So Where'S Scotsman?

[Rani]

Can't figure out why Scotsman hasn't come around lately frothing at the mouth about the health care reform.......

Personally, I love the fact that several states are planning to sue the Federal government on the grounds that they have no right to force individuals to be insured. They'll lose i'm sure because that would open the door to the Federal government not being able to force us to do other things, like pay taxes........So it's pretty much over except for the shouting, and I'm waiting on Sctosmans' shouts.........

'Rani

[fineout]

why are you encouraging him?

[Rani]

Because although he's vociferous, he's also quite intelligent and often brings up good points not otherwise considered. A lot of people don't get his dry wit, but it's there. Intelligent debate is never a bad thing.

'Rani

[PSU Smoker]

Why shouldn't people have to have healthcare though? It would be like drivers car insurance not being mandatory to drive. If you are going to use our medical system then you need to be a member of some sort. I think its crap that millions of dollars a year go to people who dont have insurance but still get the same care that I pay for. I mean dont get me wrong, I understand some people psychically cant get a job with benefits or afford healthcare but this is where a plan needs to be made...

[Rani]

[quote name='PSU Smoker' date='23 March 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1269385199' post='459115']
Why shouldn't people have to have healthcare though? It would be like drivers car insurance not being mandatory to drive. If you are going to use our medical system then you need to be a member of some sort. I think its crap that millions of dollars a year go to people who dont have insurance but still get the same care that I pay for. I mean dont get me wrong, I understand some people psychically cant get a job with benefits or afford healthcare but this is where a plan needs to be made...
[/quote]

Oh, I agree with you. I've read the bill and while it's not perfect, it's going to be a vast improvement over what we have now. I'm just waiting for Scotsman to wade in because he's been so against it from Day One.

'Rani

[Tyler]

I'm not against universal healthcare, I'm against this version of what people want to think is "universal healthcare."

[Rani]

[quote name='Tyler' date='23 March 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1269396093' post='459155']
I'm not against universal healthcare, I'm against this version of what people want to think is "universal healthcare."
[/quote]

Have you personally read the bill in it's entirety, word for word from start to finish?

'Rani

[Tyler]

No but I read enough of it and heard the breakdown of a lot of it enough to decide I don't like it. Anything labled as healthcare reform should have nothing to do with dental, student loans, or any of the other facets that don't involve healthcare.

[Tyler]

Oh and the fact that people who are otherwise healthy, like me, HAVE to buy insurence is just stupid. It is not like car insurence because no one else is affected by not having it but me, at least not until now.

[Rani]

[quote name='Tyler' date='23 March 2010 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1269397172' post='459162']
Oh and the fact that people who are otherwise healthy, like me, HAVE to buy insurence is just stupid. It is not like car insurence because no one else is affected by not having it but me, at least not until now.
[/quote]

Tyler, my kid was perfect healthy too, right up until the day he ended up taking a header and ended up with a skull fracture. General overall heath is never an indicator you're not going to need serious medical attention - and it [u]will[/u] bankrupt you at todays rates.

Don't listen to the "breakdowns". They're almost always wrong. On everything, not just this. From a business standpoint, I can't find a single negative thing in this bill. I've talked to several smaller business owners, and they're all for it because it will lower their premiums by creating a competitive market. Right now the insurance companies set any price they damn well feel like it. Logically it will also reduce medical costs because every time you go to the doctor right now you're paying for the hundreds of thousands of people who go every year and skip out on paying because they don't have insurance. It increases supplements to seniors. It guarantees you stay on your parents policy through age 26 and most companies will currently drop you at 18 or force your parents to pay huge added premiums. I could go on, but honestly, I wish the bill did more, but I can't find a single negative impact in any of it. If you can, show me. Page and paragraph and I'll go double check.

'Rani

[Rani]

[quote name='Tyler' date='23 March 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1269397033' post='459160']
No but I read enough of it and heard the breakdown of a lot of it enough to decide I don't like it. Anything labled as healthcare reform should have nothing to do with dental, student loans, or any of the other facets that don't involve healthcare.
[/quote]

Uh, actually the savings anticipated are indicated to go to Pell grants. Not student loans.

'Rani

[Tyler]

Yes and thats the chance we take and are willing to take. Just because you or others don't think we should doesn't mean you have the right to inforce your views on us. And yes, the money is going to Pell grants and eliminating the possibility of private student loans (which the one I have is at a lower rate than the federal loans). Also, money is going to HBCs, and not state colleges or public school disctricts like it should.

