PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Should i be for or against the HCR bill?


irishjayhawk
03-19-2010, 12:47 PM
Reason I ask is that I'm pretty much against the bill because there isn't a public option, at the very least.

Problem is the pre-existing conditions clause (which could be written on a two page separate bill and easily passed) hits home with me as I have a pre-existing condition, no fault of my own. (Crohn's, in case you wondered).

So should the pre-existing coverage clause reverse my current stance?

oldandslow
03-19-2010, 12:49 PM
Honestly, I do not like the current bill. And I am as left as anyone on here. Having said that, I hope it opens the door for the single payer option down the road.

...and yes you will be covered in the present bill.

irishjayhawk
03-19-2010, 12:50 PM
Honestly, I do not like the current bill. And I am as left as anyone on here. Having said that, I hope it opens the door for the single payer option down the road.

I would compromise for a public option, but after reading about single payers, I think that makes almost TOO much sense.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2010, 12:52 PM
I bet they give a shit what you think

Mr. Flopnuts
03-19-2010, 12:53 PM
This bill is nothing more than a money grab for insurance companies. I'm convinced this is something that will bring the American people together. Regardless of your party affiliation, this bill is an abortion.

It's going to raise rates for everyone, and it's going to destroy the middle class. Poor people will be included at no cost, the rich will be able to afford it, and the dwindling middle class will be left trying to cut their budgets across the board to pay for it, or face criminal prosecution. It's a joke.

I like what they're doing with pre existing conditions, but it will come at a cost. And don't think for one second that it's not a ploy to get people sympathetic to it so that they will support it's passing.

I've come to realize that regardless of what party a politician is in, they're not on my team. They're not on yours or anyone else's here either. Sorry. Rant over.

Donger
03-19-2010, 12:54 PM
Irish, do you think that your premiums should be higher than someone else who is healthy/doesn't have pre-existing conditions?

Brainiac
03-19-2010, 12:59 PM
This bill is nothing more than a money grab for insurance companies. I'm convinced this is something that will bring the American people together. Regardless of your party affiliation, this bill is an abortion.

It's going to raise rates for everyone, and it's going to destroy the middle class. Poor people will be included at no cost, the rich will be able to afford it, and the dwindling middle class will be left trying to cut their budgets across the board to pay for it, or face criminal prosecution. It's a joke.

I like what they're doing with pre existing conditions, but it will come at a cost. And don't think for one second that it's not a ploy to get people sympathetic to it so that they will support it's passing.

I've come to realize that regardless of what party a politician is in, they're not on my team. They're not on yours or anyone else's here either. Sorry. Rant over.
I don't think it's accurate to call it a money grab for insurance companies when the ultimate goal is to drive the insurance companies out of business and replace them with a single payer solution.

bowener
03-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Regardless of your party affiliation, this bill is an abortion.
Perfectly said.
It's going to raise rates for everyone, and it's going to further destroy the middle class.
FYP
I've come to realize that regardless of what party a politician is in, they're not on my team. They're not on yours or anyone else's here either. Sorry. Rant over.
Truest statement that can be said. A politician is a politician. They need votes and will do anything to get them.

Garcia Bronco
03-19-2010, 01:06 PM
You should be against as it does not increase access, lower costs, or improve quality.

Direckshun
03-19-2010, 01:10 PM
Reason I ask is that I'm pretty much against the bill because there isn't a public option, at the very least.

Problem is the pre-existing conditions clause (which could be written on a two page separate bill and easily passed) hits home with me as I have a pre-existing condition, no fault of my own. (Crohn's, in case you wondered).

So should the pre-existing coverage clause reverse my current stance?

Simply put, if you want the public option for yourself, maybe, or for future generations definitely, passing this bill should be a priority. Generations of HCR failure has proven that future attempts at HCR following previous failures only end up less dramatic and less impactful. Obama's bill is more conservative than Clinton's, who was more conservative than LBJ's who was more conservative than Truman's (single payer).

Likewise, passing this bill will ensure that your major concern is taken care of (preexisting conditions), and it can be used as a platform from which the public option can eventually be tacked on. From there, single payer is a generation or two out, I'd believe.

