthcare when an uninsured person has to go to the emergency room for a condition that could have been prevented, except they could not afford the coverage. Don't act as though taxpayers aren't already shouldering a huge burden of healthcare costs.

Mar 21, 2010#22

Dei

Quoting something relevant before I complain about an auto insurance analogy.

stienman said:
And all I can see is that I'm paying $800/mo for inexpensive health insurance because I can't afford the comprehensive insurance at $1,200, but after this passes, I'm going to be charged $1,200 for what I already have, and if I can only afford $800 I might as well quit my job and go on the public system because it'll be better than what I can afford. And while some of that money will be going to people with legitimate health problems, most of it will really be going to people who make poor lifestyle choices.

For one thing, auto insurance costs no where near $800 a month unless you are the worst driver ever or have a shit ton of cars. You can choose to not have a car and not have to pay auto insurance. You can choose to not have a plan with all the frills if you can't afford it or don't feel you need it.

Mar 21, 2010#23

Troll

Dei said:
Quoting something relevant before I complain about an auto insurance analogy.

stienman said:

And all I can see is that I'm paying $800/mo for inexpensive health insurance because I can't afford the comprehensive insurance at $1,200, but after this passes, I'm going to be charged $1,200 for what I already have, and if I can only afford $800 I might as well quit my job and go on the public system because it'll be better than what I can afford. And while some of that money will be going to people with legitimate health problems, most of it will really be going to people who make poor lifestyle choices.

Click to expand...

For one thing, auto insurance costs no where near $800 a month unless you are the worst driver ever or have a shit ton of cars. You can choose to not have a car and not have to pay auto insurance. You can choose to not have a plan with all the frills if you can't afford it or don't feel you need it.

Okay, but I brought up the auto insurance as a counter to your complaint about people being forced to buy health insurance whether they want to or not. I think the cost per month is irrelevant to that point. I will grant you that you could simply not have a car, and in that regard the analogy is false for either side of the argument. Still, I think it illustrates that society acknowledges there are times when forcing people to buy insurance is in the public's best interest.

Mar 21, 2010#24

Covar

A Troll;357910][QUOTE=Dei said:
Quoting something relevant before I complain about an auto insurance analogy.

stienman said:

And all I can see is that I'm paying $800/mo for inexpensive health insurance because I can't afford the comprehensive insurance at $1,200, but after this passes, I'm going to be charged $1,200 for what I already have, and if I can only afford $800 I might as well quit my job and go on the public system because it'll be better than what I can afford. And while some of that money will be going to people with legitimate health problems, most of it will really be going to people who make poor lifestyle choices.

Click to expand...

For one thing, auto insurance costs no where near $800 a month unless you are the worst driver ever or have a shit ton of cars. You can choose to not have a car and not have to pay auto insurance. You can choose to not have a plan with all the frills if you can't afford it or don't feel you need it.

JONJONAUG;357901][QUOTE=stienman;357884][QUOTE=JONJONAUG said:
Except it actually cuts costs in Medicare by 500 billion and the only people who will see an increase are those under individual plans who aren't insured through their company and don't have plans with the level of coverage required in the bill.

You have got to be kidding me when you say that you believe this. Have you even read the bill? Follow the money. Here's a hint: healthcare isn't free, someone has to pay the bill, and ultimately that person is you.[/QUOTE]

Only between six and seven percent of Americans will see an increase in their premiums

Most new taxes are on manufactures of medical equipment, insurance companies, individuals earning over 200 thousand dollars or couples earning more than 250 thousand dollars, and tanning salons that use ultraviolet lamps.

EDIT: Small correction.[/QUOTE]
Sweet, once again we're going to tax things that actually effect the cost of medical coverage.

There are already two Goverment programs designed to help people who need health coverage Medicare (for helping the elderly) and Medicaid (for helping the poor, which was what this so called "reform" was supposed to do in the first place). Both of these programs have serious issues and are barely functioning. So lets add another one, this time it will work!

Mar 21, 2010#25

crono1224

Covar;357965][QUOTE=A Troll;357910][QUOTE=Dei said:
Quoting something relevant before I complain about an auto insurance analogy.

stienman said:

And all I can see is that I'm paying $800/mo for inexpensive health insurance because I can't afford the comprehensive insurance at $1,200, but after this passes, I'm going to be charged $1,200 for what I already have, and if I can only afford $800 I might as well quit my job and go on the public system because it'll be better than what I can afford. And while some of that money will be going to people with legitimate health problems, most of it will really be going to people who make poor lifestyle choices.

Click to expand...

For one thing, auto insurance costs no where near $800 a month unless you are the worst driver ever or have a shit ton of cars. You can choose to not have a car and not have to pay auto insurance. You can choose to not have a plan with all the frills if you can't afford it or don't feel you need it.

JONJONAUG;357901][QUOTE=stienman;357884][QUOTE=JONJONAUG said:
Except it actually cuts costs in Medicare by 500 billion and the only people who will see an increase are those under individual plans who aren't insured through their company and don't have plans with the level of coverage required in the bill.

Mar 21, 2010#26

Troll

Okay, I can see this was a mistake getting into this discussion. Obviously any point anybody makes is going to be nitpicked, while the actual main points are ignored. Stay classy, folks.

Mar 21, 2010#27

Krisken

If you get the chance, watch the debate going on right now. It's quite interesting.

Mar 21, 2010#28

JONJONAUG

Covar said:
There are already two Goverment programs designed to help people who need health coverage Medicare (for helping the elderly) and Medicaid (for helping the poor, which was what this so called \"reform\" was supposed to do in the first place). Both of these programs have serious issues and are barely functioning. So lets add another one, this time it will work!

Except this isn't creating any major new programs. There is no public option and this is not a socialist takeover of medicine like in Canada or the UK. It expands what's already there (Medicaid is broken as hell and is getting a major fixup), changes how money is spent (Medicare has funds cut from some areas, used to fix a spending hole somewhere else), and extends tax credits to those who can't afford health care. Everyone who isn't on Medicare or Medicaid is still on private health insurance, albeit with more government regulation (which is a good thing, unless you're one of those "free market is the best for everything" idiots who ignore every single good thing to come out of public health and services regulation for the past 140 years).

Former Bush speechwriter calls out Republican radicals for inspiring idiocy in party base and perusing a strategy of obstruction over actual discussion

EDIT:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx

Live stream of Congress. Right now it's a bunch of Republican Reps saying the exact same thing (over and over and over and over, the EXACT same thing). Last guy had a pretty entertaining speech where he made the claim "taxes for 10 years for six years of service" even though a good deal of stuff starts as soon as the bill is signed into law. Right before that Michele Bachmann was up and pretty much broke proper courteous conduct by not addressing the speaker. Guess she's still upset about Congress profaning the Sabbath

You also have some Democrats who are pretty clearly in favor of way more comprehensive stuff that is not actually in the bill. One Dem Rep made a point that a good deal of money was spent bringing health care to Iraq, yet Congress can't offer the same for its own citizens.

Oh wow. David Dreier (Cali-R) is full of bullshit. Claims that we should be deregulating the industry further and that tort reform is the number one issue here.

Mar 21, 2010#29

Espy

crono1224 said:
You're right government can't run healthcare, poor people in the army with their horrible healthcare.

Man, I've posted so many times here about the "fun" that is the army healthcare my wife and I had for years that I just can't handle even thinking about re-writing the mess of complications and red tape that even getting to a doc is under that healthcare. It's great in that it's cheap (you know, assuming you like getting sent to war zones every other year), don't get me wrong, but it's the biggest mess of bureaucratic nonsense you will ever have to deal with, so no, I don't think the government will "run" healthcare well. Of course that doesn't mean I think private business are doing a much better job...

Mar 21, 2010#30

Krisken

Maybe you should talk to the Department of Defense, Espy? It's their program.

You really can't bitch about a program that has no enrollment fees, deductibles, or co-payments for authorized medical services and prescriptions.

Maybe get some of that private health insurance as well?

2nd edit: I should probably ask before making the assumption, Espy. Do you have the basic TRICARE package or do you have additionally coverage?

Mar 21, 2010#31

Espy

Krisken said:
Maybe you should talk to the Department of Defense, Espy? It's their program.

You really can't bitch about a program that has no enrollment fees, deductibles, or co-payments for authorized medical services and prescriptions.
2nd edit: I should probably ask before making the assumption, Espy. Do you have the basic TRICARE package or do you have additionally coverage?

Seriously dude, what the heck? Do you understand that despite the above things you mentioned, which are nice, that it's not free? You pay by serving your country, going to warzones, risking your life and paying a decent monthly fee (ours was close to 400 for the two of us)? So why the heck am I not allowed to have an opinion on it? I'm not "bitching" about it, I'm just talking about the nightmare it can be to deal with. It doesn't mean it's "bad" insurance. But to imply I can't have an opinion on it?

Man, I'm just really confused here... I don't understand what you are trying to say. I make a comment on government run insurance based on my personal experience being on it and you want me to... what, call the DOD and tell them? Not dare to say it's not perfect?
Maybe I was unclear so let's say it again:. It's great insurance. It's cheap. It's a burecratic nightmare to deal with. Is it better than private? Private healthcare has the same bureaucratic issues that it does so as I kind of implied in my previous post: They all have their bureaucratic issues and it would be nice to get some reform there.

As to what "package" we had? We don't have any of it now that my wife is out of the military. I'm not really sure what "package" we had, it was good but it wasn't the best in the world. Now as compensation for my wife spending 2 years overseas on active duty it wasn't bad, aside, you know, from the bureaucracy that is really frustrating to deal with.

Since I don't really understand what you are getting at maybe I'm just being unclear: I don't think the government (DOD is part of our government right?) will run healthcare well. I also don't think the private companies are doing a much better job than the government would.

So where does that leave us? Clearly we need some kind of reform. I assume you agree, so seriously, I'm not trying to argue with anyone about my personal experiences or whether or not we need reform. Clearly we do. Does that mean I'm just going to blindly assume the government will be our Healthcare Jesus? Of course not. I'm not against the government getting involved, but we need some real reform to the way it's done, I don't know if this bill is actually going to help or not, if it passes I hope it does. If it doesn't really help then I hope it fails and a better one gets put together.

Mar 21, 2010#32

Krisken

I guess I'm saying expecting to compare all government run healthcare to the one run by the Department of Defense is like expecting all hamburgers to be a Big Mac.

Mar 21, 2010#33

Espy

Krisken said:
I guess I'm saying expecting to compare all government run healthcare to the one run by the Department of Defense is like expecting all hamburgers to be a Big Mac.

I never said they were the same thing. I merely said, I have been on government run healthcare and here are some good things and some bad things about it.

Mar 21, 2010#34

Krisken

Espy;358123][QUOTE=Krisken said:
Maybe you should talk to the Department of Defense, Espy? It's their program.

You really can't bitch about a program that has no enrollment fees, deductibles, or co-payments for authorized medical services and prescriptions.

Krisken said:
2nd edit: I should probably ask before making the assumption, Espy. Do you have the basic TRICARE package or do you have additionally coverage?

We don't have any of it now that my wife is out of the military. I'm not really sure what "package" we had, it was good but it wasn't the best in the world. Now as compensation for my wife spending 2 years overseas on active duty it wasn't bad, aside, you know, from the bureaucracy that is really frustrating to deal with.

Since I don't really understand what you are getting at maybe I'm just being unclear: I don't think the government (DOD is part of our government right?) will run healthcare well. I also don't think the private companies are doing a much better job than the government would.

So where does that leave us? Clearly we need some kind of reform. I assume you agree, so seriously, I'm not trying to argue with anyone about my personal experiences or whether or not we need reform. Clearly we do. Does that mean I'm just going to blindly assume the government will be our Healthcare Jesus? Of course not. I'm not against the government getting involved, but we need some real reform to the way it's done, I don't know if this bill is actually going to help or not, if it passes I hope it does. If it doesn't really help then I hope it fails and a better one gets put together.[/QUOTE]
That was the point of the edit. There are different levels of TRICARE. The basic level is all the things I posted. I know this because I took it right from the AHIMA book that tells me what it is (Principles of Healthcare Reimbursement, 2nd edition, 2009). So you had care beyond the basic Tricare level. You must have had Tricare Standard or Tricare Extra as well.

As for reform, yeah, there is some stuff that does help reform. The biggest help will be the physician guidelines. This was largely demonized as the "They'll tell people to pull the plug on grandma!" section. What it does is it collects data of symptoms and helps physicians rule out the most common diagnoses first and suggests the most successful route of treatment. This is where a lot of cost will be saved.

Really not pleased with the way the Pharmaceuticals were given a free ride, though. Medication prices are way out of control.

Mar 21, 2010#35

Kitty Sinatra

Krisken said:
What it does is it collects data of symptoms and helps physicians rule out the most common diagnoses first and suggests the most successful route of treatment

If that hasn't been in place since the dawn of your country (or at least since its Ministry of Health) y'all need more reform than ya think.

Mar 21, 2010#36

JONJONAUG

CSPAN stream has a bunch of guys talking again.

I've never seriously watched CSPAN before and wow some of these guys really do just spew bullshit.

Rep. Hensarling just spewed more lies in two minutes than I've heard on the bill on Fox News all day. His entire speech was made up of Republican stand-by lines, he made Sarah Palin look intelligent.

Mar 21, 2010#37

Krisken

Gruebeard;358137][QUOTE=Krisken said:
What it does is it collects data of symptoms and helps physicians rule out the most common diagnoses first and suggests the most successful route of treatment

If that hasn't been in place since the dawn of your country (or at least since its Ministry of Health) y'all need more reform than ya think.[/QUOTE]
Too true.