[Rani]

Let me add, I live in California. We're a heavily insured state. With very few exceptions, if you're employed you're insured. The employer almost always picks up at least 50% of the premiums though more often it;'s around 75% and often 100% for the employee themselves. So that part of the bill will effect us in California not much at all. But almost all California brokers and small business are hopping up and down with happiness it passed because it will reduce the premiums, and allow smaller companies to enter the market place which right now they can't. If my friends who are insurance brokers are endorsing it, and employers are saying it's going to actually reduce their costs, I'm having a hard time arguing with it.

'Rani

[Tyler]

I never said all of it was bad, but again, it's being incorrectly labled as "healthcare reform" when it's so much more than that.

[Rani]

[quote name='Tyler' date='23 March 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1269398626' post='459172']
Yes and thats the chance we take and are willing to take. Just because you or others don't think we should doesn't mean you have the right to inforce your views on us. And yes, the money is going to Pell grants and eliminating the possibility of private student loans (which the one I have is at a lower rate than the federal loans). Also, money is going to HBCs, and not state colleges or public school disctricts like it should.
[/quote]

Where's it going to reduce private loans? Show me. I walked out of college with over $100k in loans so I'm reasonably up on the student loan issue unless it's changed dramatically in the past decade. But show me. I'm not seeing it but if you do I'm more than willing to listen.

And you're wrong. I do have the right to force you to have insurance if when I go to the doctor I'm paying an extra $50 for your uninsured ass. I don't think you realize how many billions are lost for that very reason because with or without insurance we'd save your life anyway, wouldn't we? (You know I'm talking the generic "you" rather than "you Tyler". You personally I'd help you pay the bill.)


'Rani

[Tyler]

I havn't been to the hospital without insurence, so no -- you're not. As is the same with countless others of people in my situation without insurence. And I see what you're saying I just don't agree with the way the system works[ed](?) by having people with insurence having to "indirectly" pay for people without.

[TheScotsman]

Ugh... "healthcare" reform. The way I see it, it's all exactly the same as it was the day before it passed... but I don't have to live in the world of no radio/tv. I was so sick of the talking heads on both sides, all flinging BS/lies/half-truth/spin, I had to declare a TV/radio moratorium in the Gustavus household.


So, just how is this supposed to make me feel so healthy?


Sure, they can't deny you for a pre-existig condition. . So what? Nothing says what they have to charge you, nor that they can't call you a "risk" and charge the hell out of you. Just how is that different from what we have now? Realistically pre-bummercare I bought health insurance rated by risks including drag boat racing, aviator clause, and generally having a long history of doing damage to myself with various motor vehicles in competitive events. It isn't cheap... and it is crap-coverage. The way I see it, that is still what we will have. We heard the 'bama going on about the evil insurance companies raising rates... then we get a law that does jack to control insurance cost, and the sheeple think it's great. In any case... since the DA made me move onto the rez, I am stuck with IHS... I got gov't healthcare, and it SO sucks-you have no idea just how bad it can be. But it's free. You really do get what you pay for. Maybe that is why I happily send snake-farm a cheque every 3 months. It's worth anything to avoid IHS clinic. (down to sewing myself up with vet sutures from Fleet-Farm supply just to avoid the place, or the drive to a real hospital.)

Nothing in bummer-care is going to control cost. Rather quite the opposite. It's going to dump another 15m people into medicare/medicade, without making any allowance for more medical practitioners. Is that going to make it cheaper? - nope. Crappier, more waiting, more pinheads to deal with in the middle of the system, but not cheaper.

16K more IRs agents - that is not going to make medical care cheaper by any stretch of the imagination. Just think of the fun adding that stupidity to the unholy tome called the US tax code.... Hell, at least geithner will have a good reason for not knowing how to use turbo tax now. That might be a plus in the entertainment dept, and laughter is the best medicine. Maybe this will make me feel better

a cost based on a cbo projection that is dubious at best, an outright lie at worst. Nothing new there either, the CBO has never nailed a real-world cost to within 50% on any major spending. They are just a tool for crooked politicians to make up fake numbers.

IMNHO it's just a big sellout to the insurance industry, watching their stock go up all day. A big gift for the unions, and a handout for cities with horrendous pension shortfalls.