Donger
03-19-2010, 01:16 PM
It seems as if the liberals who are reluctantly supporting this bill are using this explanation: "It isn't quite socialist enough, but it's a good start toward and public option (and single payer), so I'll support it."

If that is accurate, I guess all the people who argued about "slippery slope" were indeed correct, no?

Taco John
03-19-2010, 01:18 PM
I feel bad that your health is a problem for you, but I don't see where any company should be forced to take you on as a risk just for the fact that you have a need for it. You should be against this on the principle that government shouldn't force risk on other people or businesses. If government wants pre-existing conditions covered, government should vote on a public option and take them on itself.

Chief Faithful
03-19-2010, 01:20 PM
Mitch McConnell thinks you should be against it.

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=db834f41-4e33-4f33-ac0b-ad2962bd5d4a


WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Friday regarding health care reform:

“Well, it’s come down to a few wavering votes.

“That’s what this year-long debate has come to: a handful of Democrats had been holding out to see the final bill.

“Now we have it.

“And anyone who was waiting to see what the final bill meant for government spending should vote no, because this bill spends even more.

“Anyone waiting to see what the final bill meant for Medicare should vote no, because the Medicare cuts in this bill are even deeper than the Senate bill that Speaker Pelosi said Democrats didn’t want to vote on.

“Anyone waiting to see what the final bill meant for taxes should vote no, because the tax increases in this bill are even higher than the Senate bill.

“Anyone waiting to see what the final bill did to the cost curve should vote against this bill, because this bill is likely to bend the cost curve up even further than the Senate bill, not down.

“If you were waiting for a bill without the CLASS Act in it — a provision that even top Democrats describe as a Ponzi scheme, then you’ll vote against this bill, because it’s still in there.

“If you were waiting to see if they’d cut out the sweetheart deals that have outraged the nation and soured the public on the entire legislative process, then you have to vote against this bill, because there are even more of them in there now.

“If you were waiting for a bill that costs less, then you’ll vote against this bill, because it costs even more than the last one.

"And if you were waiting for a bill that wouldn’t compel taxpayers to cover the cost of abortions, then you’ll vote against this bill because this is, the National Right to Life Committee says, the most abortion-expansive piece of legislation ever to reach the floor of the House of Representatives.

“Americans are outraged at what’s going on here: a bill that aims to shift a major segment of our economy into the hands of the government, and which accomplishes that goal by imposing crushing burdens on already-struggling seniors, middle class families, and small businesses, is being rammed through Congress against the clear will of the public.

“No amount of spin will change the fact that Medicare will be deeply cut, insurance premiums and taxes will go up, the federal bureaucracy will grow, and as demand increases, the quality of care in this country will get worse and worse.

“Taking a bill that House Democrats are too embarrassed to vote on, adding more than $50 billion in new taxes and slashing $60 billion more from our seniors’ Medicare and keeping sweetheart deals may make some Washington Democrats ‘giddy,’ but it’s not reform.

“This bill isn’t an excuse to vote in favor of the Democrat plan for health care. It’s a reason to vote against it.

“Anyone who votes for this bill is clearly less concerned about responding to their constituents than responding to the pressure tactics of Democrat leaders in Congress.

“Some may have concluded that there’s more merit in following the cajoling voices in Washington than the clear voices of their constituents back home, more merit in choosing to side with Democrat leaders in their quest to ram this bill through over the wishes of the American people.

“Some may argue that the details we’ve seen since yesterday are reason to support it. But if anything is clear in this debate, it’s that yesterday’s CBO score is conclusive proof that this health care bill is unsalvageable.

“This is something the American people realized a long time ago, and now they’re counting on the final holdouts to vote on their behalf this weekend. Now that they’ve seen the final bill, they can’t understand why anyone would do otherwise.”

Taco John
03-19-2010, 01:20 PM
It seems as if the liberals who are reluctantly supporting this bill are using this explanation: "It isn't quite socialist enough, but it's a good start toward and public option (and single payer), so I'll support it."

If that is accurate, I guess all the people who argued about "slippery slope" were indeed correct, no?


Always was correct and never had any doubts about it. Progressive governance is all about "let's just get our foot in the door, and we can make changes towards more perfect socialism once we're in."

mlyonsd
03-19-2010, 01:21 PM
It seems as if the liberals who are reluctantly supporting this bill are using this explanation: "It isn't quite socialist enough, but it's a good start toward and public option (and single payer), so I'll support it."