Mar 21, 2010#38

strawman

Dei said:
Quoting something relevant before I complain about an auto insurance analogy.

stienman said:

And all I can see is that I'm paying $800/mo for inexpensive health insurance because I can't afford the comprehensive insurance at $1,200, but after this passes, I'm going to be charged $1,200 for what I already have, and if I can only afford $800 I might as well quit my job and go on the public system because it'll be better than what I can afford. And while some of that money will be going to people with legitimate health problems, most of it will really be going to people who make poor lifestyle choices.

Click to expand...

For one thing, auto insurance costs no where near $800 a month unless you are the worst driver ever or have a shit ton of cars. You can choose to not have a car and not have to pay auto insurance. You can choose to not have a plan with all the frills if you can't afford it or don't feel you need it.

What the...? When did we change from the health care bill to talking about auto insurance? Where in my discussion have I mentioned auto insurance? I'm talking about health insurance.

If that was my auto bill then I'd be asking some pretty interesting questions about myself too...

But that is my health insurance bill, and under this program it would *have* to go up. Everyone is pretending that the health insurance costs will only go up for a small percentage of people, but the reality is that it's going to go up for everyone, though the costs are hidden by saying that it's only costing durable equipment makers, or health insurance companies, or, or, or...

Rather than a direct hit, it's an indirect hit, and it's still going to raise everyone's costs, especialy since the bill moves 500 billion in unfunded medicare costs from the medicare tax to the insurance industry, while not reducing medicare taxes every worker pays.

Again - who here has actually read the bill, rather than rely on pundits and politicians to "interpret" it for you?

And of those that have read the actual bill, who believes it is a *reasonable* way to get healthcare to the currently uninsured, and that our barely recovering economy can take another 1+ trillion hit without blinking?

Mar 21, 2010#39

Andromache

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4872/text

Mar 21, 2010#40

JONJONAUG

Vote happening now!

First up, HR3590

Mar 21, 2010#41

Andromache

JONJONAUG said:
Vote happening now!

First up, HR3590

216 passed

Mar 21, 2010#42

JONJONAUG

HR3590 passes.

Mar 21, 2010#43

Andromache

reconciliation bill Hr4872 next

Mar 21, 2010#44

JONJONAUG

Final count: 219 in favor, 212 against.

34 Democrats voted against, no Republicans voted in favor. 2 Republicans did not vote on the bill.

Mar 21, 2010#45

Calleja

So... what does this mean? Are there still like 6 months of deliberation left or something?

Mar 21, 2010#46

JONJONAUG

Calleja said:
So... what does this mean? Are there still like 6 months of deliberation left or something?

Nope.

This passes the version passed by the Senate last December.

Next vote is to vote to pass the Reconciliation Senate bill (I think), and will happen as soon as Stupak's little clique stops ranting about abortion. Again.

My guy's up now.

EDIT: Shit never mind. There's still a bunch of anti-abortion dudes but Pelosi must've done SOMETHING to woe Stupak within the last couple of days.

Mar 21, 2010#47

Calleja

...yeah, that doesn't really answer my question. What I mean to ask is... does this mean Healthcare Reform is now official, or does it have to pass another round of voting from, like, a joint taskforce or something?

US politics are so convoluted to me.

Mar 21, 2010#48

Bonhomme Richard

The bill is now (technically) eligible to be signed into law. But the Republicans have now raised a motion to basically start from scratch citing the executive order on abortion funding as a reason. If this motion is defeated, then the bill can be signed.

..at least I think I have that right.

Mar 21, 2010#49

Andromache

desperate attempts, and the procedural vote goes forward, I thiiink....

Mar 21, 2010#50

JONJONAUG

Calleja said:
...yeah, that doesn't really answer my question. What I mean to ask is... does this mean Healthcare Reform is now official, or does it have to pass another round of voting from, like, a joint taskforce or something?

US politics are so convoluted to me.

No, it doesn't.

HR4872 is Senate amendments made since December.

If that isn't passed (it will be), then the current HR3970 bill will be the version signed into law.

Mar 21, 2010#51

Bonhomme Richard

It's a motion to recommit. Meaning the bill would go back to committee.

Once again...I think.

Mar 21, 2010#52

JONJONAUG

Bonhomme Richard said:
It's a motion to recommit. Meaning the bill would go back to committee.

Once again...I think.

Right, but that's a pretty quick "no".

In fact it's already over.

Mar 21, 2010#53

Andromache

So, what are the betting odds on repeals focused election victories?

Mar 21, 2010#54

Bonhomme Richard

Motion defeated. The final vote is the amendments. Those still have to be voted on by the Senate before they become law.

Basically healthcare has passed, with some changes possibly coming.

Mar 21, 2010#55

JONJONAUG

Crone said:
So, what are the betting odds on repeals focused election victories?

Mar 21, 2010#56

Calleja

So... Jon Stewart gonna happily make a big deal out of this tomorrow?

Mar 21, 2010#57

JONJONAUG

Calleja said:
So... Jon Stewart gonna happily make a big deal out of this tomorrow?

Likely. More likely he'll make fun of Fox News tears.

Reconciliation bill up now.

Mar 21, 2010#58

Bonhomme Richard

Yep, he'll even give a funny look to the camera.

Mar 21, 2010#59

Andromache

JONJONAUG;358223][QUOTE=Crone said:
So, what are the betting odds on repeals focused election victories?

Possible, but unlikely that there would be enough to pass a repeal.

Which would get vetoed anyway. While Dems could lose a good deal of seats there wouldn't be enough to give Republicans the majority needed to override a veto.[/QUOTE]

oh, I wasnt setting odds on the permanance of the repeal, just how many dems would lose their jobs based on the platform. i have a feeling 34 might be a minimum.

Mar 21, 2010#60

JONJONAUG

Reconciliation bill passes.

Just waiting on Senate now.

Harry Reid you better not screw this up.

This just in: Obama made an eloquent speech. Admits that there is much more to go for reforming health care, but says that the events of today are a major step in the right direction.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/ROLL_100.asp - Find out which Rep voted Yes/No (as soon as their server is done being bombarded)

Mar 21, 2010#61

strawman

Obama and democrats to America: "Take it! Take it all b****! Unf!"

Mar 21, 2010#62

Calleja

Well, hey, a wounded bear doesn't know you're trying to help it either.

Mar 21, 2010#63

JONJONAUG

Calleja said:
Well, hey, a wounded bear doesn't know you're trying to help it either.

Emptyquote

Mar 22, 2010#64

The Lovely Boehner

Calleja said:
Well, hey, a wounded bear doesn't know you're trying to help it either.

Mar 22, 2010#65

Calleja

Was I that wise?

Mar 22, 2010#66

Dave

I'm going to start a religion where setting broken bones is a major anathema. This way I can boycott a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. I know people get in a tizzy over abortion but the fact is it is a legal medical procedure and I can't see how they can prohibit this.

Mar 22, 2010#67

Chazwozel

stienman said:
Obama and democrats to America: "Take it! Take it all b****! Unf!"

Let's be honest. The only reason you're in a tizzy is over the whole abortion aspect of the bill. Amiright?

Mar 22, 2010#68

Espy

Chazwozel;358492][QUOTE=stienman said:
Obama and democrats to America: "Take it! Take it all b****! Unf!"

Let's be honest. The only reason you're in a tizzy is over the whole abortion aspect of the bill. Amiright?[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure he went over the cost increase it will mean to his family on the last page.

Mar 22, 2010#69

Dei

Apparently there is already 6 states that say they won't follow the healthcare bill.

EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/17/health.care.states.challenge/

Mar 22, 2010#70

Krisken

They're being pretty vague about what this executive order will say on abortion language. Stupak keeps saying it will maintain the current language, but there wasn't anything in the bill to change abortion language.

I get a feeling it went like this
"Bart, stop being an ass. There is nothing in the bill that expands on abortion."
"Yeah, but I've been saying it so long, if I get nothing I'll get slaughtered int he next election."
"Tell ya what, go out and make a vague statement about how I'll make an executive order that keeps abortion at the limits they are already at. Then you'll have your "win" and we'll get your vote. Win-win."
"Sweet."

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

Dei said:
Apparently there is already 6 states that say they won't follow the healthcare bill.

EDIT: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/17/health.care.states.challenge/

Yeah, good luck with that. We'll see how exciting this idea is when hospitals and clinics are unable to get payments from Medicare.

Mar 22, 2010#71

Dei

Yeah, basically the executive order is just to maintain the status quo. There's nothing new going on.

Also, do you realize a lot of primary care doctors are already beginning to turn away Medicare patients in some places because the compensation they receive for services is terrible? So really, it hurts medicare PATIENTS more than the hospitals. But basically these laws say that no one should be forced to pay for health insurance yadda yadda yadda. They most likely won't be that effective, but if it's a state where a lot of people are opposed to the bill, it's a statement to the government at least.

Mar 22, 2010#72

GasBandit

I've been saying this was inevitable for a couple years now. I am disappointed, but not surprised. This bill will not decrease costs, it will increase them. Most of us are probably too young to remember when Democrats told us that Medicare would cost us $9 billion a year by 1990. What was the actual tab? $67 billion a year. Consider that, alongside with the fact that the "savings" purported to be in this bill are all slight of hand and double-dipping. In fact, even according to the democrat-friendly New York Times, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games in Obamacare, this legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

So what happens next?

Taxes, of course, go up immediately. How much in new taxes? Try one trillion dollars. A huge portion of these taxes will hit America's small businesses ... our jobs creation machine. There will be increases in Social Security Taxes and Medicare taxes. There will be new taxes for something called CLASS ... a long term in-home health care program. Then there will be a new 3.8% (What the hell ... call it 4%) tax on investment income. Just what our economy needed at a time when unemployment is rampant ... new taxes on the very sector of our economy that creates jobs. Businesses will hunker down even more than they have been. Business planning is a long-term affair .. and businessmen will know that in a few years 50 will be the magic number when it comes to government health insurance mandates; and this includes part-time employees. So you will see businesses with just over 50 employees starting to cut back. People will lose their jobs so that the business can stay under the threshold. New business start-ups will alter business plans to make sure that they don't meet or cross that threshold when the mandates kick in.

Younger Americans with health insurance will drop their policies. Sure, they know that they will have to pay a penalty when they file their taxes, but that penalty will be much less than the cost of a health insurance policy ... costs that will be going up. Besides ... because insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, there is absolutely no reason in the world to go out there and buy an insurance policy until you really become ill.

Since health young Americans will be dropping insurance, or staying out of the market if they never had insurance in the first place, the insurance companies will find more and more that their customers are among the unhealthiest of Americans. This means more benefits paid, of course, which will result in higher premiums. What's more, there will no longer be a lifetime cap on benefits. Even a government-educated Obama sycophant could understand that this, too, will lead to increased premiums. But wait! There's more! Children will be able to stay on their parent's policies until age 26. What does this mean? Increased payouts on their parent's policies.

Let's just take a quick look at what happened to Anthem .. a health insurance company in California. Recently Anthem hiked its insurance premiums by ... what? Something like 38 or 40%. You could hear the screaming all the way to Nancy Pelosi's office. But did anyone try to figure out just why Anthem had to increase premiums? Here's your explanation. California brought millions of citizens into its own state version of Medicaid. These millions of people started swarming into hospitals and to doctors for their "free" medical care. Trouble is, California also cut back on payments to health care providers at the same time. The health care providers then shifted their costs over to actual paying customers ... customers insured by Anthem. There go the premiums.

So private health care premiums start to rise, people cry out in anguish, government (as part of their powers under this bill) force health insurance companies to stop raising premiums. Private insurance goes out of business, so once again government "has to step in" to fix a problem they themselves created... and of course, the answer is: more government involvement. Hellooooo single payer NURSE!

A poll I linked in the GBPT showed that 40% of doctors were saying they would leave their practice if Obamacare becomes law. As the demand for medical services increases exponentially, the money to pay for those services will dry up, even with the increased taxes. The inevitable result, then, will be the rationing of health care. There are no words to adequately describe the base ignorance and stupidity of any American who does not realize that rationing is on the way.

Single payer simply means that one entity will write all the checks. Whether it's for a doctor's visit, a prescription, physical therapy ... whatever, the payments come from one source, and that source is the government. If the government is the only entity that is legally permitted to render payment for health care services ... then that puts the government in complete and absolute control of all healthcare. If you don't think that the person who controls your healthcare controls YOU ... then you've never been really, really sick.

Congratulations. The entity that controls such marvelous operations as the US Postal Service, Cash for Clunkers, and presided over the fallen star that was Walter Reed Army Medical Center is now in charge of your health care. And every single election, we're going to hear from Democrats how if you don't vote for them, the Republicans will "take away your health care." We know they will, because that's already what they've been doing with Social Security for as long as I can remember.

And remember, when all this started, 85% of americans HAD health care, and 75% of those said they were happy with it.

But when it comes right down to it, Americans are not who they were. Gone are the days of self-reliance, responsibility, and the desire to take your destiny in your own hands and rise or fall by your own efforts. Now, we just want our bread and circuses. To steal a quote, we "vote ourselves largesse from the public coffers," and demand someone else pay for our needs, and never mentally leave the couch so long as we've got McDonald's to scarf and American Idol to watch.

Mar 22, 2010#73

Dei

Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.

Mar 22, 2010#74

GasBandit

Dei said:
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.

Mar 22, 2010#75

Dei

I still want to know where the doctors to care for all these newly insured patients are going to come from... oh wait, dealing with the actual problems in the medical sector wasn't in the bill, just the parts that help add more people into a broken system.

Mar 22, 2010#76

WolfOfOdin

GasBandit;358571][QUOTE=Dei said:
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.

As Obama intimated in a speech, you can save money on medicare by prescribing pain killers instead of surgery for old people. Then shove'em in a hospice and let'em go with dignity.