As far as a legal challenge against the reform resulting in the gov't not collecting your income tax. You see, income taxes were allowed specifically, under the 16th amndmt. (just in case you are a victim of public schools, and never read it... here is the text: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.) So just HOW would one assume that a challenge to the interstate commerce clause could in any way nullify the 16th amendment? But then, any event that involves both lawyers, and judges is something that can go any way, at any time. I like to avoid them both for exactly that reason. (judges, lawyers, doctors, IRS agents, DMV... all something to avoid. It's like a certified letter-it's never good, and only a complete fool wants to have anything to do with 'em)



People will still be going to the hospital WO insurance, the only difference is that the IRS will have a nice chunk of their "change" as a penalty for not carrying insurance. By the law, it is still much cheaper to pay the penalty than buy insurance, for both business, and an individual. What stupid person thinks this will compel people to buy insurance? Let's see... pay a 700$ penalty, or buy 250$/mo insurance. Sounds like you went to the T. geithner school of accounting if you think the insurance is cheaper. Still have ERs full of uninsured people that really need an aspirin, and deportation back to mexico. That won't change... (and you can believe in it.) The massive influx of deadbeats to medicade is going to completely jack-up state budgets. You are going to be paying for the deadbeats medical care in either case. Old law, you inderectly paid for deadbeats through high medical cost, new law, the medical cost stays high as a result of more demand on the system, but now you indirectly pay for the deadbeats through your taxes. how does this law fix you having to pay for the deadbeats? The unfunded mandate could be the most viable challenge to the law's legal status, but I haven't head a word about that aspect.

Federal law trumps state law, states that had higher requirements on the insurance underwriters, may have just had a policy downgrade. Nowhere in the senate bill did I read any clause allowing the states to make a more stringent requirement.

Who actually thinks a parent is going to keep an otherwise healthy young adult on their policy? Please, that is stupid. Just like most parents hurry to dump the 18 year old of the car insurance, and cell phone plan ASAP... the kid is getting dumped from the parents health insurance policy. Note it says "may keep" them on until 26, not must keep them on.

I would go even-money, this results in a VAT within 3 years. I would even go so far as to think we will hear that proposal from the bummer's deficit commission within a year. (yes, a VAT on top of your current taxes.) Ready to payup? You elected them, now you get to.. pay the piper. Nothing is ever free, just what makes the average sheeple keep falling for the dupe that something will be?


Oh, by the way, your previously-private IRS filings, and tax returns are now an open record for HHS. Bet you didn't see that one coming!

What do you want to bet, getting a student loan will be tied into having approved health insurance? even money it happens after the 2012 election.

It's tough to get a start out of college in any era, but I am so glad I am not at that age at this particular moment in time. You got some bills coming your way, I almost feel sorry for you young 'uns but-next time how about some attention to what the candidate actually says, not the bumper sticker slogan.
[b]

[quote]Have you personally read the bill in it's entirety, word for word from start to finish?

'Rani [/quote][/b] Yes, Senate bill, with amendments as passed, not the reconciliation. Every time I hear the word "reconciliation" I get a mental image of that battle-axe-botox-harpie-pelosi screeching in my mind. It's frightening, and I am all out of IPA, so that will have to wait. Since it's not after June, IHS has no money to treat the scalp lacerations I would sustain beating my head against the wall out of frustration... and I am not all that proficient with those vet sutures, I would prefer to avoid using them on my face. :facepalm:Besides, who would hold the mirror for me?

[liquidglass]

[quote name='Rani' date='23 March 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1269398226' post='459169']
[quote name='Tyler' date='23 March 2010 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1269397172' post='459162']
Oh and the fact that people who are otherwise healthy, like me, HAVE to buy insurence is just stupid. It is not like car insurence because no one else is affected by not having it but me, at least not until now.
[/quote]

Tyler, my kid was perfect healthy too, right up until the day he ended up[b] taking a header and ended up with a skull fracture[/b]. General overall heath is never an indicator you're not going to need serious medical attention - and it [u]will[/u] bankrupt you at todays rates.

Don't listen to the "breakdowns". They're almost always wrong. On everything, not just this. From a business standpoint, I can't find a single negative thing in this bill. I've talked to several smaller business owners, and they're all for it because it will lower their premiums by creating a competitive market. Right now the insurance companies set any price they damn well feel like it. Logically it will also reduce medical costs because every time you go to the doctor right now you're paying for the hundreds of thousands of people who go every year and skip out on paying because they don't have insurance. It increases supplements to seniors. It guarantees you stay on your parents policy through age 26 and most companies will currently drop you at 18 or force your parents to pay huge added premiums. I could go on, but honestly, I wish the bill did more, but I can't find a single negative impact in any of it. If you can, show me. Page and paragraph and I'll go double check.

'Rani
[/quote]


EXACTLY.

I agree that the bill is not perfect. But with all the retards sitting in power (both parties) there are always additions that are terrible. I love the idea but I'm afraid this version won't be the best. Hopefully it'll improve as time goes on.

That's the biggest worry that people don't realize is unanticipated events. No one ever plans to get injured or sick. (or even die in the case of life insurance) Personally health and life insurance is very important to me. I dont' want to get T-boned by a car and then be worrying about the bills as I go in for medical attention.


