PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues The whole "America hates this bill" thing being good for the GOP


ILChief
03-22-2010, 08:51 PM
While most polls, show 55-60% disapprove of the HC bill, I haven't seen one that tells WHY people disapprove. I'd say a fair amount (not most but a substantial number) of those that disapprove do so because they prefer a true single payer type system. Now if the GOP thinks those people are gonna vote for them they're out of their minds.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-22-2010, 08:55 PM
I don't disagree with this at all. I think the right is blowing this whole thing waaaay out of proportion. People knew this was the platform, they're just pissed that it was half assed.

This place will implode if the Republicans don't take the majority back.

Dottefan
03-22-2010, 08:56 PM
I don't disagree with this at all. I think the right is blowing this whole thing waaaay out of proportion. People knew this was the platform, they're just pissed that it was half assed.

This place will implode if the Republicans don't take the majority back.
If the old bastards in the DC lounge can live long enough to reach 2012

penchief
03-23-2010, 09:03 AM
While most polls, show 55-60% disapprove of the HC bill, I haven't seen one that tells WHY people disapprove. I'd say a fair amount (not most but a substantial number) of those that disapprove do so because they prefer a true single payer type system. Now if the GOP thinks those people are gonna vote for them they're out of their minds.

That's me. I disaproved of the bill for a number of reasons. But I sure as hell won't be voting to go back to what we had before. Not regarding health care, and not regarding corpo-repbulican government.

As I was channel surfing last night I saw a poll that combined the people who approved of the bill with those who disaproved of the bill because it didn't go far enough. That number bested the number who opposed the bill because it went too far by 10 points.

I think once the all the inflammatory rhetoric and distortions start to abate somewhat we'll see that the massive outrage republicans are counting on is being exaggerated by those who are doing their best to incite that outrage.

jjjayb
03-23-2010, 10:37 AM
Because I like the healthcare I have now. I work my ass off to pay for it and I'm very happy with the coverage I have. Don't jack with it.

I don't think a 20 year old slacker should be forced into buying healthcare if they don't want to. What's next? Forced into buying life insurance? Forced into buying a Chevy because it's for the greater good?

I don't think an employer should be forced to pay for empoyees healthcare. If you want health insurance at your job and I don't provide it, get a different job. I shouldn't be forced to provide it to you.

I don't think you should be able to go your whole life without health insurance, then decide you want to go ahead and get it when you become ill, and insurance companies are forced to provide insurance to you. Kinda defeats the purpose of "insurance".

Mostly, I hate the expansion of government. Everything the government touches is over costly and poorly run. And more than anything, we all know where this is leading. It's just the start of transforming into a single payer system. Too many high ranking democrats, Obama and Pelosi, for instance, have already stated it's their final intention and this is just a start in moving towards that direction.

petegz28
03-23-2010, 10:46 AM
This bill is an insurance bail out. Nothing more. It does nothing to make health care more affordable or improve it.

The Mad Crapper
03-23-2010, 10:47 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A of what a Moonbat doesn't sound like:



Because I like the healthcare I have now. I work my ass off to pay for it and I'm very happy with the coverage I have. Don't jack with it.

I don't think a 20 year old slacker should be forced into buying healthcare if they don't want to. What's next? Forced into buying life insurance? Forced into buying a Chevy because it's for the greater good?

I don't think an employer should be forced to pay for empoyees healthcare. If you want health insurance at your job and I don't provide it, get a different job. I shouldn't be forced to provide it to you.

I don't think you should be able to go your whole life without health insurance, then decide you want to go ahead and get it when you become ill, and insurance companies are forced to provide insurance to you. Kinda defeats the purpose of "insurance".

Mostly, I hate the expansion of government. Everything the government touches is over costly and poorly run. And more than anything, we all know where this is leading. It's just the start of transforming into a single payer system. Too many high ranking democrats, Obama and Pelosi, for instance, have already stated it's their final intention and this is just a start in moving towards that direction.

:clap:

mlyonsd
03-23-2010, 11:03 AM
It has little to do with what is in the bill as opposed to what it's going to cost and how it will be paid for.

That's the angle the republicans will use to their advantage. 2010-2020 will be about fiscal responsibility IMO.