Oh the irony of Alan Grayson's moonbat tirade - the whole "the republicans want you to die quickly" guy... that in order to protect the fiscal solvency of health care and the nation, it's now HIS party banking on people dying quickly.[/QUOTE]

It was a compromise with the Republicans,, Gas. The old rich people die quickly, their kids inherit the money quicker, everyone's happy

Mar 22, 2010#77

Dei

lol

Mar 22, 2010#78

WolfOfOdin

I can see the commercial now.

"My father worked hard for his money and built a fortune that will last ages. I love him dearly....but I've got bills to pay."

Mar 22, 2010#79

GasBandit

WolfOfOdin;358580][QUOTE=GasBandit;358571][QUOTE=Dei said:
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.

Mar 22, 2010#80

Krisken

GasBandit;358589][QUOTE=WolfOfOdin;358580][QUOTE=GasBandit;358571][QUOTE=Dei said:
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.

[/QUOTE]
Oh noes! Death tax! How will we ever survive?

Mar 22, 2010#81

WolfOfOdin

GasBandit;358589][QUOTE=WolfOfOdin;358580][QUOTE=GasBandit;358571][QUOTE=Dei said:
Honestly, the biggest part of making this bill "not increase the deficit" is the $463 billion dollars they say they are cutting from Medicare. Good luck with that. I will be AMAZED if it actually happens, since they really have no good way to do it.

[/QUOTE]

Just trying to bring levity to this thread.

I honestly thought you might agree with estate tax in a sense. I can see leaving enough behind to provide for a family and make sure they're not at poverty, but I'd want to give the inheritors incentive to actually work for their own money, instead of relying upon daddy's largess.

Mar 22, 2010#82

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Oh noes! Death tax! How will we ever survive?

Let me assure you, I can do all kinds of unpleasant things to you and you will still "survive." That doesn't mean it is right, just, fair or legal for me to do those things.

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

WolfOfOdin said:
Just trying to bring levity to this thread.

I honestly thought you might agree with estate tax in a sense. I can see leaving enough behind to provide for a family and make sure they're not at poverty, but I'd want to give the inheritors incentive to actually work for their own money, instead of relying upon daddy's largess.

Mar 22, 2010#83

Calleja

I think he was making a sort of pun thing... y'know... "death"/"survive".... what do I know, though, I'm The Pun Destroyer.

Mar 22, 2010#84

WolfOfOdin

GasBandit;358594][QUOTE=Krisken said:
Oh noes! Death tax! How will we ever survive?

WolfOfOdin said:
Just trying to bring levity to this thread.

I honestly thought you might agree with estate tax in a sense. I can see leaving enough behind to provide for a family and make sure they're not at poverty, but I'd want to give the inheritors incentive to actually work for their own money, instead of relying upon daddy's largess.

I don't think it's government's place to decide that... but if you really want to stick it to the Paris Hilton crowd, changing from an Income Tax to the Fair Tax (national sales tax) would be the best way to do it. Not everybody earns, but everybody spends, and the trust funders spend a lot more.[/QUOTE]

No. No no no no no no no no no no no. The fair tax proposed right now is goddamn idiotic and will only butcher the poor's ability to procure necessary items. If you're going to suggest dancing on the Laffer Curve as well, remember that Supply AND Demand side measures have to be followed through.

Mar 22, 2010#85

Krisken

Calleja said:
I think he was making a sort of pun thing... y'know... "death"/"survive".... what do I know, though, I'm The Pun Destroyer.

I didn't expect Gas to see it. He has no humor.

Mar 22, 2010#86

GasBandit

WolfOfOdin said:
No. No no no no no no no no no no no. The fair tax proposed right now is goddamn idiotic and will only butcher the poor's ability to procure necessary items.

That's false, but this is not the thread where we should discuss that. We're kinda getting off track here.

Mar 22, 2010#87

Andromache

i waited all night to read Gasbandit's response. I am content now.

Mar 22, 2010#88

Adammon

GasBandit;358600][QUOTE=WolfOfOdin said:
No. No no no no no no no no no no no. The fair tax proposed right now is goddamn idiotic and will only butcher the poor's ability to procure necessary items.

That's false, but this is not the thread where we should discuss that. We're kinda getting off track here.[/QUOTE]

I pretty much agree with the Fair Tax being idiotic. You should make another thread GB!

Mar 22, 2010#89

strawman

Chazwozel;358492][QUOTE=stienman said:
Obama and democrats to America: "Take it! Take it all b****! Unf!"

Let's be honest. The only reason you're in a tizzy is over the whole abortion aspect of the bill. Amiright?[/QUOTE]

No, the bill doesn't really affect the decision in the 70's that federal money cannot be used to fund abortions.

And, quite frankly, the personal cost increase is only one annoying aspect. The reality is that I'm likely to quit my job here in a few weeks and try my hand as a full time consultant. This bill actually improves my personal financial situation in the near and far future in many ways. But it's not going to benefit people who stay in their jobs - their costs will go up.

No, what I'm really against is that we're running a 1 trillion USD per YEAR deficit already, and this WILL cost at least 1 trillion more per year, and half of that will be from the gov't. They've increased various taxes (both direct to americans and indirectly through services). Those that claim the medicare changes and new taxes will cover it haven't learned the lessons of the past.

Further, they are making it a legal requirement to have insurance. If you are an American citizen, you MUST buy insurance or pay a fine to the government, even if you never draw on services.

Our economy is already stressed, and here comes an expensive social program that will

- dampen the economy to the tune of 1/14th of our national GDP
- be largely unfunded and underfunded
- cost everyone more
- cause longer lines at the doctors
- create a situation where doctors aren't paid as well, so fewer of them enter practice
- create an awesome situation for baby boomers who now will have no reason to keep their insurance once they retire
- create debts that my children will be on the hook for - legislators love programs that don't cost money now, but cost vast resources once they are out of office

Yes, we needed health care reform, but this is an absolutely horrible way to go about it.

I'll personally benefit from it, and it's still the wrong way to go about doing what needs to be done.

You know what's really interesting though?

I haven't seen a single projection that take into account what decisions people will make once this goes into effect, and how much this will cost if people make simple economic decisions for their family, especially as the boomers start to retire. Simple economics dictates that money in the pocket will be greater if you go on the gov't subsidized program and take a lower paying job. There will be bands of pay rates where you will not have as much money as you would if you moved up or down from that pay range, just as we ave now with WIC, Food stamps, medicare, social security, etc.

I guarantee that once the full extent of this change is felt, we're not going to be talking about single digit trillions, but double digit trillions.

Mar 22, 2010#90

Andromache

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1738-Health-Care-Reconciliation-Bill-Summary

H.R. 4872, THE HEALTH CARE & EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY RECONCILIATION ACT of 2010
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS after spoiler for length

Title I – Coverage, Medicare, Medicaid and Revenues

Subtitle A – Coverage

Sec. 1001. Affordability. Improves the financing for premiums and cost sharing for individuals with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level. Subsection (a) improves tax credits to make premiums more affordable as a percent of income; and subsection (b) improves support for cost sharing, focusing on those with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level. Starting in 2019, constrains the growth in tax credits if premiums are growing faster than the consumer price index, unless spending is more than 10% below current CBO projections.

Sec. 1002. Individual responsibility. Modifies the assessment that individuals who choose to remain uninsured pay in three ways: (a) exempts the income below the filing threshold, (b) lowers the flat payment from $495 to $325 in 2015 and from $750 to $695 in 2016 and © raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years to make the assessment more progressive.

Sec. 1003. Employer responsibility. Improves the transition to the employer responsibility policy for employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent workers (FTE) by subtracting the first 30 full time employees from the payment calculation (e.g., a firm with 51 workers that does not offer coverage will pay an amount equal to 51 minus 30, or 21 times the applicable per employee payment amount). The provision also changes the applicable payment amount for firms with more than 50 FTEs that do not offer coverage to $2,000 per full-time employee. It also eliminates the assessment for workers in a waiting period, while maintaining the 90-day limit on the length of any waiting period beginning in 2014.

Sec. 1004. Income definitions. Modifies the definition of income that is used for purposes of subsidy eligibility and the individual responsibility requirement. The modifications conform the income definition to information that is currently reported on the Form 1040 and to the present law income tax return filing thresholds. The provision also extends the exclusion from gross income for employer provided health coverage for adult children up to age 26.

Sec. 1005. Implementation funding. Provides $1 billion to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to finance the administrative costs of implementing health insurance reform.

Subtitle B – Medicare

Sec. 1101. Closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole”. Provides a $250 rebate for all Medicare Part D enrollees who enter the donut hole in 2010. Builds on pharmaceutical manufacturers’ 50% discount on brand-name drugs beginning in 2011 to completely close the donut hole with 75% discounts on brand-name and generic drugs by 2020.

Sec. 1102. Medicare Advantage payments. Freezes Medicare Advantage payments in 2011. Beginning in 2012, the provision reduces Medicare Advantage benchmarks relative to current levels. Benchmarks will vary from 95% of Medicare spending in high-cost areas to 115% of Medicare spending in low-cost areas. The changes will be phased-in over 3, 5 or 7 years, depending on the level of payment reductions. The provision creates an incentive system to increase payments to high‐quality plans by at least 5%. It also extends CMS authority to adjust risk scores in Medicare Advantage for observed differences in coding patterns relative to fee-for‐service.

Sec. 1103. Savings from limits on MA plan administrative costs. Ensures Medicare Advantage plans spend at least 85% of revenue on medical costs or activities that improve quality of care, rather than profit and overhead.

Sec. 1104. Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. Advances Medicare disproportionate share hospital cuts to begin in fiscal year 2014 but lowers the ten-year reduction by $3 billion.

Sec. 1105. Market basket updates. Revises the hospital market basket reduction that is in addition to the productivity adjustment as follows: -0.3 in FY14 and -0.75 in FY17, FY18 and FY19. Removes Senate provision that eliminates the additional market basket for hospitals based on coverage levels. Providers affected are inpatient hospitals, long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, psychiatric hospitals and outpatient hospitals.

Sec. 1106. Physician ownership-referral. Changes to December 31, 2010 the date after which physician ownership of hospitals to which they self refer is prohibited and provides a limited exception to the growth restrictions for grandfathered physician owned hospitals that treat the highest percentage of Medicaid patients in their county (and are not the sole hospital in a county).

Sec. 1107. Payment for Imaging Services. Sets the assumed utilization rate at 75 percent for the practice expense portion of advanced diagnostic imaging services.

Subtitle C – Medicaid

Sec. 1201. Federal funding for States. Strikes the provision for a permanent 100% federal matching rate for Nebraska for the Medicaid costs of newly eligible individuals. Provides federal Medicaid matching payments for the costs of services to newly eligible individuals at the following rates in all states except expansion states: 100% in 2014, 2015, and 2016; 95% in 2017; 94% in 2018; 93% in 2019; and 90% thereafter. In the case of expansion states, reduces the state share of the costs of covering nonpregnant childless adults by 50% in 2014, 60% in 2015, 70% in 2016, 80% in 2017, 90% in 2018. In 2019 and thereafter, expansion states would bear the same state share of the costs of covering nonpregnant childless adults as non-expansion states (e.g., 7% in 2019, 10% thereafter).

Sec. 1202. Payments to primary care physicians. Requires that Medicaid payment rates to primary care physicians for furnishing primary care services be no less than 100% of Medicare payment rates in 2013 and 2014 (the first year of the Senate bill’s Medicaid coverage expansion to all individuals with incomes under 133% of poverty). Provides 100% federal funding for the incremental costs to States of meeting this requirement.

Sec. 1203. Disproportionate share hospital payments. Lowers the reduction in federal Medicaid DSH payments from $18.1 billion to $14.1 billion and advances the reductions to begin in fiscal year 2014. Directs the Secretary to develop a methodology for reducing federal DSH allotments to all states in order to achieve the mandated reductions. Extends through FY 2013 the federal DSH allotment for a state that has a $0 allotment after FY 2011.

Sec. 1204. Funding for the territories. Increases federal funding in the Senate bill for Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands by $2 billion. Raises the caps on federal Medicaid funding for each of the territories. Allows each territory to elect to operate a Health Benefits Exchange.

Sec. 1205. Delay in Community First Choice Option. Postpones from October 1, 2010 until October 1, 2011 the effective date of the option established for State Medicaid programs to cover attendant care services and supports for individuals who require an institutional level of care

Sec. 1206. Drug rebates for new formulations of existing drugs. For purposes of applying the additional rebate, narrows the definition of a new formulation of a drug to a line extension of a single source or innovator multiple source drug that is an oral solid dosage form of the drug.

Subtitle D – Reducing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Sec. 1301. Community Mental Health Centers. Establishes new requirements for community mental health centers that provide Medicare partial hospitalization services in order to prevent fraud and abuse.

Sec. 1302. Medicare prepayment medical review limitations. Streamlines procedures to conduct Medicare prepayment reviews to facilitate additional reviews designed to reduce fraud and abuse.

Sec. 1303. CMS-IRS data match to identify fraudulent providers. Allows the Secretary of Treasury to share IRS data with HHS employees to help screen and identify fraudulent providers or providers with tax debts, and to help recover such debts. Provides strict controls on the use of such information to protect taxpayer privacy.

Sec. 1304. Funding to fight fraud, waste and abuse. Increases funding for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Fund by $250 million over the next decade. Indexes funds to fight Medicaid fraud based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index.

Sec. 1305. 90-day period of enhanced oversight for initial claims of DME suppliers. Requires a 90-day period to withhold payment and conduct enhanced oversight in cases where the HHS Secretary identifies a significant risk of fraud among DME suppliers.