And I'm totally with you about insurance companies in the states. The biggest problem for YEARS behind these companies is that they were not allowed for interstate competition. So prices were ridiculous. With competition prices will go down, benefits will go up.

[Charley]

first off I want to make it clear I support this 99% healthcare is a good thing.


the 1% i dont support is being told I have to have insurance. I dont support anything that limits my freedoms I dont support anything that limits your freedoms. and that is exactly what it dose it limits our freedom.

the government has been taking them away little by little.

I dont remember who said it but there is a quote

I dont fear the government taking away my freedom over night. I fear waking up in the middle of the night to realize it has already be taken away.

[Barnaby]

I understand the concern at having to get healthcare or get fined, but really. it is about damn time. How is it fair that everyone else floating their own bills, has to pay up for any uninsured person waltzing into the ER?

Really though, the program should be cheap enough so that there is no reason NOT to get it healthcare. We're not going to be seeing $250 a month. Shit, I insure my whole family now (4 people) through my work insurance for about $200 a month, and that's with a business policy of about 100 employees. I have a $3000 deductible a year, that I pay with a prepaid mastercard.

Now, that's a damn good policy, as I don't worry about paying for shit, other than what comes out of the paycheck. This policy is based on 100 employees. What do you think happens when you start going into a policy that has millions of memeber, like the public group that will be created. Shit gets cheap quick.

Now, we'll have to see whether that will be the case, but that's the idea. Everyone actually making a contribution, to get cheap healthcare, vs. everyone being in small little groups were we get fronted the big bill.

If you seriously cannot afford the cheapest public option available, then you can prove that you are financially unable, and the fine gets waived too.

I don't see the problem here. At one point in your life, you will need medical care. Even if its to send an ambulance to collect your dead carcass from your lazy boy, that's still going to cost the system money. Pay up, so everyone does not have to.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Barnaby' date='24 March 2010 - 08:32 AM' timestamp='1269437563' post='459260']
I understand the concern at having to get healthcare or get fined, but really. it is about damn time. How is it fair that everyone else floating their own bills, has to pay up for any uninsured person waltzing into the ER?

Really though, the program should be cheap enough so that there is no reason NOT to get it healthcare. We're not going to be seeing $250 a month. Shit, I insure my whole family now (4 people) through my work insurance for about $200 a month, and that's with a business policy of about 100 employees. I have a $3000 deductible a year, that I pay with a prepaid mastercard.

Now, that's a damn good policy, as I don't worry about paying for shit, other than what comes out of the paycheck. This policy is based on 100 employees. What do you think happens when you start going into a policy that has millions of memeber, like the public group that will be created. Shit gets cheap quick.

Now, we'll have to see whether that will be the case, but that's the idea. Everyone actually making a contribution, to get cheap healthcare, vs. everyone being in small little groups were we get fronted the big bill.

If you seriously cannot afford the cheapest public option available, then you can prove that you are financially unable, and the fine gets waived too.

I don't see the problem here. At one point in your life, you will need medical care. Even if its to send an ambulance to collect your dead carcass from your lazy boy, that's still going to cost the system money. Pay up, so everyone does not have to.
[/quote]


Kaiser rates the average family of 4 as costing $12,360/yr, and the average worker as paying $3,420 a year. $250 a year is the cheap end of a crap policy. Your employer is picking up a big portion, which is nice, but in the end, you are still paying allot more than 200/mo. The CBO says the average premium will go up >10% and <22% as a result of healthcare bill. (it's CBO, they never get anything right, I would bet 40% over the next 4 years. Got a few $$ to wager?)

Some reform you got duped into, both the CBO, and the insurance co's say rates will go up faster than they would have without the law. Sweet, eh?

[acolorado]

[color="#8b0000"]It looks like you've been reading up at NRO or Redstate. Unfortunately you left out some important details, which tend to undermine some of your arguments. Allow me to help you out bud.
[/color]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='24 March 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1269414410' post='459232']
Ugh... "healthcare" reform. The way I see it, it's all exactly the same as it was the day before it passed... but I don't have to live in the world of no radio/tv. I was so sick of the talking heads on both sides, all flinging BS/lies/half-truth/spin, I had to declare a TV/radio moratorium in the Gustavus household.


So, just how is this supposed to make me feel so healthy?