The first party that can grab the public's attention with the idea they are the more fiscally responsible will advance. Unfortunately for the dems they have regained drunken sailor status when it comes to taxpayer's pocket books. The passing of this bill makes it darn near impossible to change that POV.

It appears the dem playbook now is to demonize republicans who point out the obvious....in no way does this bill reduce the deficit and in no way do health care costs level out. In the coming months this will be pointed out over and over again, as it should be.

The celebrating at the WH and in congress will be short lived.

kc rush
03-23-2010, 11:04 AM
While most polls, show 55-60% disapprove of the HC bill, I haven't seen one that tells WHY people disapprove. I'd say a fair amount (not most but a substantial number) of those that disapprove do so because they prefer a true single payer type system. Now if the GOP thinks those people are gonna vote for them they're out of their minds.

Here are the results of a CNN Poll -

CNN Poll Results Link (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf)


21. (IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough? QUESTIONS 20 AND 21 COMBINED
Mar 19-21 2010

Favor (from Question 20) 39%
Oppose, too liberal 43%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
No opinion 5%

There is other info in there, but it looks like most people feel they will be paying more, getting worse care, it will raise the deficit, and it creates too much govt involvement.

bowener
03-23-2010, 11:15 AM
It appears the dem playbook now is to demonize republicans who point out the obvious....

So they stole Karl Rove's playbook?

bowener
03-23-2010, 11:18 AM
Here are the results of a CNN Poll -

CNN Poll Results Link (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf)


21. (IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough? QUESTIONS 20 AND 21 COMBINED
Mar 19-21 2010

Favor (from Question 20) 39%
Oppose, too liberal 43%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
No opinion 5%

There is other info in there, but it looks like most people feel they will be paying more, getting worse care, it will raise the deficit, and it creates too much govt involvement.

Wait, what? From the info you just posted at the bottom it shows that 39% favor it and that 13% more want it to go further. That looks like the minority oppose it and think that they are paying more, getting worse care, raising the deficit, and creating too much government involvement.

CoMoChief
03-23-2010, 11:22 AM
Here are the results of a CNN Poll -

CNN Poll Results Link (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf)


21. (IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough? QUESTIONS 20 AND 21 COMBINED
Mar 19-21 2010

Favor (from Question 20) 39%
Oppose, too liberal 43%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
No opinion 5%

There is other info in there, but it looks like most people feel they will be paying more, getting worse care, it will raise the deficit, and it creates too much govt involvement.

That's exactly what willl happen.

kc rush
03-23-2010, 02:47 PM
Wait, what? From the info you just posted at the bottom it shows that 39% favor it and that 13% more want it to go further. That looks like the minority oppose it and think that they are paying more, getting worse care, raising the deficit, and creating too much government involvement.

The majority of the people (59%) oppose this for one reason or another according to the CNN poll.

The way I'm reading this (if you looked at the link), while it looks like only 43% oppose it because they feel it is too liberal, the majority of poll respondents feel they will be paying more, it will raise the deficit, and it creates too much govt involvement no matter whether they favor the bill or not.

I will correct myself in saying that majority feel they will get worse care. A small percentage (19%) feel they will be better off while a large percentage (47%) fell they will be worse off. There are 33% who feel they will be the same. (See Q #25 below).

Look at the link and let me know if you interpret the results differently.

24. From what you know of that legislation, do you think the amount you pay for medical care would increase, decrease, or remain the same if it becomes law?

Mar 19-21 2010

Increase 62%
Decrease 16%
Remain the same 21%
No opinion 1%

25. From what you know of that legislation, do you think you and your family would, in general, be better off, worse off or about the same if it becomes law?

Mar 19-21 2010

Better off 19%
Worse off 47%
About the same 33%
No opinion *

28. From what you know of that legislation, do you think the federal budget deficit will go up, go down, or stay the same if it becomes law?

Mar 19-21 2010

Go up 70%
Go down 12%
Stay the same 17%
No opinion 1%

29. In your view, does the Democratic party's health care proposal create too much government involvement in the nation's health care system, not enough government involvement, or about the right amount?