Subtitle E – Revenues

Sec. 1401. High-cost plan excise tax. Reduces the revenue collected by the tax by 80 percent. This is achieved by: delaying the application of the tax until 2018, which gives the plans time to implement and realize the cost savings of reform; increasing the dollar thresholds to $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage ($11,850 and $30,950 for retirees and employees in high risk professions); excluding stand-alone dental and vision plans from the tax; and permitting an employer to reduce the cost of the coverage when applying the tax if the employer’s age and gender demographics are not representative of the age and gender demographics of a national risk pool. Under the modified provision, the dollar thresholds are indexed to inflation and the dollar thresholds are automatically increased in 2018 if CBO is wrong in its forecast of the premium inflation rate between now and 2018.

Sec. 1402. Medicare tax. Modifies the tax to include net investment income in the taxable base. Currently, the Medicare tax does not apply to net investment income. The Medicare tax on net investment income does not apply if modified adjusted gross income is less than $250,000 in the case of a joint return, or $200,000 in the case of a single return. Net investment income is interest, dividends, royalties, rents, gross income from a trade or business involving passive activities, and net gain from disposition of property (other than property held in a trade or business). Net investment income is reduced by properly allocable deductions to such income.

Sec. 1403. Delay of the annual limitation on contributions to a health FSA. Delays the provision by two years until 2013.

Sec. 1404. Brand name pharmaceuticals. Delays the industry fee on sales of brand name pharmaceuticals for use in government health programs by one year to 2011, and increases revenue raised by the fee by $4.8 billion.

Sec. 1405. Excise tax on medical device manufacturers. Delays the tax by two years to 2013 and converts the industry fee to an excise tax on the first sale for use of medical devices at a rate of 2.9 percent. Exempts from the tax Class I medical devices, eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any device of a type that is generally purchased by the public at retail for individual use.

Sec. 1406. Health insurance providers. Delays the industry fee by 3 years to 2014 and modifies the annual industry fee for revenue neutrality. In the case of tax-exempt insurance providers, provides that only 50 percent of their net premiums that relate to their tax-exempt status are taken into account in calculating the fee. Provides exemptions for voluntary employee benefit associations (VEBAs) and nonprofit providers more than 80 percent of whose revenues is received from Social Security Act programs that target low income, elderly, or disabled populations.

Sec. 1407. Delay of elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare part D subsidy. Delays the provision by two years to 2013.

Sec. 1408. Elimination of unintended application of cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Adds an additional revenue provision. In 2008, Congress enacted a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for the production of biofuel from cellulosic feedstocks in order to encourage the development of new production capacity for biofuels that are not derived from food source materials. Congress is aware that some taxpayers are seeking to claim the cellulosic biofuel tax credit for unprocessed fuels, such as black liquor. The provision would limit eligibility for the tax credit to processed fuels (i.e., fuels that could be used in a car engine or in a home heating application).

Sec. 1409. Codification of economic substance doctrine and penalties. Adds an additional revenue provision. The economic substance doctrine is a judicial doctrine that has been used by the courts to deny tax benefits when the transaction generating these tax benefits lacks economic substance. The courts have not applied the economic substance doctrine uniformly. The provision would clarify the manner in which the economic substance doctrine should be applied by the courts and would impose a penalty on understatements attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance.

Sec. 1410. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes. Provides for a one-time adjustment to corporate estimated taxes for payments made during calendar year 2014.

Sec. 1411. No impact on Social Security trust funds. Provides that Title II of the Social Security Act (the old age, survivor, and disability benefits program (OASDI)) is not amended or modified by the bill.

Subtitle F – Other Provisions

Sec. 1501. TAA for communities. Appropriates $500 Million a year for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 in the Community College and Career Training Grant program for community colleges to develop and improve educational or career training programs. Ensures that each state receives at least 0.5 percent of the total funds appropriated.

Title II – Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Subtitle A – Education

Section 2001. Short Title; References. Provides that this subtitle may be cited as the “SAFRA Act,” and that, except as otherwise provided, whenever an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Part I—Investing in Students and Families

Section 2101. Federal Pell Grants. Amends the Higher Education Act to include mandatory funding for the Pell Grant. This provides additional mandatory funding to augment funds appropriated to increase the federal maximum Pell Grant award by the change in the Consumer Price Index. The mandatory component of the funding is determined by inflating the previous year’s total and subtracting the maximum award provided for in the appropriations act for the previous year or $4860, whichever is greater. Beginning in the 2018-2019 academic year, the maximum Pell award will be at the 2017-2018 level.

Section 2102. Student Financial Assistance. This section provides $13.5 billion in mandatory appropriations to the Federal Pell Grant program.

Section 2103. College Access Challenge Grant Program. This section amends section 786 of the Higher Education Act by authorizing and appropriating $150 million for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for the College Access Challenge Grant program created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. Provides that the allotment for each State under this section for a fiscal year shall not be an amount that is less than 1.0 percent of the total amount appropriated for a fiscal year.

Section 2104. Investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. This section amends section 371(b) of the Higher Education Act by extending funding for programs under this section created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 for programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority-serving institutions through 2019, including programs that help low-income students attain degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering or mathematics by the following annual amounts: $100 million to Hispanic Serving Institutions, $85 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Predominantly Black Institutions, $30 million to Tribal Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Alaska, Hawaiian Native Institutions, $5 million to Asian American and Pacific Islander Institutions, and $5 million to Native American non-tribal serving institutions.

Part II—Student Loan Reform

Section 2201. Termination of Federal Family Education Loan Appropriations. This section terminates the authority to make or insure any additional loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program after June 30, 2010.

Section 2202. Termination of Federal loan Insurance Program. This section is a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program, limiting Federal insurance to those loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program for loans first disbursed prior to July 1, 2010.

Section 2203. Termination of Applicable Interest Rates. This section makes a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program limiting interest rate applicability to Stafford, Consolidation, and PLUS loans to those loans made before July 1, 2010.

Section 2204. Termination of Federal payments to Reduce Student Interest Costs. This section makes a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program by limiting subsidy payments to lenders for those loans for which the first disbursement is made before July 1, 2010.

Section 2205. Termination of FFEL PLUS Loans. This section makes a conforming change with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for federal PLUS loans by prohibiting further FFEL origination of loans after July 1, 2010.

Section 2206. Federal Consolidation Loans. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for federal consolidation loans. This section also provides that, for a 1 year period, borrowers who have loans under both the Direct Lending program and the FFEL program, or who have loans under either program as well as loans that have been sold to the Secretary, may consolidate such loans under the Direct Lending program regardless of whether such borrowers have entered repayment on such loans.

Section 2207. Termination of Unsubsidized Stafford loans for Middle-Income Borrowers. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for Unsubsidized Stafford loans by prohibiting further FFEL origination of loans after July 1, 2010.

Section 2208. Termination of Special Allowances. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program by limiting special allowance payments to lenders under the FFEL program to loans first disbursed before July 1, 2010.

Section 2209. Origination of Direct Loans at Institutions Outside the United States. This section provides for the origination of federal Direct Loans at institutions located outside of the United States, through a financial institution designated by the Secretary.

Section 2210. Conforming amendments. This section makes conforming technical changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for Department of Education agreements with Direct Lending institutions.

Section 2211. Terms and Conditions of Loans. This section makes conforming technical changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program to clarify the terms and conditions of Direct Loans.

Section 2212. Contracts. This section directs the Secretary to award contracts for servicing federal Direct Loans to eligible non-profit servicers. In addition, this section provides that for the first 100,000 borrower loan accounts, the Secretary shall establish a separate pricing tier. Specifies that the Secretary is to allocate the loan accounts of 100,000 borrowers to each eligible non-profit servicer. The section also permits the Secretary to reallocate, increase, reduce or terminate an eligible non-profit servicer’s allocation based on the performance of such servicer. In addition, this section appropriates mandatory funds to the Secretary to be obligated for administrative costs of servicing contracts with eligible non-profit servicers. This section also requires the Secretary to provide technical assistance to institutions of higher education participating or seeking to participate in the Direct Lending program. This section appropriates $50 million for fiscal year 2010 to pay for this technical assistance. Additionally, this section authorizes the Secretary to provide payments to loan servicers for retaining jobs at location in the United States where such servicers were operating on January 1, 2010. This section appropriates $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for such purpose.

Section 2213. Agreements with State-Owned Banks. This section amends Part D of Title IV to direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement with an eligible lender for the purpose of providing Federal loan insurance on student loans made by state-owned banks.

Section 2214. Income-Based Repayment. The section amends the Income-Based Repayment program to cap student loan payments for new borrowers after July 1, 2014 to 10% of adjusted income, from 15% percent, and to forgive remaining balances after 20 years of repayment, from 25 years.

Subtitle B – Health

Sec. 2301. Insurance Reforms. Extends the prohibition of lifetime limits, prohibition on rescissions, limitations on excessive waiting periods, and a requirement to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26 to all existing health insurance plans starting six months after enactment. For group health plans, prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions in 2014, restricts annual limits beginning six months after enactment, and prohibits them starting in 2014. For coverage of non-dependent children prior to 2014, the requirement on group health plans is limited to those adult children without an employer offer of coverage.

Sec. 2302. Drugs Purchased by Covered Entities. Repeals the underlying 340B expansion to inpatient drugs and exemptions to GPO exclusion. Exempts orphan drugs from required discounts for new 340B entities.

Sec. 2303. Community Health Centers. Increases mandatory funding for community health centers to $11 billion over five years (FY 2011 – FY 2015).

Prepared by Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor, March 18, 2010

Mar 23, 2010#91

Dei

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L3B820100322

Mar 23, 2010#92

Calleja

Well, 11 states is still not enough to spark a second civil war.... right?

RIGHT!?!?

Mar 23, 2010#93

Troll

Calleja said:
Well, 11 states is still not enough to spark a second civil war.... right?

RIGHT!?!?

It was 11 last time, actually.

Mar 23, 2010#94

@Li3n

AshburnerX;357445][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
Well last time you had open revolution over a tax on tea... which was the only tax the kept after eliminating the other ones they wanted trying to appease you guys...

Mar 23, 2010#95

AshburnerX

@Li3n;359286][QUOTE=AshburnerX;357445][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
Well last time you had open revolution over a tax on tea... which was the only tax the kept after eliminating the other ones they wanted trying to appease you guys...

It wasn't about being taxed... it was about being taxed without having any representation in the House of Lords and the escalation on both of sides of the issue, which eventually triggered the Battles of Lexington and Concord (And the whole American Revolution). Also, that was only the FIRST time we had Open Revolution in the US. The last time we had it was the Civil War.[/QUOTE]

Meh, i don't see revolution = civil war myself...

Also, i don't think it was the House of Lords... it think that one is still hereditary...[/QUOTE]

Your right, it was the Parliament, not the House of Lords. As for the Civil War not equaling a revolution... since when does an attempted act of Succession not equal a revolution? It doesn't have to succeed for it to be a revolution.

Mar 23, 2010#96

Covar

Dei said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L3B820100322

I am saddened after looking at that list of states.

Mar 23, 2010#97

Kitty Sinatra

AshburnerX said:
since when does an attempted act of Succession not equal a revolution

I can name two examples:
Canada from Britain.
Quebec from Canada.

(I'm assuming you actually mean secession)

Mar 23, 2010#98

Chazwozel

haha, you guys should see the list of states that sued the government over medicare and medicaid. And those programs are still around. Once again we're going to have to drag republicans and conservatives through change and progress by the ear, with them kicking and screaming the entire way. Remember the whole shit storm that was the civil rights movement? A good majority of douchebags had a shit fit about that too; states sued etc...

I'm finding Glenn Beck's shit storms hilarious though. He keeps going back to "what the founding father's wanted and envisioned". FOR AMERICA TO WORK YOU CAN'T GO BY THE VISION OF A BUNCH OF 250 YEAR OLD DEAD GUYS! The founding father's didn't have to deal with depressions, health care, mass market modern economy, or hell even basic modern education issues. Stop. For the love of God, stop telling me what they fucking cared about. Their America was in a time where doctors felt placing leeches on your scrotum would cure you of constipation, for Christ's sake! Stop comparing health care reform to what the founding father's would want.

Mar 23, 2010#99

AshburnerX

Gruebeard;359329][QUOTE=AshburnerX said:
since when does an attempted act of Succession not equal a revolution

I can name two examples:
Canada from Britain.
Quebec from Canada.

(I'm assuming you actually mean secession)[/QUOTE]

CURSE YOU PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM!

Mar 23, 2010#100

ElJuski

The founding fathers on civil rights: "whoah whoah whoah, they're worth how many fifths now? And you can marry them?!"

Mar 23, 2010#101

Chazwozel

ElJuski said:
The founding fathers on civil rights: "whoah whoah whoah, they're worth how many fifths now? And you can marry them?!"

The founding father's on women's sufferage: "hang on fella's how's a woman supposed to hold a job while cooking and cleaning and taking car of the kids and giving her husband blowjobs? It just can't be done.

Mar 23, 2010#102

GasBandit

1) This isn't the civil rights movement. It's apples and oranges. There is no "right" to health care, any more than there is a "right" to food or a place to live, and even if there were, that's not what it means to have a "right." The right to keep and bear arms does not mean it's the government's responsibility to PROVIDE you with a gun. The right to a free press does not mean the government PROVIDES you with a newspaper. And at any rate, the evidence is all around us that socializing health care will increase costs and decrease quality of service.
2) The vision of a bunch of 250 year old dead guys is what made our country powerful and rich in the first place - the concept that you be allowed to reap the rewards (or consequences) of your own efforts (or lack thereof). Marxist policy kills off the incentive to excel - after all, if you're going to receive according to your need, not your contribution, who's to say what your "ability" to contribute really is?

Mar 23, 2010#103

ElJuski

The founding fathers on chat roulette: "...that guy masturbatin'?"