Sure, they can't deny you for a pre-existig condition. . So what? Nothing says what they have to charge you, nor that they can't call you a "risk" and charge the hell out of you. Just how is that different from what we have now? Realistically pre-bummercare I bought health insurance rated by risks including drag boat racing, aviator clause, and generally having a long history of doing damage to myself with various motor vehicles in competitive events. It isn't cheap... and it is crap-coverage. The way I see it, that is still what we will have. We heard the 'bama going on about the evil insurance companies raising rates... then we get a law that does jack to control insurance cost, and the sheeple think it's great. In any case... since the DA made me move onto the rez, I am stuck with IHS... I got gov't healthcare, and it SO sucks-you have no idea just how bad it can be. But it's free. You really do get what you pay for. Maybe that is why I happily send snake-farm a cheque every 3 months. It's worth anything to avoid IHS clinic. (down to sewing myself up with vet sutures from Fleet-Farm supply just to avoid the place, or the drive to a real hospital.)

[color="#8b0000"]- The big difference is that insurance companies must offer coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. Previously they could and have denied people on the basis of family history, miscarriage, and even domestic violence. This was simply a strategy to avoid insuring high-risk individuals, which makes sense from a business standpoint, but does not serve us as a society. This unethical practice is now illegal. People who can afford it can now get coverage they could not before the law was passed. If they can't afford it, federal subsidies are available, and many more people will qualify for Medicare. -[/color]

Additionally insurance companies may no longer practice rescission, which is dropping your coverage on the slightest of pretenses when you get sick. At a subcommittee hearing last year 3 major insurers admitted to dropping 20,000 policyholders over 5 years using this practice. [url="http://www.shernoff.com/legal-news/Lawsuits-Congress-Chip-Away-at-Health-Insurance-Rescission.html"]My link[/url] -

Nothing in bummer-care is going to control cost. Rather quite the opposite. It's going to dump another 15m people into medicare/medicade, without making any allowance for more medical practitioners. Is that going to make it cheaper? - nope. Crappier, more waiting, more pinheads to deal with in the middle of the system, but not cheaper.

[color="#8b0000"]- Actually there are several cost control measures. Insurers will be required to devote 85% of premiums to health care payouts. This in itself will likely have a big effect on indivudual premiums (see link at end). Also the Law gives the Federal government and all states the ability to review premium increases, to determine if they are warranted. It also creates insurance exchanges which will allow consumers to easily compare different plans and companies - this in itself will create competition which does not exist today and help lower prices. Note further resources are included in the following link - [url="http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/insuranceprospers/insuranceprofits.pdf"]My link[/url] .
[/color]
[color="#8b0000"]Also, the CBO estimates here - [url="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf"]My link[/url] - that reform will lower premiums for individual plans from between 36 and 39% for non-group coverage, and 8-11% for small group coverage. Large group (large employer) coverage would likely not be reduced. I notice you like to say the CBO is unreliable, but there is no better estimate out there, and Conservatives have a nasty habit of praising the CBO when they agree with it, and calling it unreliable when they don't, which comes off as more than a little hypocritical. -[/color]

16K more IRs agents - that is not going to make medical care cheaper by any stretch of the imagination. Just think of the fun adding that stupidity to the unholy tome called the US tax code.... Hell, at least geithner will have a good reason for not knowing how to use turbo tax now. That might be a plus in the entertainment dept, and laughter is the best medicine. Maybe this will make me feel better

[color="#8b0000"]- Personally, I feel it is my duty as a citizen to pay my taxes. The government provides our roads, police, fire, and military protection. They subsidize the companies we work for, and the products they produce, and that we then use. They subsidize our water, sewage, electricity, and communications. They ensure our children receive an education, and subsidize college for many. All this, and the Federal tax rate is only around 17% per capita. Too many people I've met think these things are somehow magically going to continue even if we don't pay for them. I'm sure you're not one of these, but I know you've met them too. -[/color]

a cost based on a cbo projection that is dubious at best, an outright lie at worst. Nothing new there either, the CBO has never nailed a real-world cost to within 50% on any major spending. They are just a tool for crooked politicians to make up fake numbers.

[color="#8b0000"]- Where do you get this idea that the CBO is not accurate? Where does the number 50% come from? I would like a reliable source before I believe this. -[/color]

IMNHO it's just a big sellout to the insurance industry, watching their stock go up all day. A big gift for the unions, and a handout for cities with horrendous pension shortfalls.