Mar 19-21 2010

Too much 56%
Not enough 16%
About the right amount 28%
No opinion *

bowener
03-23-2010, 03:12 PM
The majority of the people (59%) oppose this for one reason or another according to the CNN poll.

The way I'm reading this (if you looked at the link), while it looks like only 43% oppose it because they feel it is too liberal, the majority of poll respondents feel they will be paying more, it will raise the deficit, and it creates too much govt involvement no matter whether they favor the bill or not.

I will correct myself in saying that majority feel they will get worse care. A small percentage (19%) feel they will be better off while a large percentage (47%) fell they will be worse off. There are 33% who feel they will be the same. (See Q #25 below).

Look at the link and let me know if you interpret the results differently.

24. From what you know of that legislation, do you think the amount you pay for medical care would increase, decrease, or remain the same if it becomes law?

Mar 19-21 2010

Increase 62%
Decrease 16%
Remain the same 21%
No opinion 1%

25. From what you know of that legislation, do you think you and your family would, in general, be better off, worse off or about the same if it becomes law?

Mar 19-21 2010

Better off 19%
Worse off 47%
About the same 33%
No opinion *

28. From what you know of that legislation, do you think the federal budget deficit will go up, go down, or stay the same if it becomes law?

Mar 19-21 2010

Go up 70%
Go down 12%
Stay the same 17%
No opinion 1%

29. In your view, does the Democratic party's health care proposal create too much government involvement in the nation's health care system, not enough government involvement, or about the right amount?

Mar 19-21 2010

Too much 56%
Not enough 16%
About the right amount 28%
No opinion *

Currently in a hurry to leave so I can't check the link yet, but is there a question asking if those polled are at least VERY FAMILIAR with the new law? If there is, then they should only ask questions pertaining to the new law to people who are at least very familiar with it, otherwise it is all just rhetoric and hearsay.

I will correct myself in saying that majority feel they will get worse care. A small percentage (19%) feel they will be better off while a large percentage (47%) fell they will be worse off. There are 33% who feel they will be the same. (See Q #25 below).

From this portion, does that mean then that, if we combine those who feel it will not change with those that feel it will change for the better, or 52%, a majority actual feel they will get equal to better care?

Polls can be pretty fucking stupid because of the wording of questions and/or answers. This is one for instance. By saying "for better", "for worse", or "the same", it allows pollsters to state that the majority feel it will be worse, when in fact the majority feel it will change nothing or improve. Do you see what I am saying? Sorry if it is choppy or worded really shitty, but I have to run.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 04:03 PM
oh noess.... the people are upset...not
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx?version=print

Gallup/Usa Today taken on Monday says 49% approve of the bill, 40% disapprove of the bill.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:06 PM
oh noess.... the people are upset...not
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx?version=print

Gallup/Usa Today taken on Monday says 49% approve of the bill, 40% disapprove of the bill.

And once upon a time people aproved of the Iraq War. WTF is your point? Once they see what a failure this thing is they won't like it.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 04:11 PM
And once upon a time people aproved of the Iraq War. WTF is your point? Once they see what a failure this thing is they won't like it.My point? Are you paying attention? The Republicans say the vast majority of Americans hate this bill. What they hate is the lies sold to them, not the ideas in the bill.

I think people are going to love this legislation when they find out what is really in it and there are no death panels, your not going to be thrown in jail if you don't get insurance, the government isn't going to ration their health care and evey other lie that Republicans told them.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:12 PM
I think people are going to love this legislation when they find out what is really in it and there are no death panels, your not going to be thrown in jail if you don't get insurance, the government isn't going to ration their health care and evey other lie that Republicans told them.

What happens if you don't report your taxes?

There might not be rationing of healthcare but the quality might go down and certainly the prices will go up.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 04:14 PM
And once upon a time people aproved of the Iraq War. WTF is your point? Once they see what a failure this thing is they won't like it.

The difference being people approved of the Iraq War because of lies.

People approve of this piece of legislation in spite of lies.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 04:17 PM
What happens if you don't report your taxes?

What happens now when you don't pay your taxes? Nothing has changed.