Mar 23, 2010#104

Chazwozel

GasBandit said:
1) This isn't the civil rights movement. It's apples and oranges. There is no "right" to health care, any more than there is a "right" to food or a place to live, and even if there were, that's not what it means to have a "right." The right to keep and bear arms does not mean it's the government's responsibility to PROVIDE you with a gun. The right to a free press does not mean the government PROVIDES you with a newspaper. And at any rate, the evidence is all around us that socializing health care will increase costs and decrease quality of service.
2) The vision of a bunch of 250 year old dead guys is what made our country powerful and rich in the first place - the concept that you be allowed to reap the rewards (or consequences) of your own efforts (or lack thereof). Marxist policy kills off the incentive to excel - after all, if you're going to receive according to your need, not your contribution, who's to say what your "ability" to contribute really is?

I disagree!

We French live zee good life on our socialized heatlh care, ranked #1 in the world.

Mar 23, 2010#105

Dei

With how easy it is for kids to get insurance, my kids would go to a pediatrician, have to make a check up appointment 5 months in advance, and if they were sick I had to take them to Urgent Care because there was never a sick child appointment opening, even when I called as the office opened. I gave up and started taking them to my family care doctor because at least then I knew if they were sick I could most likely get them in to see the doctor.

Now they are opening the door for more people to have insurance, when primary care is a dying field in med school. Hurrah, now I'm going to have to deal with the same thing at my PCP?

I'm not saying people shouldn't have healthcare. But for fucks sake can we fix the damn healthcare system before passing a bill that does nothing but throw MORE people into it? And honestly, after reading through the CBO report of the bill, I'm pretty skeptical on where the money for this bill is actually going to come from. Sure they say where they are getting money (and taking over student loans for good measure!) but some of this money seems to already be spoken for, or can't be cut easily.

Mar 23, 2010#106

Chazwozel

Dei said:
With how easy it is for kids to get insurance, my kids would go to a pediatrician, have to make a check up appointment 5 months in advance, and if they were sick I had to take them to Urgent Care because there was never a sick child appointment opening, even when I called as the office opened. I gave up and started taking them to my family care doctor because at least then I knew if they were sick I could most likely get them in to see the doctor.

Now they are opening the door for more people to have insurance, when primary care is a dying field in med school. Hurrah, now I'm going to have to deal with the same thing at my PCP?

I'm not saying people shouldn't have healthcare. But for fucks sake can we fix the damn healthcare system before passing a bill that does nothing but throw MORE people into it? And honestly, after reading through the CBO report of the bill, I'm pretty skeptical on where the money for this bill is actually going to come from. Sure they say where they are getting money (and taking over student loans for good measure!) but some of this money seems to already be spoken for, or can't be cut easily.

My kids use CHiP and I can schedule them into their pediatricians office a day prior to the visit. Weird. Sounds like your state sucks more than the federal government does.

Mar 23, 2010#107

Krisken

Chazwozel;359374][QUOTE=Dei said:
With how easy it is for kids to get insurance, my kids would go to a pediatrician, have to make a check up appointment 5 months in advance, and if they were sick I had to take them to Urgent Care because there was never a sick child appointment opening, even when I called as the office opened. I gave up and started taking them to my family care doctor because at least then I knew if they were sick I could most likely get them in to see the doctor.

Now they are opening the door for more people to have insurance, when primary care is a dying field in med school. Hurrah, now I'm going to have to deal with the same thing at my PCP?

I'm not saying people shouldn't have healthcare. But for fucks sake can we fix the damn healthcare system before passing a bill that does nothing but throw MORE people into it? And honestly, after reading through the CBO report of the bill, I'm pretty skeptical on where the money for this bill is actually going to come from. Sure they say where they are getting money (and taking over student loans for good measure!) but some of this money seems to already be spoken for, or can't be cut easily.

My kids use CHiP and I can schedule them into their pediatricians office a day prior to the visit. Weird. Sounds like your state sucks more than the federal government does.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was thinking that too. Where are you Dei?

Mar 23, 2010#108

GasBandit

Chazwozel said:
We French live zee good life on our socialized heatlh care, ranked #1 in the world.

I'll see your france, and raise you the british NHS, canadian health care, both their wait times and lower cancer survival rates, and for good measure I'll throw in Greece with their entitlement economy bringing them crashing to their knees.

Mar 23, 2010#109

Krisken

Funny. When I talked to Moss, he said he'd still take his crappy British healthcare over the shit we have.

British healthcare being inferior to French healthcare does not make American healthcare superior to both. It's an interesting equation, but the math doesn't check out.

Mar 23, 2010#110

Cog

Ok. You convinced me that the french system is not perfect. Can you convince that the american system is better?

EDIT
What Kristen said

Mar 23, 2010#111

Dei

I'm in Colorado, but it's probably more of an area thing than a state thing. I'm also not using CHiP, so maybe they save all the sick kids spots for those kids. (Joking

)

Mar 23, 2010#112

Kitty Sinatra

GasBandit said:
Greece with their entitlement economy bringing them crashing to their knees.

Because your economy is holding up so well.

Mar 23, 2010#113

Dei

I think that was his point.

Mar 23, 2010#114

Kitty Sinatra

That capitalist pig mecca is failure, too?

Mar 23, 2010#115

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
I'll throw in Greece with their entitlement economy bringing them crashing to their knees.

Funny, i tohught it was all the lying about their debts that made their economy crash...

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

AshburnerX said:
Your right, it was the Parliament, not the House of Lords. As for the Civil War not equaling a revolution... since when does an attempted act of Secession not equal a revolution? It doesn't have to succeed for it to be a revolution.

About the same time that lets say 2 kids of a dead king going to war over who get which part stopped being a revolution?!

IMO a revolution should be more of a popular uprising, not just a part of the government deciding to form their own state... (to put it broadly)

Mar 23, 2010#116

Andromache

Gruebeard;359392][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
Greece with their entitlement economy bringing them crashing to their knees.

Because your economy is holding up so well.[/QUOTE]

i lol'd hard. im really going to have to get a dishwasher safekeyboard

Mar 23, 2010#117

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Funny. When I talked to Moss, he said he'd still take his crappy British healthcare over the shit we have.

That's because, God love him, Moss is wrong.

Cog said:
Ok. You convinced me that the french system is not perfect. Can you convince that the american system is better?

As always, I am happy to oblige.

Gruebeard;359392][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
Greece with their entitlement economy bringing them crashing to their knees.

Because your economy is holding up so well.[/QUOTE]
The problems in our economy have spawned from our attempts to emulate interventionist/statist "paradises" such as Greece.

Mar 23, 2010#118

Null

Well, right now if, with my health, I tried to get health insurance, it would cost 2/3 of what I make. That's assuming I don't get denied for pre-existing conditions. So reforming that would be a welcome change. Essentially, for me, it's a choice of seeing the doctor or paying my bills.

As for increasing taxes - yes, about 2% on people making $200,000+ a year or couples making more than $250,000+ a year. That means they'll be paying $4000+ more per year - which isn't too heavy a burden when you're making that kind of money. Why them? Because they're a very small portion of the population with a very large percentage of the personal wealth. They can best afford it.

Mar 23, 2010#119

Krisken

GasBandit;359408][QUOTE=Krisken said:
Funny. When I talked to Moss, he said he'd still take his crappy British healthcare over the shit we have.

That's because, God love him, Moss is wrong. [/QUOTE]
LOL. Ok, That made me chuckle.

GasBandit;359408][QUOTE=Cog said:
Ok. You convinced me that the french system is not perfect. Can you convince that the american system is better?

As always, I am happy to oblige. [/QUOTE]
Hey, that's not the World Health Organization ranking system.

Mar 23, 2010#120

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
The problems in our economy have spawned from our attempts to emulate interventionist/statist \"paradises\" such as Greece.

And companies speculating on what they knew was junk had nothing to do with it at all...

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

Krisken said:
Hey, that's not the World Health Organization ranking system.

I thonk i prefer this: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

Mar 23, 2010#121

Krisken

@Li3n;359415][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
The problems in our economy have spawned from our attempts to emulate interventionist/statist \\"paradises\\" such as Greece.

And companies speculating on what they knew was junk had nothing to do with it at all...

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

Krisken said:
Hey, that's not the World Health Organization ranking system.

I thonk i prefer this: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html[/QUOTE]
Doh! Thanks.

Mar 23, 2010#122

Espy

Lying Bastard said:
Well, right now if, with my health, I tried to get health insurance, it would cost 2/3 of what I make. That's assuming I don't get denied for pre-existing conditions. So reforming that would be a welcome change. Essentially, for me, it's a choice of seeing the doctor or paying my bills.

As for increasing taxes - yes, about 2% on people making $200,000+ a year or couples making more than $250,000+ a year. That means they'll be paying $4000+ more per year - which isn't too heavy a burden when you're making that kind of money. Why them? Because they're a very small portion of the population with a very large percentage of the personal wealth. They can best afford it.

I totally agree that costs need to be dealt with and I do understand your analysis of where the money should come from, but it leaves the nagging question still of why should those who earn more be forced to subsidize my and yours insurance? I know you say "they can best afford it" but I'm wondering if thats your "why" or if it's more than that (it's ok if thats it, I'm really just curious).

Mar 23, 2010#123

Tinwhistler

I like google's way of seeing it:
http://tinyurl.com/ygzc68u

Mar 23, 2010#124

The Lovely Boehner

Espy said:
I totally agree that costs need to be dealt with and I do understand your analysis of where the money should come from, but it leaves the nagging question still of why should those who earn more be forced to subsidize my and yours insurance?

The same reason they subsidize roads, schools, armies, police force, fire departments, and government bailouts of major banks.

Mar 23, 2010#125

Espy

So your mentality is just a "pile it on" one then?

And just to be clear: I don't really care what reason people have for wanting to put it on the wealthy, I'm just wondering what the reasoning is behind it.

Mar 23, 2010#126

Calleja

A Troll;359256][QUOTE=Calleja said:
Well, 11 states is still not enough to spark a second civil war.... right?

RIGHT!?!?

It was 11 last time, actually.[/QUOTE]

I know.... see what I did there?

Mar 23, 2010#127

Null

Because that's the way TAXES WORK. They take a percentage. The more there is to take from, the more is taken. Why them? Because THEY HAVE THE MONEY. So instead of continually cutting their tax rate - which they can already well afford - they are getting a tax that will benefit many, at little personal cost to them.

Mar 23, 2010#128

Calleja

Do I have to re-bump the American Refugees Seek Healthcare in Mexico thread?? When there's people crossing the border NORTH TO SOUTH just for the healthcare, you should start thinking about what the fuck is wrong with it.

Mar 23, 2010#129

Tinwhistler

As for the "who pays for it" debate, I have some disjointed thoughts on the matter.

Gasbandit says that "healthcare is not a right". And you're right....it's not a right spelled out anywhere in the founding documents of this country. But also, as mentioned, the state of medicine at the time was basically leeches and herbs.

The fundamental question then is "should healthcare be a right?" I think it should be. Even though it's not an enumerated right in our constitution, it seems to me that it is a fundamental human right.

It's unconscionable that people should die of infections, be denied treatment options that may save their lives (or worse yet, be dropped after being diagnosed with a life-threatening condition) or any of the other insurance-company related medical horror stories we ofttimes hear about in the news--and all the while, insurance companies are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. When i was young and poor, I didn't carry insurance at all, because I simply couldn't afford to do it and also live outside of my parents' home.

It just seems to me to be fundamentally bad to have a system that says that someone cannot have access to a life-saving treatment so that someone else can drive a Mercedes. In a for-profit capitalist-based system, that's exactly what we have.

I've heard people throw labels at health care reform: That it's fascist. That it'll be inefficient. They've compared government run healthcare to the postal service. But John Stewart (of the Daily Show) made a pretty good freaking point: For 44 cents, the postal service sends someone to your house to pick up some crap that you wrote, take it to a plane and fly it to your Aunt Mabel in Wyoming (paraphrase). I don't think many people are asking to do away with for-profit healthcare. For those who can afford it, it can be pretty freaking amazing. Our life expectancy in this country is well above the world average.

But what about those people who can't afford it? I make pretty good money, and so luckily, when Callistarya got her cervical cancer diagnosis, I could pull $1500 out of my ass to cover deductibles and up front expenses. I'll be paying another $1000 in the next few months. But I make nearly 100 grand a year, and between the two of us, she and I already pay about $650/month in insurance premiums.

Ten years ago, this situation would have completely broken me. As it does so many people. And I don't think it's right.

So, if healthcare should be a right, someone has to pay for it. The way things work in this country, the wealthy SHOULD pay more in taxes, because they make more money. Our entire tax system is based on that. We have what's known as a "progressive tax" system. I'm in the 28% tax bracket. I pay thousands a year in taxes. Poorer people often get money back every year, over and above any money they put into the system (after child credits, etc). I already shoulder a burden that the government has said I should shoulder--the burden of helping out those less fortunate than me. And you know what? I don't begrudge that. I've been there. I've been so poor that a $600 income tax refund was all that stood between me and eviction. And if that means I shoulder part of the burden of someone's liver transplant, because they can't afford $300,000 to have it, well, fucking a. That just makes my day knowing that I could pay a little bit more in taxes, and one more person would get to live that otherwise wouldn't.

Does that mean I endorse this particular healthcare overhaul? Fuck if i know. It's complicated, and i have no idea if it'll have the intended consequences. But I do applaud the effort.

Mar 23, 2010#130

Calleja

Honestly, if you guys have seen for decades how sticking purely to your square capitalist ways is ruining the country, maybe mixing and matching a bit is the right way to go? Like Europe has been doing for ages without any sacrifice whatsoever to personal freedoms? You're not gonna turn communist commies for providing health care to those who need it, guys. It's like you're... capitalist zealots.