If that is accurate, I guess all the people who argued about "slippery slope" were indeed correct, no?

Absolutely. I don't see how it could be argued any other way.

kcfanXIII
03-19-2010, 01:24 PM
we can not settle on a bill that will effect every american citizen. we should demand perfection or nothing at all.

irishjayhawk
03-19-2010, 01:29 PM
This bill is nothing more than a money grab for insurance companies. I'm convinced this is something that will bring the American people together. Regardless of your party affiliation, this bill is an abortion.

That's what I was thinking.

It's going to raise rates for everyone, and it's going to destroy the middle class. Poor people will be included at no cost, the rich will be able to afford it, and the dwindling middle class will be left trying to cut their budgets across the board to pay for it, or face criminal prosecution. It's a joke.

Any thing to back up the "raise rates"? I've heard the opposite from a wide variety of sources. I can't see how, but I've heard it repeated.


I like what they're doing with pre existing conditions, but it will come at a cost. And don't think for one second that it's not a ploy to get people sympathetic to it so that they will support it's passing.

I've come to realize that regardless of what party a politician is in, they're not on my team. They're not on yours or anyone else's here either. Sorry. Rant over.

The latter is a different issue altogether. :p

As for the first one, I don't think it's a ploy at all. Every politician wants to be "for" that precisely because it's an actual reform. And everyone's "for" health care reform.

Irish, do you think that your premiums should be higher than someone else who is healthy/doesn't have pre-existing conditions?

Yes, except that's not the choice. The fact is they can outright deny you coverage - at any cost. They'll just simply say sorry and move on. I have no qualms it should be higher. How high - however - is another question.

You should be against as it does not increase access, lower costs, or improve quality.

How does it not increase access? It puts 31 million in the pool. Again, I've heard both arguments on the lower costs part but can't see how it would affect costs at all (31 million new customers or not). And I agree with the improve quality (aside from denying because of pre-existing conditions). That said, I'm betting we'd disagree on what would improve quality or the system.

Simply put, if you want the public option for yourself, maybe, or for future generations definitely, passing this bill should be a priority. Generations of HCR failure has proven that future attempts at HCR following previous failures only end up less dramatic and less impactful. Obama's bill is more conservative than Clinton's, who was more conservative than LBJ's who was more conservative than Truman's (single payer).

Likewise, passing this bill will ensure that your major concern is taken care of (preexisting conditions), and it can be used as a platform from which the public option can eventually be tacked on. From there, single payer is a generation or two out, I'd believe.

I hadn't thought of it that way. That does make some sense.

irishjayhawk
03-19-2010, 01:30 PM
I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into a socialist/anti-socialist circle jerk.


Pretty please.

Direckshun
03-19-2010, 01:31 PM
Always was correct and never had any doubts about it. Progressive governance is all about "let's just get our foot in the door, and we can make changes towards more perfect socialism once we're in."

As opposed to libertarian governance, which is... all about the same thing in the other direction.

Calcountry
03-19-2010, 01:31 PM
Reason I ask is that I'm pretty much against the bill because there isn't a public option, at the very least.

Problem is the pre-existing conditions clause (which could be written on a two page separate bill and easily passed) hits home with me as I have a pre-existing condition, no fault of my own. (Crohn's, in case you wondered).

So should the pre-existing coverage clause reverse my current stance?You should be for it because winning is all that matters. Win one for Obama, save his presidency. That is more important than the country, the party(yes this is gonna hurt the democrats) AND the people of the United States.

Direckshun
03-19-2010, 01:33 PM
It seems as if the liberals who are reluctantly supporting this bill are using this explanation: "It isn't quite socialist enough, but it's a good start toward and public option (and single payer), so I'll support it."

If that is accurate, I guess all the people who argued about "slippery slope" were indeed correct, no?

Any move you make in any direction could be considered a slippery slope.

I dare you to think of one policy proposal that can't be taken to an extreme in a "slippery slope" type manner.

Direckshun
03-19-2010, 01:34 PM
I hadn't thought of it that way. That does make some sense.