There might not be rationing of healthcare but the quality might go down and certainly the prices will go up.Prices are going to go up no matter what. This is all about bending the cost curve, not frezzing prices.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:18 PM
The difference being people approved of the Iraq War because of lies.

People approve of this piece of legislation in spite of lies.

No this bill is also a lie. You don't just force 30 million more people to by private insurance and not see an increase in price. Centralized economic planning has never worked in the 20th century.

KC Dan
03-23-2010, 04:19 PM
What happens now when you don't pay your taxes? Nothing has changed. Prices are going to go up no matter what. This is all about bending the cost curve, not frezzing prices. (if we pay)Yep, tax liens & jail

The only bending will be by people getting subsidies which we will all pay for in taxes

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:19 PM
What happens now when you don't pay your taxes? Nothing has changed.
Prices are going to go up no matter what. This is all about bending the cost curve, not frezzing prices.

The fact is you'll be required to report if you pay for heath insurance on your taxes.

Bullshit a better plan could and would actually reduce cost. It's called competition the free market works when we let it.

mlyonsd
03-23-2010, 04:22 PM
The difference being people approved of the Iraq War because of lies.

People approve of this piece of legislation in spite of lies.

By that logic the CBO report could be considered a lie.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 04:24 PM
Yep, tax liens & jail

The only bending will be by people getting subsidies which we will all pay for in taxesI'm pretty sure they took out jail time out of the bill as a possible consequence.

But I'm not happy about forcing people to buy health insurance. I don't like the idea of the government forcing its citzens to buy something. But I do see the point. Some young dude is making good money but declines health insurance. He wrecks his motorcycle and we the taxpayer get stuck with the hospital bill.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 04:24 PM
The difference being people approved of the Iraq War because of lies.

People approve of this piece of legislation in spite of lies.



cough (clearing my throat) people don't approve of this legislation

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:25 PM
The fact that they aren't allowing reimportation of medicine from Canada tells you alot about whos running the show.

orange
03-23-2010, 04:25 PM
cough (clearing my throat) people don't approve of this legislation

*ahem* see post #15. :doh!:

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 04:30 PM
No this bill is also a lie. You don't just force 30 million more people to by private insurance and not see an increase in price. Centralized economic planning has never worked in the 20th century.

Yeah, it's almost like

<del>It's completely state owned

Rates weren't escalating at astronomical prices (making ours the highest in the world for 39th ranked care </del>

billay, here's a little tip for you:

1) When insurances companies are privately owned and totally unregulated, they, like any corporation will be about one thing: creating as much profit as possible for their stockholders.

Well, how does one do that? Paring the rolls helps, not covering conditions helps, and jacking up rates helps. Furthermore, passing the buck to the government for the undesirables who then get charged out the ass by hospitals.

No one is claiming that rates are going to go back to 1984 prices. The point is to reduce the rate of change.

Well, explain this to me:

1) If it covers more people
2) If it cuts the budget
3) If it prevents people from being tossed on their ass when they get sick


Why is this the epitome of all that is evil?

You need to get over the thought that there is perfect legislation. It doesn't exist in a democracy (or a Republic). One of the reasons why Plato mentioned democracies are inherently inefficient in the Republic is precisely due to this. Concessions will be made. Flaws will be apparent. But if one applies the hedonistic calculus of Jeremy Benthem (basically greatest good for the greatest number) and it turns out that it has helped more people than it has harmed, then it's beneficial legislation.

I hate to break this to you, but "Government" doesn't equal "Corporation". Government's aren't bound by maximizing profits, and they don't work in the sociopathic way that corporations do. Even if this operates at a loss (comparitively it won't, it saves money), even then it could still be beneficial.

We don't live in an asocial world. This "gotta get mine" mentality is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are presented the illusion of the possibility of getting yours, all the while those who really have a chance to get it benefit from your vote and your support.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 04:31 PM
*ahem* see post #15. :doh!:

I saw it...a short boost was expected. As Americans learn more about it, the quick boost will evaporate imo. We should see nancy and harry approvals go up soon :doh!:

Any guesses on how much insurance premiums will go up ?