And zealotry, like all extremes, is not healthy.

Mar 23, 2010#131

GasBandit

Lying Bastard said:
Because that's the way TAXES WORK. They take a percentage. The more there is to take from, the more is taken. Why them? Because THEY HAVE THE MONEY. So instead of continually cutting their tax rate - which they can already well afford - they are getting a tax that will benefit many, at little personal cost to them.

Except that's not the way our taxes work. The bottom 50% don't even pay income tax at all. Our taxes are "progressive," in that it's not the same percentage applied to all people, it's the more you make, the higher percentage you have to pay. And one of the reasons businesses have been extremely slow on hiring for the last year (and will continue to do so in the future) is because they're scared of the extra expenses from this "health care" bill's passage, including monumental tax increases.

Espy said:
So your mentality is just a \"pile it on\" one then?
And just to be clear: I don't really care what reason people have for wanting to put it on the wealthy, I'm just wondering what the reasoning is behind it.

Well, considering you're asking CDS, an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool hypersocialist, sticking it to all the evil people with 6 digit incomes is a worthy outcome unto itself..

Lying Bastard said:
Well, right now if, with my health, I tried to get health insurance, it would cost 2/3 of what I make. That's assuming I don't get denied for pre-existing conditions. So reforming that would be a welcome change. Essentially, for me, it's a choice of seeing the doctor or paying my bills.

There are certainly things that can be improved in our system, but unfortunately democrats were not willing to entertain any notions that didn't involve government power grabs. In fact, they plugged their ears and shouted "WELL IF THIS IS SO BAD WHY DON'T I HEAR YOU OFFERING ALTERNATIVES? HUH? CAN'T HEAR YOU OFFERING ALTERNATIVES!" while alternative ideas were offered. The problem is the high cost of health care, and the bill that has passed will only exacerbate that problem.

Krisken said:
Hey, that's not the World Health Organization ranking system.

As is brought up every single time the WHO's lists are shown (though usually with regards to infant mortality rates,) different nations have different definitions that they use for their reporting. Additionally, that chart doesn't show any details about things like common cancers. Whereas, the studies referenced in the link I posted show specific data about them: That the mortality rate from breast cancer is 88% higher in Britain, and the prostate cancer mortality rate is 604% higher. Canada's rates look better by comparison, as their mortality rates are only 9% and 184% higher than the US, respectively, but you know that's because so many of their patients cross to the US to get treatment.

Just because people can't be bothered to read, I guess, I'll repost the 10 things here:

1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
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.")
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
10: The American health care system is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

For details, see here.

This is not to say our system cannot be improved, or doesn't have problems. Costs are high. They could be lower. We had a whole thread about this. But what was in the bill that was just passed does not address the underlying problems - it only tries to crowbar in more people to the same broken system.

Mar 23, 2010#132

Null

Well said, Tin. Very reasonable, and avoids party lines on either way. Applause.

Mar 23, 2010#133

Covar

If Healthcare is a right, how come I am being forced to purchase it?

We should take every person over the age of 18 to the ballot box every election or else make them pay a fine.

Mar 23, 2010#134

GasBandit

Calleja said:
Honestly, if you guys have seen for decades how sticking purely to your square capitalist ways is ruining the country, maybe mixing and matching a bit is the right way to go? Like Europe has been doing for ages without any sacrifice whatsoever to personal freedoms? You're not gonna turn communist commies for providing health care to those who need it, guys. It's like you're... capitalist zealots.

And zealotry, like all extremes, is not healthy.

You have no idea what you're talking about. We've never been pure capitalist, and we haven't even been predominantly capitalist for a long time. Our problems are arising because that needle keeps moving farther and father to the left. Then, every time we want to move it back to the right some, people like you howl about how we're leaving the poor to rot in the gutters.

Furthermore, your comment about personal freedoms is laughable. The freedom to pick what you want to watch on TV doesn't mean you are free. Furthermore remember - 85% of americans HAD health coverage before this debate even started, and 75% of those rated themselves satisfied or higher with it. There were better and cheaper ways to get the others taken care of, and frankly, nobody who NEEDED medical care in this country has been turned away at the emergency room because they couldn't pay. That's a common falsehood perpetuated by those who wished to see us turn all the more statist.

Mar 23, 2010#135

Andromache

Originally posted by GB, but unquoted for formatting

1: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6: Americans who can afford to pay for treatment spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
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.\")
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9: Americanswho can afford to pay for treatment have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
10: The American health care system is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

For details, see here.

This is not to say our system cannot be improved, or doesn't have problems. Costs are high. They could be lower. We had a whole thread about this. But what was in the bill that was just passed does not address the underlying problems - it only tries to crowbar in more people to the same broken system.
______

Sized additions mine, for clarification.

Mar 23, 2010#136

Krisken

Crone said:
Originally posted by GB, but unquoted for formatting

[

GasBandit said:

1: Americans [SIZE=\"4\"]who can afford to pay for treatment[/SIZE] have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
2: Americans [SIZE=\4\"]who can afford to pay for treatment[/SIZE] have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
3: Americans [SIZE=\"4\"]who can afford to pay for treatment[/SIZE] have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
4: Americans [SIZE=\"4\"]who can afford to pay for treatment[/SIZE] have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
6: Americans [SIZE=\"4\"]who can afford to pay for treatment[/SIZE] spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
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.\\")
8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
9: Americans[SIZE=\"4\"]who can afford to pay for treatment[/SIZE] have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
10: The American health care system is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

For details, see here.

This is not to say our system cannot be improved, or doesn't have problems. Costs are high. They could be lower. We had a whole thread about this. But what was in the bill that was just passed does not address the underlying problems - it only tries to crowbar in more people to the same broken system.

Click to expand...

Sized additions mine, for clarification.

Well, yeah. Because Gas is in the can afford treatment category, it's the one that matters. For everyone.

He has a fantastically one sided view of things.

Mar 23, 2010#137

GasBandit

You're misrepresenting the study, and misrepresenting reality. People were not dropping dead in the streets, despite leftist alarmism. And in the other countries, the so called universal health care that is supposed to be so wonderful actively denied treatment to these patients. Welcome to reality.

Mar 23, 2010#138

Andromache

GasBandit said:
You're misrepresenting the study, and misrepresenting reality. People were not dropping dead in the streets, despite leftist alarmism. And in the other countries, the so called universal health care that is supposed to be so wonderful actively denied treatment to these patients. Welcome to reality.

People who can't afford the health care don't have those benefits. 32 million.

Mar 23, 2010#139

Tinwhistler

also: you just can't 'show up at the emergency room' for chemo.

You can't show up for a breast lump, either.

If you have a tumor that's so bad that an ER doctor is willing to operate on it, you're already fucked.

Stating that "anyone can show up to the ER and not get turned away" as an example of awesome healthcare is kind of ludicrous. The best healthcare is preventative and early-detection healthcare, hopefully nipping any problem in the bud before it becomes an emergency.

Mar 23, 2010#140

The Lovely Boehner

People that can't afford healthcare are inherently denied benefits other than emergency room care, which then puts them into crippling debt and ruins their lives and drives up costs for everyone else.

Mar 23, 2010#141

GasBandit

Crone;359486][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
You're misrepresenting the study, and misrepresenting reality. People were not dropping dead in the streets, despite leftist alarmism. And in the other countries, the so called universal health care that is supposed to be so wonderful actively denied treatment to these patients. Welcome to reality.

Mar 23, 2010#142

Dei

That is basically my complaint. People bitching that the bill is good because it gives more people healthcare, without really looking at how it does it or what the impact will be on the medical community as a whole, are just saying it's good because they want the healthcare system to change. I really think the government is starting at the wrong side of the problem. They are making healthcare more affordable by throwing more money at people who can't afford it, rather than making healthcare more affordable by finding the holes in the system and trying to fix them.

Mar 23, 2010#143

Andromache

GasBandit;359492][QUOTE=Crone;359486][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
You're misrepresenting the study, and misrepresenting reality. People were not dropping dead in the streets, despite leftist alarmism. And in the other countries, the so called universal health care that is supposed to be so wonderful actively denied treatment to these patients. Welcome to reality.

People who can't afford the health care don't have those benefits. 32 million.[/QUOTE]

Putting aside for the moment that you pulled that number out of your rear, and that the number of those without health care/health coverage has been quoted as high as 48 million and as low as 15 million, and nobody ever goes into WHY they don't have it and just assume it's because they're poor and can't afford it... the answer clearly is not to spend trillions of dollars to make a change from "you don't have coverage" to "you have coverage but treatment is denied, here have some painkillers and go wait to die in a hospice." The problem is that health care is too expensive, the answer needs to address the root causes and make health care less expensive so that these people can afford it.

What was passed sunday does not do this.
[/QUOTE]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0343703420071203

I scaled down the US census bureau numbers, found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin06.html

of course, I'm sure they are pulling the numbers out of their ass, too.

the accusations of pulling numbers out of asses are a lot funnier when you used to actually factually back up your points. Failure to do so just kills any credibility you had.

Mar 23, 2010#144

Covar

/facepalm

Correlation does not equal Causality.

Mar 23, 2010#145

Andromache

Covar said:
/facepalm

Correlation does not equal Causality.

Mar 23, 2010#146

Krisken

Crone;359523][QUOTE=Covar said:
/facepalm

Correlation does not equal Causality.

Are you reffering to the link to Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 by the Census Bureau? What sources would you prefer I use to measure US citizen uninsured, the Insurance companies?[/QUOTE]
Why, conservative think tanks and weaselzipper opinion pieces, of course!

You really have been away for a while!

Mar 23, 2010#147

Null

Right-wing rule of debating #1 - any source that doesn't 100% back up their pre-established point is both wrong and liberally biased.

Mar 23, 2010#148

Dei

Lying Bastard said:
Right-wing rule of debating #1 - any source that doesn't 100% back up their pre-established point is both wrong and liberally biased.

To be fair, liberals do the same thing. It makes it almost impossible to find sources that will satisfy 2 sides of an argument (being in a middle of an argument with your republican husband and your democrat friend and trying to find unbiased sources for information that will satisfy both is basically lols). It just feels like the government is pulling more and more to the left and right, while independants have nothing left to do but wring their hands, hold their nose, and vote for who they think will help balance things, rather than someone who isn't to a far side. (See: Massachussetts voting in a Republican because of independant voters)

Mar 23, 2010#149

GasBandit

Yeah, I knew people would focus on the first half of the post and not the second, when it was the second that was the real denouement:

The answer clearly is not to spend trillions of dollars to make a change from "you don't have coverage" to "you have coverage but treatment is denied, here have some painkillers and go wait to die in a hospice." The problem is that health care is too expensive, the answer needs to address the root causes and make health care less expensive so that these people can afford it.

What was passed sunday does not do this.

Health care costs too much, so the government pays it for you? That's not a solution. Ask yourself this - what could be done to reduce the cost of health care? What's the best way to reduce prices in our market? Competition. Why is it that the federal government refused to allow insurance companies to compete with each other, prohibiting them from selling across state lines? Why is it that mandates are put on insurance companies to force them to cover certain procedures whether the patient may want them or not or whether they are actually necessary for life or health, such as in one of the most extreme examples - hair plugs in Connecticut? Why has there been an absolute squelching of any mention of tort reform to address the rampant and often groundless litigation brought to bear against doctors, forcing them to pay millions in malpractice insurance (or outright close their doors?)...

And why is it that so very much of this bill we've just passed doesn't go into effect until after the coming midterm elections, or after the 2012 elections? Isn't THAT a bit telling?

Mar 23, 2010#150

Andromache

well the reason we focused on the first part is because you accused others of misrepresentation while active practicing it yourself. "My point might be wrong, but you really should only pay attention to my solution" doesn't really work. Either you have credibility as bolstered by facts, or you have unprovable/impossible to disprove opinions which are open to any interpretation. That's not arguing so much as wasting time.

Mar 23, 2010#151

Chazwozel

Espy said:
So your mentality is just a "pile it on" one then?

And just to be clear: I don't really care what reason people have for wanting to put it on the wealthy, I'm just wondering what the reasoning is behind it.

Mo' money mo' problems.

Mar 23, 2010#152

WolfOfOdin

Insurance isn't able to be sold across state lines due to the fact that different states, as is their purview, maintain at times wildly different laws pertaining to the regulation, standards and practices of health insurance and its distribution or sale. Were it allowed to operate across state lines and not be restricted in the manner it currently is, we run the risk of companies fleeing to X state which has the laws most agreeable with their wants/profit margins and operate under those laws and those alone. it's the reason most credit card companies maintain a corporate 'base' as it were in N. Dakota.

Addendum:

Competition does not and cannot solve every little thing on the earth. To desire to swing the pendulum back rightwise at the moment would be unwise, considering how....creative corporations can get when regulations are lifted. I'd rather have two pendulums which balance out their respective flaws at a reasonable level. National health care as a bare-bones service provided to everyone, which private companies to those who can afford and wish for premium service.

Competition is maintained via private companies and those who cannot afford a premium service are assured a safety net.

Mar 23, 2010#153

GasBandit

well the reason we focused on the first part is because you accused others of misrepresentation while active practicing it yourself. "My point might be wrong, but you really should only pay attention to my solution" doesn't really work. Either you have credibility as bolstered by facts, or you have unprovable/impossible to disprove opinions which are open to any interpretation. That's not arguing so much as wasting time.

Says the person who posted an article which, as I had already called out, pulled a different number out of IT'S behind. You say 32, article said "over 40," I've read as low as 15 elsewhere. If even the proponents can't get straight how many they are, and their estimates are off by 25% or more, how are we supposed to believe any of the other numbers they spout, ESPECIALLY the cost numbers? Remember this conversation, and remember that this bill was supposed to "reduce the deficit by 400 billion" when it's trillions higher than "experts" had estimated. The writing's on the wall, but nobody on that side wants to hear it... and they're not that concerned anyway, because reforming health care for them was never the true goal - it was just the cover story to fool the weak minded.