As far as a legal challenge against the reform resulting in the gov't not collecting your income tax. You see, income taxes were allowed specifically, under the 16th amndmt. (just in case you are a victim of public schools, and never read it... here is the text: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.) So just HOW would one assume that a challenge to the interstate commerce clause could in any way nullify the 16th amendment? But then, any event that involves both lawyers, and judges is something that can go any way, at any time. I like to avoid them both for exactly that reason. (judges, lawyers, doctors, IRS agents, DMV... all something to avoid. It's like a certified letter-it's never good, and only a complete fool wants to have anything to do with 'em)



People will still be going to the hospital WO insurance, the only difference is that the IRS will have a nice chunk of their "change" as a penalty for not carrying insurance. By the law, it is still much cheaper to pay the penalty than buy insurance, for both business, and an individual. What stupid person thinks this will compel people to buy insurance? Let's see... pay a 700$ penalty, or buy 250$/mo insurance. Sounds like you went to the T. geithner school of accounting if you think the insurance is cheaper. Still have ERs full of uninsured people that really need an aspirin, and deportation back to mexico. That won't change... (and you can believe in it.) The massive influx of deadbeats to medicade is going to completely jack-up state budgets. You are going to be paying for the deadbeats medical care in either case. Old law, you inderectly paid for deadbeats through high medical cost, new law, the medical cost stays high as a result of more demand on the system, but now you indirectly pay for the deadbeats through your taxes. how does this law fix you having to pay for the deadbeats? The unfunded mandate could be the most viable challenge to the law's legal status, but I haven't head a word about that aspect.

[color="#8b0000"]- You completely ignore the subsidies provided for those making up to 400% of poverty level, and the many more who will be eligable for Medicare. Approximately 30 million people who were previously uninsured and had no other option than what you describe will be insured over the next 4 years - [url="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/Manager%27sAmendmenttoReconciliationProposal.pdf"]My link[/url] -. This part of your argument is simply not true. - [/color]

Federal law trumps state law, states that had higher requirements on the insurance underwriters, may have just had a policy downgrade. Nowhere in the senate bill did I read any clause allowing the states to make a more stringent requirement.

Who actually thinks a parent is going to keep an otherwise healthy young adult on their policy? Please, that is stupid. Just like most parents hurry to dump the 18 year old of the car insurance, and cell phone plan ASAP... the kid is getting dumped from the parents health insurance policy. Note it says "may keep" them on until 26, not must keep them on.

[color="#8b0000"]- I know many parents who would love to do this. It may not be necessary with the exchanges and subsidies, but it does give parents a good option in case it does become necessary. -[/color]

I would go even-money, this results in a VAT within 3 years. I would even go so far as to think we will hear that proposal from the bummer's deficit commission within a year. (yes, a VAT on top of your current taxes.) Ready to payup? You elected them, now you get to.. pay the piper. Nothing is ever free, just what makes the average sheeple keep falling for the dupe that something will be?

[color="#8b0000"]- Again, there are no free lunches. Republicans forgot that between 2000 and 2008 - running the debt up by trillions. We are still paying for those wars and programs. Eventually we will have to pay more in taxes to pay it off. Where were all these conservatives with their dire warnings of budgetary doom back then? Oh right - voting for more of it. I would be interested in seeing the studies you base this VAT prediction on though. -[/color]


Oh, by the way, your previously-private IRS filings, and tax returns are now an open record for HHS. Bet you didn't see that one coming!

What do you want to bet, getting a student loan will be tied into having approved health insurance? even money it happens after the 2012 election.

[color="#8b0000"]- Any source on this? Conservative predictions are just not very reliable (WMD! Iraq will last 6 weeks or less! Health Care is dead! Death Panels!), and I would like to see something to back it up. - [/color]

It's tough to get a start out of college in any era, but I am so glad I am not at that age at this particular moment in time. You got some bills coming your way, I almost feel sorry for you young 'uns but-next time how about some attention to what the candidate actually says, not the bumper sticker slogan.
[b]

[/b][color="#8b0000"]I have been amazed at the amount of misinformation and fabrication coming out of the right wing on health care. As soon as one thing is proven wrong, they have simply moved on to the next. The amount of hate, bigotry, and violence that the right wing has brought out is a disgrace to our country - [url="http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003230001"]My link[/url] -.

I continually had to ask myself, "Where is their better alternative? What plan, other than do nothing, do they have to offer that does more to address the problem?".

Although the law is not perfect, it is the start we needed to fix a major problem that was well on the way to crippling our economy and leaving tens of millions of Americans at grave risk.

It's one of the greatest steps forward in this country in decades.[/color]
[b]
[/b]

[Venger]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='24 March 2010 - 03:06 AM' timestamp='1269414410' post='459232']
Ugh... "healthcare" reform. The way I see it, it's all exactly the same as it was the day before it passed... but I don't have to live in the world of no radio/tv. I was so sick of the talking heads on both sides, all flinging BS/lies/half-truth/spin, I had to declare a TV/radio moratorium in the Gustavus household.


So, just how is this supposed to make me feel so healthy?