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 04:33 PM
*ahem* see post #15. :doh!:He's only listening to Rush and watching Fox News. He has no idea whats happening outside of his cocoon.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 04:35 PM
The fact is you'll be required to report if you pay for heath insurance on your taxes.

No you dont, if you dont mind paying an extra $695 or +1%.

This is basically an income tax increase on everyone, combined with a way to get out of the tax increase.

mlyonsd
03-23-2010, 04:36 PM
He's only listening to Rush and watching Fox News. He has no idea whats happening outside of his cocoon.

BTW Fox News just quoted the part in the new legislation that states a person can't go to jail by not buying health insurance, or, interestingly enough, the IRS can't put a lien on their property for the same reason.

But after reading your post I'm not sure I can believe the Fox report or not.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:38 PM
Yeah, it's almost like

<del>It's completely state owned

Rates weren't escalating at astronomical prices (making ours the highest in the world for 39th ranked care </del>

billay, here's a little tip for you:

1) When insurances companies are privately owned and totally unregulated, they, like any corporation will be about one thing: creating as much profit as possible for their stockholders.

Well, how does one do that? Paring the rolls helps, not covering conditions helps, and jacking up rates helps. Furthermore, passing the buck to the government for the undesirables who then get charged out the ass by hospitals.

No one is claiming that rates are going to go back to 1984 prices. The point is to reduce the rate of change.

Well, explain this to me:

1) If it covers more people
2) If it cuts the budget
3) If it prevents people from being tossed on their ass when they get sick


Why is this the epitome of all that is evil?

You need to get over the thought that there is perfect legislation. It doesn't exist in a democracy (or a Republic). One of the reasons why Plato mentioned democracies are inherently inefficient in the Republic is precisely due to this. Concessions will be made. Flaws will be apparent. But if one applies the hedonistic calculus of Jeremy Benthem (basically greatest good for the greatest number) and it turns out that it has helped more people than it has harmed, then it's beneficial legislation.

I hate to break this to you, but "Government" doesn't equal "Corporation". Government's aren't bound by maximizing profits, and they don't work in the sociopathic way that corporations do. Even if this operates at a loss (comparitively it won't, it saves money), even then it could still be beneficial.

We don't live in an asocial world. This "gotta get mine" mentality is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are presented the illusion of the possibility of getting yours, all the while those who really have a chance to get it benefit from your vote and your support.

Show me a peice of legislation the last 20 years that hasn't favored corporations. With all the lobbyist and money going around in DC they have to listen to what the corporations say. Why do you think Dennis Kuchnich called this a bailout for the insurance industry then voted for it? My guess is he likes his job and had he voted aginst he wouldn't make it past his primary.
Howcome stocks have gone up for the insurance and medicine industry everytime there was news that a bill was closer to passing?

There may never be a perfect bill but theres certainly ones much better than this. Again the best bill is the one that creates the most competition. If companies have to compete for consumers they'll be less inclined to fuck them over.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 04:39 PM
BRC, for some one who didn't want the bill passed, you sure are bending yourself into a pretzel to kiss the feet of Obama.

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:41 PM
Also Hamas we've seen incremental involvement from the government in the health care industry for years they've helped drive up the price of insurance. A few months ago I gave an example of how lasik eyesurgery has very little government involvement and there hasn't been a huge increase in price. It's because those doctors are allowed to compete for business with not interference.

mlyonsd
03-23-2010, 04:44 PM
2) If it cuts the budget


So if it doesn't, and it won't, the statement 'Obama lied us into Health Care reform' is a fair one, right?

Chocolate Hog
03-23-2010, 04:45 PM
Obama already lied he said he wasn't going to raised taxes on the middle class.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 04:45 PM
1) If it covers more people
2) If it cuts the budget
3) If it prevents people from being tossed on their ass when they get sick


To be fair, #2 is highly suspect. There's a reason why they only asked the CBO to look at ten years. (to satisfy the senate reconciliation rule). There's a reason why the new taxes hit long before the new coverage, just so they could squeek right under being a net loss by 2020.

It might be neutral over the next 10 years. After those ten years are up, the dems are theoretically hoping it stays neutral through the magic of unicorns and wishful thinking. (we'll find enough waste and fraud to somehow cut medical care costs without more legislation.)