If you want the public option, or if you want single payer to be a conceivable goal some day, you will do destructive damage to that goal by voting against this bill (I understand you're not a congressman), as opposed to voting for it.

mlyonsd
03-19-2010, 01:34 PM
I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into a socialist/anti-socialist circle jerk.


Pretty please.

Then IMO you shouldn't have asked the question.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 01:34 PM
Any move you make in any direction could be considered a slippery slope.

I dare you to think of one policy proposal that can't be taken to an extreme in a "slippery slope" type manner.

We've already been on the slippery slope of health care by govt. This is the crowning destructive moment before the welfare state goes belly up.

Calcountry
03-19-2010, 01:35 PM
It seems as if the liberals who are reluctantly supporting this bill are using this explanation: "It isn't quite socialist enough, but it's a good start toward and public option (and single payer), so I'll support it."

If that is accurate, I guess all the people who argued about "slippery slope" were indeed correct, no?Funny thing. I heard this morning, that South Carolina had a constutional ammendment on hunting coming up in the next election. The PETA guy, was using the slipery slope argument to defeat the measure. Funny.

Like, "where is this going to stop next?". They want the right to hunt, they want the right to slaughter, the right to no limit fishing, MY GAWD, where will they stop!!221"

Calcountry
03-19-2010, 01:36 PM
We've already been on the slippery slope of health care by govt. This is the crowning destructive moment before the welfare state goes belly up.Then, the squeal from those on the dole will be so high, it will be a shattering pitch.
]

Direckshun
03-19-2010, 01:39 PM
Then, the squeal from those on the dole will be so high, it will be a shattering pitch.

Then, the Night Raven will feast.

Reaper16
03-19-2010, 01:41 PM
If you want the public option, or if you want single payer to be a conceivable goal some day, you will do destructive damage to that goal by voting against this bill (I understand you're not a congressman), as opposed to voting for it.
Can you convince me of that? I am unconvinced at the moment. All I see is a bill that manages to make things worse.

Donger
03-19-2010, 01:42 PM
Any move you make in any direction could be considered a slippery slope.

I dare you to think of one policy proposal that can't be taken to an extreme in a "slippery slope" type manner.

Oh, I think you could look at the GOP's proposals and not call that a slippery slope toward socialism.

Taco John
03-19-2010, 01:44 PM
As opposed to libertarian governance, which is... all about the same thing in the other direction.

There is no libertarian slippery slope. Rights to life, liberty, and property are definite and absolute rights.

Garcia Bronco
03-19-2010, 01:45 PM
That's what I was thinking.


How does it not increase access? It puts 31 million in the pool. Again, I've heard both arguments on the lower costs part but can't see how it would affect costs at all (31 million new customers or not). And I agree with the improve quality (aside from denying because of pre-existing conditions). That said, I'm betting we'd disagree on what would improve quality or the system.




First off, if you have chrons get into a group policy at your job at they can't dent you


Second, these bills do not add one doctor or medical professional. So be adding 31 million customers and not adding doctors you create a bottle neck which increases cost, decreases access, and lowers quality.

Taco John
03-19-2010, 01:48 PM
I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into a socialist/anti-socialist circle jerk.


Pretty please.


What else is there? This bill is fascism defined. It forces private organizations to take on risk that it otherwise would not take on by dictatorial decree. It's not quite socialism, because it's not the government taking on the risk, but it might as well be because it's government forcing people to become customers of these private businesses, again by dictatorial decree.

Taco John
03-19-2010, 01:50 PM
This bill primarily benefits insurance companies. They don't care if there are enough doctors to serve the expanded market. Their only concern is going to be expanding their collections department to process the 31 million new monthly premium checks coming through the door.

Hydrae
03-19-2010, 01:51 PM
I've come to realize that regardless of what party a politician is in, they're not on my team. They're not on yours or anyone else's here either. Sorry. Rant over.


There is not enough rep I can give you for this. Welcome aboard.

Hydrae
03-19-2010, 01:52 PM
First off, if you have chrons get into a group policy at your job at they can't dent you


Second, these bills do not add one doctor or medical professional. So be adding 31 million customers and not adding doctors you create a bottle neck which increases cost, decreases access, and lowers quality.