Sure, they can't deny you for a pre-existig condition. . So what? Nothing says what they have to charge you, nor that they can't call you a "risk" and charge the hell out of you. Just how is that different from what we have now? Realistically pre-bummercare I bought health insurance rated by risks including drag boat racing, aviator clause, and generally having a long history of doing damage to myself with various motor vehicles in competitive events. It isn't cheap... and it is crap-coverage. The way I see it, that is still what we will have. We heard the 'bama going on about the evil insurance companies raising rates... then we get a law that does jack to control insurance cost, and the sheeple think it's great. In any case... since the DA made me move onto the rez, I am stuck with IHS... I got gov't healthcare, and it SO sucks-you have no idea just how bad it can be. But it's free. You really do get what you pay for. Maybe that is why I happily send snake-farm a cheque every 3 months. It's worth anything to avoid IHS clinic. (down to sewing myself up with vet sutures from Fleet-Farm supply just to avoid the place, or the drive to a real hospital.)

Nothing in bummer-care is going to control cost. Rather quite the opposite. It's going to dump another 15m people into medicare/medicade, without making any allowance for more medical practitioners. Is that going to make it cheaper? - nope. Crappier, more waiting, more pinheads to deal with in the middle of the system, but not cheaper.

16K more IRs agents - that is not going to make medical care cheaper by any stretch of the imagination. Just think of the fun adding that stupidity to the unholy tome called the US tax code.... Hell, at least geithner will have a good reason for not knowing how to use turbo tax now. That might be a plus in the entertainment dept, and laughter is the best medicine. Maybe this will make me feel better

a cost based on a cbo projection that is dubious at best, an outright lie at worst. Nothing new there either, the CBO has never nailed a real-world cost to within 50% on any major spending. They are just a tool for crooked politicians to make up fake numbers.

IMNHO it's just a big sellout to the insurance industry, watching their stock go up all day. A big gift for the unions, and a handout for cities with horrendous pension shortfalls.


As far as a legal challenge against the reform resulting in the gov't not collecting your income tax. You see, income taxes were allowed specifically, under the 16th amndmt. (just in case you are a victim of public schools, and never read it... here is the text: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.) So just HOW would one assume that a challenge to the interstate commerce clause could in any way nullify the 16th amendment? But then, any event that involves both lawyers, and judges is something that can go any way, at any time. I like to avoid them both for exactly that reason. (judges, lawyers, doctors, IRS agents, DMV... all something to avoid. It's like a certified letter-it's never good, and only a complete fool wants to have anything to do with 'em)



People will still be going to the hospital WO insurance, the only difference is that the IRS will have a nice chunk of their "change" as a penalty for not carrying insurance. By the law, it is still much cheaper to pay the penalty than buy insurance, for both business, and an individual. What stupid person thinks this will compel people to buy insurance? Let's see... pay a 700$ penalty, or buy 250$/mo insurance. Sounds like you went to the T. geithner school of accounting if you think the insurance is cheaper. Still have ERs full of uninsured people that really need an aspirin, and deportation back to mexico. That won't change... (and you can believe in it.) The massive influx of deadbeats to medicade is going to completely jack-up state budgets. You are going to be paying for the deadbeats medical care in either case. Old law, you inderectly paid for deadbeats through high medical cost, new law, the medical cost stays high as a result of more demand on the system, but now you indirectly pay for the deadbeats through your taxes. how does this law fix you having to pay for the deadbeats? The unfunded mandate could be the most viable challenge to the law's legal status, but I haven't head a word about that aspect.

Federal law trumps state law, states that had higher requirements on the insurance underwriters, may have just had a policy downgrade. Nowhere in the senate bill did I read any clause allowing the states to make a more stringent requirement.

Who actually thinks a parent is going to keep an otherwise healthy young adult on their policy? Please, that is stupid. Just like most parents hurry to dump the 18 year old of the car insurance, and cell phone plan ASAP... the kid is getting dumped from the parents health insurance policy. Note it says "may keep" them on until 26, not must keep them on.

I would go even-money, this results in a VAT within 3 years. I would even go so far as to think we will hear that proposal from the bummer's deficit commission within a year. (yes, a VAT on top of your current taxes.) Ready to payup? You elected them, now you get to.. pay the piper. Nothing is ever free, just what makes the average sheeple keep falling for the dupe that something will be?


Oh, by the way, your previously-private IRS filings, and tax returns are now an open record for HHS. Bet you didn't see that one coming!

What do you want to bet, getting a student loan will be tied into having approved health insurance? even money it happens after the 2012 election.

It's tough to get a start out of college in any era, but I am so glad I am not at that age at this particular moment in time. You got some bills coming your way, I almost feel sorry for you young 'uns but-next time how about some attention to what the candidate actually says, not the bumper sticker slogan.
[b]

[quote]Have you personally read the bill in it's entirety, word for word from start to finish?