To the left, if this thing is bleeding red ink after 10 years, we'll worry about that when it happens. UHC is a moral imperitive, and if we have to raise taxes, borrow, or reduce coverage, then so be it.

To the right, they are basically obsessed over the budget to the exclusion of all else, because their voters typically have little to no insurance problems, so they politically dont have to care about the uninsured.

Calcountry
03-23-2010, 05:11 PM
I don't disagree with this at all. I think the right is blowing this whole thing waaaay out of proportion. People knew this was the platform, they're just pissed that it was half assed.

This place will implode if the Republicans don't take the majority back.Yes, of course. I am being just too full of myself, if I think that Scott Brown was elected to Ted Kennedy's seat, because there were enough dimwitted dumbasses like meme living there, that thought that Obama was Bush "lite".

I had better humble myself right now.

CoMoChief
03-23-2010, 05:12 PM
He's only listening to Rush and watching Fox News. He has no idea whats happening outside of his cocoon.

Meanwhile you libs think that the money fairy comes at night and funds our govt then we make great decisions like passing large costly legislation that will drown this country forever in debt. Of course libs will just turn their heads away from the actual numbers (which is what exactly Obama did at the HC summit, called them "talking points" like they didn't matter) Which in fact it DOES matter and libs just don't care, they just want to turn around and point fingers at GWB and the Iraq war. That's really their ONLY defense, a weak one, since Obama's already outspent GWB in just one yr being POTUS.

KC Dan
03-23-2010, 05:14 PM
A. Congress will not cut Medicare by $500 Billion (no way, no how - they never have cut it)

B. Congress (in the future) will never allow the Cadillac tax to be enacted (union support will preclude)

C. Congress will never NOT perform the doctor fix

There is no way on earth that this expansion will ever be paid for. It will massively add to the debt

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 05:28 PM
A. Congress will not cut Medicare by $500 Billion (no way, no how - they never have cut it)

B. Congress (in the future) will never allow the Cadillac tax to be enacted (union support will preclude)

C. Congress will never NOT perform the doctor fix

There is no way on earth that this expansion will ever be paid for. It will massively add to the debt

:thumb:

Look out dude, some on here will soon tell you the sky is falling and some will go as far and call you retarded. You and I both know you are right.

KC Dan
03-23-2010, 05:31 PM
:thumb:

Look out dude, some on here will soon tell you the sky is falling and some will go as far and call you retarded. You and I both know you are right.They can call me that if they wish, but they have no proof that any of that will come to pass and I have years of proof that they will not do what they say. The Congress never has and they are liars. Game over...

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 05:34 PM
Show me a peice of legislation the last 20 years that hasn't favored corporations. With all the lobbyist and money going around in DC they have to listen to what the corporations say. Why do you think Dennis Kuchnich called this a bailout for the insurance industry then voted for it? My guess is he likes his job and had he voted aginst he wouldn't make it past his primary.
Howcome stocks have gone up for the insurance and medicine industry everytime there was news that a bill was closer to passing?

There may never be a perfect bill but theres certainly ones much better than this. Again the best bill is the one that creates the most competition. If companies have to compete for consumers they'll be less inclined to fuck them over.

The 1870s, 1890s, 1920s, 1980s, and 2000s, eras of the highest amounts of deregulation (and thus, competition) post Civil War, disagree with you.

Furthermore, Kucinich wants a single payer system. I happen to agree with him. However, when faced between voting against this legislation (and it failing) and keeping the status quo, or introducing something that both extends coverage and cuts the deficit, he made a pragmatic decision.

If you don't believe me, then ask the man himself. He said the same thing on "Real Time" on Friday.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 05:39 PM
They can call me that if they wish, but they have no proof that any of that will come to pass and I have years of proof that they will not do what they say. The Congress never has and they are liars. Game over...


Absolutley ! Only a fool could even think that this bill will lower the deficit in 10 years.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-23-2010, 05:42 PM
To be fair, #2 is highly suspect. There's a reason why they only asked the CBO to look at ten years. (to satisfy the senate reconciliation rule). There's a reason why the new taxes hit long before the new coverage, just so they could squeek right under being a net loss by 2020.