You know, I keep reading things like this but I have my doubts. If they can't deny you because you are joining through your employment why do you have to take a physical before joining? I honestly don't know, thank God I don't have any issues for this to have been a problem for me.

orange
03-19-2010, 01:56 PM
This bill is fascism defined. It forces private organizations to take on risk that it otherwise would not take on by dictatorial decree.

This bill primarily benefits insurance companies.

How can anyone argue with you when you take every side?

Taco John
03-19-2010, 01:58 PM
How can anyone argue with you when you take every side?

Every side? It's the same side. But there are more than one principle being violated. Insurance companies are being forced to take on risk, but they'll be happy to get the customers, and raise rates to account for that risk.

People are being forced to carry private insurance. They're the ones getting hosed the most because they'll be forced to pay the increased premiums.

orange
03-19-2010, 02:01 PM
Every side? It's the same side.

The bill "forces private organizations" to be "benefited."

Okay I got it. :facepalm:

Taco John
03-19-2010, 02:05 PM
The bill "forces private organizations" to be "benefited."

Okay I got it. :facepalm:


You fail to understand that I'm making a macro and a micro argument, particularly where precedent is concerned.

Direckshun
03-19-2010, 03:11 PM
Can you convince me of that? I am unconvinced at the moment. All I see is a bill that manages to make things worse.

I don't know if I can convince you of anything, but here's what I see:

I see more and more modest healthcare proposals over generations of time. Truman would have scoffed at LBJ's reform, LBJ's reform was much more aggressive than Clinton's, which looks leaps and bounds better than Obama's. But with each subsequent loss, the healthcare industry not only got bolder, but they made a shitload more money and thereby became much more influential and tougher to negotiate with.

Timidity is the name of the game, and while pro-single payer purists are immune to it, people who run for and maintain office are not. With each gigantic, humiliating defeat, Democrats have suffered large electoral losses, and defeating a healthcare solution as moderate as the public option only further petrifies future generations' attempts at healthcare reform. Voting agaisnt this bill (and I know you're not voting, but still) only makes more aggressive reform in the future a pipedream. This bill is groundwork that has to be laid.

It does shovel billions to the insurance industry, and further entrenches them. But for the $30 or so billion they stand to gain, hundreds of billions will be going to those who need it most, primarily those slightly above the poverty line who can't get or afford health insurance. And that's an unheardof accomplishment from which we can only build.

Add-ons in the future are very possible. The healthcare bill has polled terribly, but even in the dregs of its polling, the public option (our generation's best gateway to a chance at single payer) still polled consistently in the 60s.

Which means we may not be able to attach the public option effectively to a trillion-dollar behemoth, but when introduced by itself in a few years, it could make for a very popular bill. I imagine a public option opt out would be an ideal starting point, then a universal public option once that proves effective, then a public option that becomes more and more robust, and who knows.

And none of this can happen without the root and branch stuff getting done. This bill will make some problems worse, but mostly it's going to make things a lot better, while saving hundreds of thousands of lives and slicing the deficit more than any single governmental act since the Balanced Budget Act.

Reaper16
03-19-2010, 03:21 PM
I don't know if I can convince you of anything, but here's what I see:

I see more and more modest healthcare proposals over generations of time. Truman would have scoffed at LBJ's reform, LBJ's reform was much more aggressive than Clinton's, which looks leaps and bounds better than Obama's. But with each subsequent loss, the healthcare industry not only got bolder, but they made a shitload more money and thereby became much more influential and tougher to negotiate with.

Timidity is the name of the game, and while pro-single payer purists are immune to it, people who run for and maintain office are not. With each gigantic, humiliating defeat, Democrats have suffered large electoral losses, and defeating a healthcare solution as moderate as the public option only further petrifies future generations' attempts at healthcare reform. Voting agaisnt this bill (and I know you're not voting, but still) only makes more aggressive reform in the future a pipedream. This bill is groundwork that has to be laid.

It does shovel billions to the insurance industry, and further entrenches them. But for the $30 or so billion they stand to gain, hundreds of billions will be going to those who need it most, primarily those slightly above the poverty line who can't get or afford health insurance. And that's an unheardof accomplishment from which we can only build.