WolfOfOdin said:
Insurance isn't able to be sold across state lines due to the fact that different states, as is their purview, maintain at times wildly different laws pertaining to the regulation, standards and practices of health insurance and its distribution or sale. Were it allowed to operate across state lines and not be restricted in the manner it currently is, we run the risk of companies fleeing to X state which has the laws most agreeable with their wants/profit margins and operate under those laws and those alone. it's the reason most credit card companies maintain a corporate 'base' as it were in N. Dakota.

Well, let's stop having our cake and eating it too then. Either states can individually set law, or they can't. The whole argument going on right now is that 12 states are saying that they can refuse to enact Obamacare. If they're wrong and federal law trumps state law in all cases (g'bye, 10th amendment), then there's no reason federal legislation couldn't have been enacted to overturn individual state mandates like the above, eh?

Mar 23, 2010#154

Chazwozel

Hmmm according to every physician I've been talking to this health-care reform bill is step in the right direction. Physician's opinion trumps radio DJ. Sorry Gas.

Mar 23, 2010#155

Andromache

GasBandit said:
well the reason we focused on the first part is because you accused others of misrepresentation while active practicing it yourself. "My point might be wrong, but you really should only pay attention to my solution" doesn't really work. Either you have credibility as bolstered by facts, or you have unprovable/impossible to disprove opinions which are open to any interpretation. That's not arguing so much as wasting time.

Click to expand...

Says the person who posted an article which, as I had already called out, pulled a different number out of IT'S behind. You say 32, article said "over 40," I've read as low as 15 elsewhere. If even the proponents can't get straight how many they are, and their estimates are off by 25% or more, how are we supposed to believe any of the other numbers they spout, ESPECIALLY the cost numbers? Remember this conversation, and remember that this bill was supposed to "reduce the deficit by 400 billion" when it's trillions higher than "experts" had estimated. The writing's on the wall, but nobody on that side wants to hear it... and they're not that concerned anyway, because reforming health care for them was never the true goal - it was just the cover story to fool the weak minded.

WolfOfOdin said:

Insurance isn't able to be sold across state lines due to the fact that different states, as is their purview, maintain at times wildly different laws pertaining to the regulation, standards and practices of health insurance and its distribution or sale. Were it allowed to operate across state lines and not be restricted in the manner it currently is, we run the risk of companies fleeing to X state which has the laws most agreeable with their wants/profit margins and operate under those laws and those alone. it's the reason most credit card companies maintain a corporate 'base' as it were in N. Dakota.

Click to expand...

Well, let's stop having our cake and eating it too then. Either states can individually set law, or they can't. The whole argument going on right now is that 12 states are saying that they can refuse to enact Obamacare. If they're wrong and federal law trumps state law in all cases (g'bye, 10th amendment), then there's no reason federal legislation couldn't have been enacted to overturn individual state mandates like the above, eh?

yes, but in the same post I posted the link to actual numbers as defined by the US census bureau. So those numbers were higher, and you're actually dishing on the fact that I conservatively lowered the numbers to acct for fraud? really?

Mar 23, 2010#156

Krisken

WolfOfOdin said:
Insurance isn't able to be sold across state lines due to the fact that different states, as is their purview, maintain at times wildly different laws pertaining to the regulation, standards and practices of health insurance and its distribution or sale. Were it allowed to operate across state lines and not be restricted in the manner it currently is, we run the risk of companies fleeing to X state which has the laws most agreeable with their wants/profit margins and operate under those laws and those alone. it's the reason most credit card companies maintain a corporate 'base' as it were in N. Dakota.

Addendum:

Competition does not and cannot solve every little thing on the earth. To desire to swing the pendulum back rightwise at the moment would be unwise, considering how....creative corporations can get when regulations are lifted. I'd rather have two pendulums which balance out their respective flaws at a reasonable level. National health care as a bare-bones service provided to everyone, which private companies to those who can afford and wish for premium service.

Competition is maintained via private companies and those who cannot afford a premium service are assured a safety net.

This is exactly right. Federal law sets minimum guidelines, states expand on those laws. Because each state expands on those laws differently (or not at all), we are left with different rules for different states.

Mar 23, 2010#157

GasBandit

Competition is maintained via private companies and those who cannot afford a premium service are assured a safety net.

Wasn't that supposed to be what medicaid and medicare were supposed to be? And sCHIP? And the sCHIP expansion that was such an emergency to pass last year?

Mar 23, 2010#158

@Li3n

Hey Gas, i'm curious, how would other countries report life expectancy differently enough to put them ahead while they're actually behind?! You know, besides Haiti, i hear they make Zombies, being in league with the Devil and all.

Mar 23, 2010#159

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
Hey Gas, i'm curious, how would other countries report life expectancy differently enough to put them ahead while they're actually behind?! You know, besides Haiti, i hear they make Zombies, being in league with the Devil and all.

Well, consider how they calculate infant mortality rates, another thing often quoted as how other countries are "better" than us. Other countries give themselves mulligans - IE, if the baby was premature or didn't live X days, it doesn't "count" against their IMR, thus artificially inflating their score, which then gets tabulated into other calculations with the fudging getting buried behind multiple layers of assumptions. Whereas, in the US, if it came out of the vagina, it pretty much counts (or Caesarian, obviously).

Mar 23, 2010#160

Dei

Honestly I wouldn't use life expentancy as a measure anyways, if only because I bet lifestyle choices as a whole affect those numbers as well. (I think that your average French person tends to make better lifestyle choices than your average American. While as an individual you may be a health conscious person, the U.S. as a whole is pretty um... not) There are better things to use as a yardstick I imagine.

Mar 23, 2010#161

GasBandit

From fark, with the [OBVIOUS] tag: Obama couldn't change health insurance's greatest defect--its link to an employer--without conflicting with "his party's agenda of spreading dependency"

Mar 23, 2010#162

Krisken

Well, if it's on Fark, it must be true!

Mar 23, 2010#163

GasBandit

Oh, and for the people holding up the post office as a model of government efficiency and success (snrk): US Postal Service is in a fiscal death spiral. It should be privatized, and the Postmaster General agrees: "Such a change would also allow us to more quickly adapt to meet the evolving needs, demands, and activities of our customers"

Mar 23, 2010#164

tegid

Hey, I'm late to the party, but I want to adress that amazing point that Gas made about cancer mortality rates. You showed us UK numbers. Really? Why don't you compare to France, maybe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm
'The UK fared pretty poorly, trailing most of its western European neighbours'

Mar 23, 2010#165

Tinwhistler

Has anyone held up the USPS as a model of government efficiency?

I think the USPS's problems stem more from the stranglehold the postal worker's union has as much as anything else.

http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/2009/10/ghost-of-healthcare-future-idle-postal.html

Now, postal officials say, the agency is averaging about 45,000 hours of standby time every week — the equivalent of having 1,125 full-time employees sitting idle, at a cost of more than $50 million per year.

Mar 23, 2010#166

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
Has anyone held up the USPS as a model of government efficiency?

Chaz, I think, quoted some left-wing mouthpiece doing exactly that.

I think the USPS's problems stem more from the stranglehold the postal worker's union has as much as anything else.

http://taxingtennessee.blogspot.com/2009/10/ghost-of-healthcare-future-idle-postal.html

Now, postal officials say, the agency is averaging about 45,000 hours of standby time every week — the equivalent of having 1,125 full-time employees sitting idle, at a cost of more than $50 million per year.

Click to expand...

That could be part of the problem, too... a great deal of the government is also unionized, of course.

---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

tegid said:
Hey, I'm late to the party, but I want to adress that amazing point that Gas made about cancer mortality rates. You showed us UK numbers. Really? Why don't you compare to France, maybe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm
'The UK fared pretty poorly, trailing most of its western European neighbours'

The UK and Canada have been the two most cited comparisons in the health care debate.

Mar 23, 2010#167

Chibibar

I am not a medically train professional nor an insurance salesman. So correct me if I'm wrong.

Here are my concern.
What is consider basic coverage dictate by the government that all insurance should have? What is the basic cost right now what type of service? what if the basic service requirement is HIGHER.
I.E. Current lowest rate (guessing) say 600 for certain care. (deductable rate, care cost, coverage, etc etc)
new government mandate = to the 800 version. So company will charge 800 version. The plus side would be the company can't deny coverage base on existing condition right? but the reason that exist in the first place to keep the rate LOW (less payout for the insurance company) if they are require to take in anyone applying who can afford the rate, there will be a rate rise to cover the cost (which mean everyone would have increase cost) or the NEW base rate for everyone.

Since the insurance is still limit within their own state AND government dictate what basic services require, then there could be some "rate fixing" which is kinda illegal but like gas, people usually keep the price close together within the city/county/state level.

Of course those who can't pay will be helped by the government. that means tax dollars, but (not to be stereotypical) people have lots of kids when they are poor (I read many stories but not uncommon) to get more benefits, but since abortion is not an option in government funding AND since they are poor, they can't afford it which means more kids in the system and someone has to take care of it. We already have lots of kids who need to be adopted (different thread) so how is this going to be any better?

What gets me is that within the LAW of the land, Abortion is legal, but I can see why some people who pay taxes don't believe in it don't want their money to pay for abortions. I personally don't mind MY money paying for it since I believe personal choice, but I guess that can't be tracked.

I don't see this system actually saving any money

unless more Tort reform and overall bureaucracy change in the whole insurance system and actual regulation (I do like Chaz presentation on Doctor's requirement and checks and balance instead of just "graduating" them cause it was hard to get in but hard to be thrown out.

Mar 23, 2010#168

WolfOfOdin

On the Postal Service and it's privitization:

Speaking as someone who was the son of a USPS machine engineer (My mom fixed and maintained the massive sorting engines), the semi-privitizaiton that occured in various postal districts (this being in Florida), I can point out a great deal of negatives if you'd like, Gas.

Mar 24, 2010#169

Chazwozel

GasBandit;359468][QUOTE=Lying Bastard said:
Because that's the way TAXES WORK. They take a percentage. The more there is to take from, the more is taken. Why them? Because THEY HAVE THE MONEY. So instead of continually cutting their tax rate - which they can already well afford - they are getting a tax that will benefit many, at little personal cost to them.

Espy said:
So your mentality is just a \\\"pile it on\\\" one then?
And just to be clear: I don't really care what reason people have for wanting to put it on the wealthy, I'm just wondering what the reasoning is behind it.

Well, considering you're asking CDS, an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool hypersocialist, sticking it to all the evil people with 6 digit incomes is a worthy outcome unto itself..

Lying Bastard said:
Well, right now if, with my health, I tried to get health insurance, it would cost 2/3 of what I make. That's assuming I don't get denied for pre-existing conditions. So reforming that would be a welcome change. Essentially, for me, it's a choice of seeing the doctor or paying my bills.

Krisken said:
Hey, that's not the World Health Organization ranking system.

Mar 24, 2010#170

Dave

The death of the USPS has nothing to do with the way the government runs it. Nothing. Nada. It has everything to do with the rise of technology, email and bulk competition. The USPS was designed for massive amounts of small letters and their bulk package business was small and purposely let go to such companies as FedEx and DHL. Then email came along and people stopped sending letters, but the USPS was already behind in the business of package mailings. They do okay, but it's not a money-making thing as they are still required to do the small letters and that costs them more than they make.

The fact that the USPS is brought up as a paragon of governmental efficiency or as an example of the government horribleness are both totally out of place in the health care argument because while people stopped sending letters the amount of health care needed is only going to grow as the population ages.

Do I like the health care bill? Not really. I think all the really, REALLY good stuff got stripped out of it. But I - and a HUGE number of doctors and medical workers - think it's a step in the right direction.

Mar 24, 2010#171

Chibibar

Dave said:
The death of the USPS has nothing to do with the way the government runs it. Nothing. Nada. It has everything to do with the rise of technology, email and bulk competition. The USPS was designed for massive amounts of small letters and their bulk package business was small and purposely let go to such companies as FedEx and DHL. Then email came along and people stopped sending letters, but the USPS was already behind in the business of package mailings. They do okay, but it's not a money-making thing as they are still required to do the small letters and that costs them more than they make.

The fact that the USPS is brought up as a paragon of governmental efficiency or as an example of the government horribleness are both totally out of place in the health care argument because while people stopped sending letters the amount of health care needed is only going to grow as the population ages.

Do I like the health care bill? Not really. I think all the really, REALLY good stuff got stripped out of it. But I - and a HUGE number of doctors and medical workers - think it's a step in the right direction.

I agree with you on the USPS. My friends talked about this and the main issue is shipping. There are so many services (FedEx, UPS, etc etc) that can ship goods from one location to another. That is NOT going away even with the rise in technology in short of teleportation

but the bulk of the original business of USPS was mail. I hardly send out ANY letters. The last letter I sent was Christmas cards to my friends. I use email for everything else and correspond via facebook, online chat, and such. It is much faster than a letter. Heck, it has been over 10 years since I actually wrote a letter that is not to my wife.

Mar 24, 2010#172

Chazwozel

HEY! The USPS is still really awesome for paying some of my bills!

Mar 24, 2010#173

Chibibar

Chazwozel said:
HEY! The USPS is still really awesome for paying some of my bills!

Heh. I pay everything online now

Mar 25, 2010#174

drawn_inward

I think that poor folks deserve free health care. I think that folks with pre-existing conditions should not be denied coverage at a acceptable rate.

I DO NOT think that the government should be able to tell me that I have to have health insurance. I think that is over-stepping the bounds set by the constitution.