'Rani [/quote][/b] Yes, Senate bill, with amendments as passed, not the reconciliation. Every time I hear the word "reconciliation" I get a mental image of that battle-axe-botox-harpie-pelosi screeching in my mind. It's frightening, and I am all out of IPA, so that will have to wait. Since it's not after June, IHS has no money to treat the scalp lacerations I would sustain beating my head against the wall out of frustration... and I am not all that proficient with those vet sutures, I would prefer to avoid using them on my face. :facepalm:Besides, who would hold the mirror for me?
[/quote]
Thank you for being the voice of reason. +2
Ray

[TheScotsman]

Just how long do you expect business to keep it's HQ, and major production operations in the USA with bummer-care?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326 Hmmm.... everyone that knew anything past a bumper-sticker talking point said this law would make businesses drop their employee/retiree insurance benefits.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2624453620100326?type=marketsNews
http://www.prisonplanet.com/medical-companies-taxes-in-healthcare-bill-will-kill-jobs-businesses.html

You not only won yourself a crap-shit healthcare law, but you are going to cost the country it's heavy mfgr base as they flee for overseas destinations (gee, who saw that coming, eh?) Good job, can tell a liberal is in charge! Well, at least they won't have to call in sick for their free dr visit-they will be unemployed! oh, yes we can.... bahahah... learn to read more than a bumpersticker before you vote.

10% tax on tanning salons, they may cause cancer. Pretty funny when you know how to look at it-up here in the north, Dr.s will prescribe UV exposure to counter seasonal dysfunction disorder. I guess in that case, you sun-belt dwellers will pay more for a tan, so us tundra-dwellers can go get a prescription for you to pay for it. -See.... that is funny! Ironic, but funny.


Most honest dimocrap in the whole gov't - Dinglle admits bill is about controlling people.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/dingell-it-will-take-a-while-for-obamacare-to-control-the-people/



Don't blame me, I didn't vote for any of them.

[acolorado]

[quote name='TheScotsman' date='26 March 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1269631338' post='459911']
Just how long do you expect business to keep it's HQ, and major production operations in the USA with bummer-care?

[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326"]http://www.reuters.c...E62P48W20100326[/url] Hmmm.... everyone that knew anything past a bumper-sticker talking point said this law would make businesses drop their employee/retiree insurance benefits.
[url="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2624453620100326?type=marketsNews"]http://www.reuters.c...ype=marketsNews[/url]
[url="http://www.prisonplanet.com/medical-companies-taxes-in-healthcare-bill-will-kill-jobs-businesses.html"]http://www.prisonpla...businesses.html[/url]

You not only won yourself a crap-shit healthcare law, but you are going to cost the country it's heavy mfgr base as they flee for overseas destinations (gee, who saw that coming, eh?) Good job, can tell a libtaerals in charge! Well, at least they won't have to call in sick for their free dr visit-they will be unemployed! oh, yes we can.... bahahah... learn to read more than a bumpersticker before you vote.

10% tax on tanning salons, they may cause cancer. Pretty funny when you know how to look at it-up here in the north, Dr.s will prescribe UV exposure to counter seasonal dysfunction disorder. I guess in that case, you sun-belt dwellers will pay more for a tan, so us tundra-dwellers can go get a prescription for you to pay for it. -See.... that is funny! Ironic, but funny.


Most honest dimocrap in the whole gov't - Dinglle admits bill is about controlling people.
[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/dingell-it-will-take-a-while-for-obamacare-to-control-the-people/"]http://hotair.com/ar...rol-the-people/[/url]



Don't blame me, I didn't vote for any of them.
[/quote]

I just want to point out that in the quest for profits - corporations shifted most of their manufacturing overseas years ago. Trying to blame the Health Care law for decisions made by corporate executives decades ago just won't fly.

Also - companies continued to lay off workers, shift costs down to employee's, and cut benefits even in the wake of the Bush tax cuts, which were supposed to remedy those problems. Profits rose, executives took out record bonuses, and companies continued to pass the costs for these down to employee's and consumers.

The stories you cite would have happened regardless, companies are simply using it as an opportunity to blame business as usual on big bad government.

I would follow up on your link to Dinglle? - but it doesn't work and I can't find the story you're referring to at Hotair. I would also point out that links to highly partisan websites aren't terribly convincing for those of us who like to check our facts and see some credible backup.

I also think your many childish expressions such as "learn to read" - "libtard" - and "crap-shit" tell us far more about your mentality and perspective than they ever could about the people you're trying to criticize.