Add-ons in the future are very possible. The healthcare bill has polled terribly, but even in the dregs of its polling, the public option (our generation's best gateway to a chance at single payer) still polled consistently in the 60s.

Which means we may not be able to attach the public option effectively to a trillion-dollar behemoth, but when introduced by itself in a few years, it could make for a very popular bill. I imagine a public option opt out would be an ideal starting point, then a universal public option once that proves effective, then a public option that becomes more and more robust, and who knows.

And none of this can happen without the root and branch stuff getting done. This bill will make some problems worse, but mostly it's going to make things a lot better, while saving hundreds of thousands of lives and slicing the deficit more than any single governmental act since the Balanced Budget Act.
I guess I am hesitant because I don't see anything being added on in later years. I don't see why the people who crafted the legislation being voted on would suddenly want to "do the right thing" and really reform things.

Direckshun
03-19-2010, 03:34 PM
I guess I am hesitant because I don't see anything being added on in later years. I don't see why the people who crafted the legislation being voted on would suddenly want to "do the right thing" and really reform things.

Even if legislation isn't added on in future years, this is still an improvement over the current system. It allows for more interstate competition, offers coops that have been nothing but popular everywhere they've been tested in the country, increase helpful medical provisions like getting more hospitals up to date technologically and the empowerment of comparative effectiveness research. It eliminates preexisting conditions and makes preemptive care free of deductibles. Fiscally, it is the single greatest step in history to get Medicare back to solvency, and shaves over $100 billion dollars off the deficit for the next ten years. Regulation is increased on the insurance industry so rates can't fly up so frequently and so dramatically with little or no reason. There's a reason AHIP has been fighting this tooth and nail, despite the direct infusion of money they'll get.

And it saves hundreds of thousands of lives by making sure that 95% of Americans have healthcare insurance.

There are things that can be added later, things that are more popular on their own terms. But even without them, this bill justifies to me all the garbage I've had to wade through for the past 13 months.

petegz28
03-19-2010, 03:43 PM
Even if legislation isn't added on in future years, this is still an improvement over the current system. It allows for more interstate competition, offers coops that have been nothing but popular everywhere they've been tested in the country, increase helpful medical provisions like getting more hospitals up to date technologically and the empowerment of comparative effectiveness research. It eliminates preexisting conditions and makes preemptive care free of deductibles. Fiscally, it is the single greatest step in history to get Medicare back to solvency, and shaves over $100 billion dollars off the deficit for the next ten years. Regulation is increased on the insurance industry so rates can't fly up so frequently and so dramatically with little or no reason. There's a reason AHIP has been fighting this tooth and nail, despite the direct infusion of money they'll get.

And it saves hundreds of thousands of lives by making sure that 95% of Americans have healthcare insurance.

There are things that can be added later, things that are more popular on their own terms. But even without them, this bill justifies to me all the garbage I've had to wade through for the past 13 months.

Yeah, it's going to be so much better that Pelosi had to rig a way for the vote to happen without actually having to vote on it.

orange
03-19-2010, 03:47 PM
Yeah, it's going to be so much better that Pelosi had to rig a way for the vote to happen without actually having to vote on it.

So, when they have the roll-call vote for the healthcare reform bill package - where everyone is going to vote on the record for or against the healthcare reform package - is it going to spoil your end-of-the-world party?

petegz28
03-19-2010, 03:58 PM
So, when they have the roll-call vote for the healthcare reform bill package - where everyone is going to vote on the record for or against the healthcare reform package - is it going to spoil your end-of-the-world party?

It would be better if they have an actual vote on the bill as opposed to a vote on the Slaughter bill. Having said that, Pelosi has already tainted anything they do by moving forward on the Slaughter bill as opposed to demanding a straight up or down vote. Coincidentaly, so has Obama.

irishjayhawk
03-20-2010, 11:04 AM
First off, if you have chrons get into a group policy at your job at they can't dent you

Yes, I get that. Sometimes it's easier said than done.


Second, these bills do not add one doctor or medical professional. So be adding 31 million customers and not adding doctors you create a bottle neck which increases cost, decreases access, and lowers quality.

How exactly would any bill "add a doctor"? By that logic, we should do nothing ever because the amount of doctors isn't increasing.