If they want to raise taxes so poor people have coverage; so be it, but all this still does not fix the problem with health care. Everybody already had access to health care. No one is turned away at the ER. The problem is the ridiculous cost. An overnight stay in the ER should not cost 11,000 dollars. Obamacare will not fix the real problem. It's throwing non-existent money at the problem. It's saying that the government will make yet another freaking bailout.

I am not ready for taxes to jump through the roof. I am not ready to be penalized for working my ass off to get a high-paying job, just to get bent over by the government.

With the state of the economy and the insane amount of debt going on, wouldn't it be prudent to make sure the country is back on the tracks before fucking with the train some more?

Mar 25, 2010#175

D

Dubyamn

drawn_inward said:
I think that poor folks deserve free health care. I think that folks with pre-existing conditions should not be denied coverage at a acceptable rate.

I DO NOT think that the government should be able to tell me that I have to have health insurance. I think that is over-stepping the bounds set by the constitution.

Except that unless healthy people who haven't gotten health insurance due to price or because they are healthy people who don't need it the system will not work. It's unfortunate that they have to be forced into it I wish there was a system where they didn't need to but at the end of the day the people who choose not to get health insurance are the ones who the program needs to join.

The constitutionality of it I really can't comment on it. I don't see anything in the constitution that forbids the institution of fines for failing to join health insurance.

If they want to raise taxes so poor people have coverage; so be it, but all this still does not fix the problem with health care. Everybody already had access to health care. No one is turned away at the ER. The problem is the ridiculous cost. An overnight stay in the ER should not cost 11,000 dollars. Obamacare will not fix the real problem. It's throwing non-existent money at the problem. It's saying that the government will make yet another freaking bailout.

Actually making sure that everybody has health insurance is the first step towards reducing the cost of medicine.

This is because people with health insurance pay their bills while people without health insurance don't. More people paying their bills and fewer people walking away from the bills means that we can finally start seeing the real price of an overnight hospital stay instead of having to pay your bill as well as the bill of joe the uninsured who walked out after receiving his free health care.

I am not ready for taxes to jump through the roof. I am not ready to be penalized for working my ass off to get a high-paying job, just to get bent over by the government.

With the state of the economy and the insane amount of debt going on, wouldn't it be prudent to make sure the country is back on the tracks before fucking with the train some more?

Honestly no because right now health care is one of the problems throwing us hideously off track if we don't deal with that then we can't get back on track.

Mar 25, 2010#176

Dave

One thing that I don't like is that when signing the bill instead of "Health Care Reform" Obama said "Health INSURANCE Reform". To me these are radically different things. I was waiting for someone to point this out but so far nobody - even on the major networks - has done so. No, not even Fox caught that.

I wish it was health CARE reform, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Mar 25, 2010#177

Shakey

If they are forcing insurance agencies to accept people with preexisting conditions, they have to force people to keep insurance somehow. Otherwise a lot of people would just drop insurance until they got sick, keep it until they're better, then drop it again. It would be a huge strain on the insurance companies.

I'm a bit skeptical it will actually work out like they want it to, but I do hope that it does work out.

Mar 25, 2010#178

Dave

The way it stands right now the penalty for not having insurance is cheaper than buying health insurance. And if they can't say no, you go without until you need it, get the insurance and pay the penalty. BUT...if you do this the initial charges won't be covered because it'll be before the effective date of the policy. So you'd be taking a chance.

Mar 25, 2010#179

Covar

Dave said:
The way it stands right now the penalty for not having insurance is cheaper than buying health insurance. And if they can't say no, you go without until you need it, get the insurance and pay the penalty. BUT...if you do this the initial charges won't be covered because it'll be before the effective date of the policy. So you'd be taking a chance.

Mar 25, 2010#180

Dei

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36016267/ns/politics-health_care_reform

WASHINGTON - After nine straight hours of beating back Republican amendments, Senate Democrats hit a temporary snag Thursday in their drive to rush through a package of fixes to the big health care law signed by President Barack Obama.

Democratic Senate leaders had hoped to complete work on the fix-it bill by midday Thursday and get it quickly to Obama to avoid prolonging what has been a politically painful ordeal for the party.

But Republicans learned early Thursday they will be able to kill some language in the bill that relates to Pell grants for low-income college students. That means the altered bill will have to be returned to the House for final congressional approval before it can be sent to Obama.

Good thing student loans got rolled into that bill eh?

Mar 25, 2010#181

AshburnerX

SON OF A...

Mar 25, 2010#182

Troll

So, because they don't like the health care bill the Republicans want to THREATEN LOW INCOME COLLEGE STUDENTS? I understand it's not their real target, but still. What dicks.

Mar 25, 2010#183

Krisken

A Troll said:
So, because they don't like the health care bill the Republicans want to THREATEN LOW INCOME COLLEGE STUDENTS? I understand it's not their real target, but still. What dicks.

Well, they did slow down Congress the last two days by objecting to continue working on unrelated matters. Then said "It's not me who personally objects, mind you. It's this side of the aisle."

Mar 25, 2010#184

crono1224

Wasn't the problem with the uninsured that they weren't working? So by taking away the poor peoples ability to go to college and get healthy, it helps how?

Mar 25, 2010#185

Chazwozel

Covar;360664][QUOTE=Dave said:
The way it stands right now the penalty for not having insurance is cheaper than buying health insurance. And if they can't say no, you go without until you need it, get the insurance and pay the penalty. BUT...if you do this the initial charges won't be covered because it'll be before the effective date of the policy. So you'd be taking a chance.

I'm a healthy 23 year old. Why wouldn't I take that chance? Sure in about 10 years or when I have a family of my own the risk might not be worth it, but right now I'd be crazy to buy health insurance.[/QUOTE]

Ah the ol' I'm young and healthy state of mind. :laugh: You have auto insurance, you crazy son of a bitch. You crazy man. SO CRAZY!

Mar 25, 2010#186

sixpackshaker

It is crazy not to have health insurance. Accidents, infections, and violence are pretty common among young people. Wouldn't it be great to start out in the world with thousands of dollars in debts.

Mar 25, 2010#187

Chazwozel

sixpackshaker said:
It is crazy not to have health insurance. Accidents, infections, and violence are pretty common among young people. Wouldn't it be great to start out in the world with thousands of dollars in debts.

Good news! Under the new health reform act, Covar can be on his parent's insurance till age 26!

Mar 25, 2010#188

Dei

sixpackshaker said:
Wouldn't it be great to start out in the world with thousands of dollars in debts.

Isn't that why we go to college?!

Mar 25, 2010#189

Chibibar

Dei;360869][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
Wouldn't it be great to start out in the world with thousands of dollars in debts.

Isn't that why we go to college?![/QUOTE]

I paid for my own college (thanks for Pell and government loans) yea. I do owe thousands of dollars that to get my degree to even get a decent job.

Mar 25, 2010#190

strawman

Dubyamn said:
It's unfortunate that they have to be forced into it I wish there was a system where they didn't need to but at the end of the day the people who choose not to get health insurance are the ones who the program needs to join.

The very definition of socialism.

And supporters still claim that it's not a social program, nor socialist to want it.

Mar 25, 2010#191

Troll

Oh for fuck's sakes, when did socialism become the boogeyman in this country?

Mar 25, 2010#192

Dei

Around the end of WW2 I imagine.

Mar 25, 2010#193

Hailey Knight

Dei said:
Around the end of WW2 I imagine.

It was actually in the 1920s, not so many years after the revolution in Russia.

Mar 25, 2010#194

Dei

Regardless, it's not a new boogeyman by anymeans.

Mar 25, 2010#195

Math242

socialism =/ communism.

Mar 25, 2010#196

Troll

Math242 said:
socialism =/ communism.

QFT.

Mar 25, 2010#197

Chazwozel

Heaven forbid the rich help out the poor! Blasphemy, blasphemy I say!

Mar 25, 2010#198

Covar

Chazwozel said:
Heaven forbid the rich help out the poor! Blasphemy, blasphemy I say!

Because the only way one can possibly help the poor is by giving your money to the government, have them take their 90% expense fee and give what they have left.

Mar 25, 2010#199

Andromache

Dave said:
The way it stands right now the penalty for not having insurance is cheaper than buying health insurance. And if they can't say no, you go without until you need it, get the insurance and pay the penalty. BUT...if you do this the initial charges won't be covered because it'll be before the effective date of the policy. So you'd be taking a chance.

This is a flaw in adverse selection. A public option would have been a way to off-set it but clearly, the country won't get there for 30 years, if ever.

Mar 26, 2010#200

Chazwozel

stienman;360908][QUOTE=Dubyamn said:
It's unfortunate that they have to be forced into it I wish there was a system where they didn't need to but at the end of the day the people who choose not to get health insurance are the ones who the program needs to join.

The very definition of socialism.

And supporters still claim that it's not a social program, nor socialist to want it.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. I like socialism. I think the only way our planet will be able to function within the next 100-200 years is through collective world-wide cooperation, dissolution of all country borders, and a general drive to promote the betterment of mankind. Kinda like Star Trek.

Hey! I just thought of another insurance we're FORCED to buy. Homeowner's insurance! FUCKING GOVERNMENT DIPPIN' INTO MAH MORTGAGE PAYMENTS!

Mar 26, 2010#201

Chibibar

Chaz, and property tax even if you don't have kids or EVER have kids.

Mar 26, 2010#202

ElJuski

Damn that free public education all spreadin' lies

cept for the wonderful state of texas

shine on, you backwards fucks

Mar 26, 2010#203

Chibibar

hehe.. It is not really "free" public education. In government, nothing is really free. Someone has to pay for it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html

This article interest me. I'm presuming that the facts are correct. I am not all surprise. Sure, Tax the insurance company, they will never pay it, it will always go to their customer.

Mar 26, 2010#204

Tinwhistler

just wanted to weigh on...Callisarya's surgery is running me about $4,000 total, not the $2500 or so I thought it would run. That's on top of paying nearly 8 grand a year in insurance between the both of us.

That stinks. There's no way I could have afforded that when I was younger.

Mar 26, 2010#205

Chibibar

Tinwhistler said:
just wanted to weigh on...Callisarya's surgery is running me about $4,000 total, not the $2500 or so I thought it would run. That's on top of paying nearly 8 grand a year in insurance between the both of us.

That stinks. There's no way I could have afforded that when I was younger.

just a note: I am not dissing insurance company in that sense. My wife had some major dental work on her teeth (since her mom never did any work on her) and it cost us thousands of dollars which would have cost TEN thousands of dollars if we didn't have insurance.

I am just saying that the approach the government is taking is not the right one IMO. There are so many other stuff they need to work on that would have been better. Tort reform, open the market to national level, and tort reform (yea I did that twice it is twice as bad) there are some good idea that was post on this forum, but alas, they won't touch these things

Mar 26, 2010#206

Dei

Mmmm yeah, I just got braces, they normally cost $4500(!!!), we have really good insurance, and they still only cover about $1500 of that. After I get my braces off, I have to get either dental implants or bridges (since I got braces to fix gap problems where permanent teeth never came in), which will also cost a lot of money that insurance won't fully cover. Thank god for FLEX accounts, at least we can set the money we need for that aside and not have it taxed, since we know when the expenses are coming in advance. But it would suck if we didn't.

Mar 26, 2010#207

JONJONAUG

Chibibar;361355][QUOTE=Tinwhistler said:
just wanted to weigh on...Callisarya's surgery is running me about $4,000 total, not the $2500 or so I thought it would run. That's on top of paying nearly 8 grand a year in insurance between the both of us.

That stinks. There's no way I could have afforded that when I was younger.

[/QUOTE]

Tort reform would not make any significant impact in healthcare costs and the threat of being held accountable for any screwups is necessary in today's world of risky medical procedures.

Mar 26, 2010#208

Covar

Chazwozel said:
Hey! I just thought of another insurance we're FORCED to buy. Homeowner's insurance! FUCKING GOVERNMENT DIPPIN' INTO MAH MORTGAGE PAYMENTS!

I didn't realize the Federal government made you buy Homeowner's insurance.

Mar 26, 2010#209

Dei

That's just the thing, medical procedures can be risky. Patients are always told of the risks beforehand, and what can happen, yet as soon as one of those somethings happen, the doctor is being sued for a ridiculous amount of money whether or not he did anything wrong. Now in cases of obvious negligence it's justified, but why do we expect doctors to perform every surgery and have nothing go wrong? Giving free reign to sue like that is basically saying that is what you expect.

Mar 26, 2010#210

sixpackshaker

Covar;361403][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
Hey! I just thought of another insurance we're FORCED to buy. Homeowner's insurance! FUCKING GOVERNMENT DIPPIN' INTO MAH MORTGAGE PAYMENTS!

I didn't realize the Federal government made you buy Homeowner's insurance.[/QUOTE]

If your house loan is backed by FHA they do.

Mar 26, 2010#211

Chazwozel

Covar;361403][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
Hey! I just thought of another insurance we're FORCED to buy. Homeowner's insurance! FUCKING GOVERNMENT DIPPIN' INTO MAH MORTGAGE PAYMENTS!

I didn't realize the Federal government made you buy Homeowner's insurance.[/QUOTE]

If you want to own a house, by law, you've gotta have homeowner's insurance.

Mar 26, 2010#212

Chibibar

Chazwozel;361426][QUOTE=Covar;361403][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
Hey! I just thought of another insurance we're FORCED to buy. Homeowner's insurance! FUCKING GOVERNMENT DIPPIN' INTO MAH MORTGAGE PAYMENTS!

I didn't realize the Federal government made you buy Homeowner's insurance.[/QUOTE]

If you want to own a house, by law, you've gotta have homeowner's insurance.[/QUOTE]

yea. I am not sure which level of Law, but it is a law that you must have insurance.

Mar 26, 2010#213