JohnnyV13
03-20-2010, 12:20 PM
And none of this can happen without the root and branch stuff getting done. This bill will make some problems worse, but mostly it's going to make things a lot better, while saving hundreds of thousands of lives and slicing the deficit more than any single governmental act since the Balanced Budget Act.

Who is your drug dealer and can you get me a good price on whatever you're mainlining?

How in the hell can a bill that uses 10 years of appropriations to cover 6 years of benefits "slice" the deficit in anything but a Lehman Brothers balance sheet fashion?

Slainte
03-20-2010, 12:24 PM
I would like some sort of health care reform but this measure sucks...

Too bad. I hope it doesn't pass.

orange
03-20-2010, 12:32 PM
Who is your drug dealer and can you get me a good price on whatever you're mainlining?

How in the hell can a bill that uses 10 years of appropriations to cover 6 years of benefits "slice" the deficit in anything but a Lehman Brothers balance sheet fashion?

Does a big down-payment increase or reduce your car payments?
How about the total price of the car including interest?

JohnnyV13
03-20-2010, 12:45 PM
Does a big down-payment increase or reduce your car payments?
How about the total price of the car including interest?

The car payment analogy might work for a product with an ultimate price. But this is an ongoing expense that never ends. After the initial outlay, this bill is intended to go on for a lifetime, and needs to be sustained on a yearly basis.

The only thing the "downpayment" does is make it look like its reducing the deficit in a 10 year time window. In reality, its actually creating more liabilities than it can cover with its revenue provisions.

JohnnyV13
03-20-2010, 12:47 PM
Does a big down-payment increase or reduce your car payments?
How about the total price of the car including interest?

Are you the former CFO of Lehman? Or are you a former Loan Officer for Fannie Mae?

orange
03-20-2010, 12:49 PM
But this is an ongoing expense that never ends. After the initial outlay, this bill is intended to go on for a lifetime, and needs to be sustained on a yearly basis.

And collections will always be four years ahead of benefits.

orange
03-20-2010, 12:50 PM
Are you the former CFO of Lehman? Or are you a former Loan Officer for Fannie Mae?

I Wish!!! You know how much money those guys make?! :drool:

JohnnyV13
03-20-2010, 03:58 PM
I Wish!!! You know how much money those guys make?! :drool:

I think you're qualified.

JohnnyV13
03-20-2010, 04:01 PM
And collections will always be four years ahead of benefits.

If it takes 10 years of payments to make 6 years of benefits look like its saving money, what happens the next decade when you have to cover 10 years of benefits with 10 years of collections?

Democrat finance theory in action.

penchief
03-20-2010, 07:03 PM
It seems as if the liberals who are reluctantly supporting this bill are using this explanation: "It isn't quite socialist enough, but it's a good start toward and public option (and single payer), so I'll support it."

If that is accurate, I guess all the people who argued about "slippery slope" were indeed correct, no?

As a liberal I believe single-payer is the most efficient and effective way to go but I would settle for a public option. Yet I am completely ambivalent about this bill. I think it is a corrupted cluster**** and, therefore, I am more disillusioned than anything else.

Iowanian
03-20-2010, 09:36 PM
It basically depends if you like being shovel fed a load of steaming horse apples.

Bwana
03-20-2010, 09:48 PM
It depends on how much extra money you have to piss away to Uncle Sam.

alnorth
03-20-2010, 10:02 PM
Problem is the pre-existing conditions clause (which could be written on a two page separate bill and easily passed)

Well, thats not really true. Getting rid of pre-existing conditions does not work unless you force almost everyone to buy insurance.

The problem with allowing anyone and everyone to buy or not buy health insurance whenever they want, is that it then brings up a lot of moral hazard that would send insurance rates skyrocketing, if not outright killing the company.

Basically, you have a perverse economic incentive for people to decide not to buy insurance until 1 month before they need chemo. Thats why the bill has the health insurance mandate, despite how unpopular that was. Ironically, I think Obama campaigned against a mandate, then after he won he finally learned that yeah, it really is necessary if you want to get rid of pre-existing conditions.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 10:03 PM
I think you should support the bill, irish, because there's something in it for you and that's all that really matters.