It might be neutral over the next 10 years. After those ten years are up, the dems are theoretically hoping it stays neutral through the magic of unicorns and wishful thinking. (we'll find enough waste and fraud to somehow cut medical care costs without more legislation.)

To the left, if this thing is bleeding red ink after 10 years, we'll worry about that when it happens. UHC is a moral imperitive, and if we have to raise taxes, borrow, or reduce coverage, then so be it.

To the right, they are basically obsessed over the budget to the exclusion of all else, because their voters typically have little to no insurance problems, so they politically dont have to care about the uninsured.

Then why did the CBO project the next ten years after that and say it would save 1.2 trillion, primarily due to cuts in the growth of Medicaid?

Look up the amended letter sent from the CBO to Reid, specifically pages 16-18.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 05:48 PM
what do you think will happen when you force insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions? lol..that is just insane

alnorth
03-23-2010, 06:02 PM
what do you think will happen when you force insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions? lol..that is just insane

the theory is that the mandate to buy insurance will balance it out, or at least lead to a smaller increase.

Group health insurers who insure employees of large companies also have to take everyone, even if some of them have cancer or need a heart transplant. The secret is that the younger people of that company also pay in.

Imagine if car insurance companies could not consider any factors at all when rating, not age, sex, driving record, credit history, nothing, just one single rate for everyone in the state. Obviously if its not mandatory you might have the drunken idiots signing on while careful drivers decide to take a chance, but if everyone has to buy the insurance, well... an overall average rate works.

Its not like we aren't already indirectly paying for those uninsured patients who rack up million dollar bills. Hospital has to eat that, so they charge more for people who have insurance. Now instead of the hospital eating it and passing on the cost, those sick people will be on the books directly. We will need the insurance companies to go to the hospital and bargain those health care costs down though if the hospital is no longer eating as many uninsured costs to pass on.

What could raise costs is the removal of annual and lifetime caps, but those caps are crap anyway and need to go regardless. What good is your insurance if you have cancer (which could easily blow through any million-dollar cap)? I'm willing to pay a little more to have no annual limit in case I get really screwed up.

Another thing that might increase costs is if we currently have uninsured people (stupidly) choosing not to get treatment and getting sicker or dying because they are afraid of oweing money. Well, now they will come in too.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 06:10 PM
the theory is that the mandate to buy insurance will balance it out, or at least lead to a smaller increase.

Group health insurers who insure employees of large companies also have to take everyone, even if some of them have cancer or need a heart transplant. The secret is that the younger people of that company also pay in.

Imagine if car insurance companies could not consider any factors at all when rating, not age, sex, driving record, credit history, nothing, just one single rate for everyone in the state. Obviously if its not mandatory you might have the drunken idiots signing on while careful drivers decide to take a chance, but if everyone has to buy the insurance, well... an overall average rate works.

Its not like we aren't already indirectly paying for those uninsured patients who rack up million dollar bills. Hospital has to eat that, so they charge more for people who have insurance. Now instead of the hospital eating it and passing on the cost, those sick people will be on the books directly. We will need the insurance companies to go to the hospital and bargain those health care costs down though if the hospital is no longer eating as many uninsured costs to pass on.
Car insurance is a necessity because you drive your car on public roads. if a drunk driver does not want to drive (when he has the chance to get his license back) he doesnt pay insurance surcharges. but he has a choice. ;)

NOBODY knows either way whether this will work or not. and like family health insurance plans if you already have a preexisting condition you should be screened because you will become a VERY expensive customer and your premiums will be very high (as they should be)



I just get a kick out of the supporters saying with 100% assurance that this will work when the fucking President or anybody else doesnt know.

RedNeckRaider
03-23-2010, 06:13 PM
Absolutley ! Only a fool could even think that this bill will lower the deficit in 10 years.

What are you talking about??? They say we will get more for less and millions more people will be covered and it will lower the deficit. Are you saying that I am being mislead?

alnorth
03-23-2010, 06:15 PM
Car insurance is a necessity because you drive your car on public roads. if a drunk driver does not want to drive (when he has the chance to get his license back) he doesnt pay insurance surcharges. but he has a choice. ;)

NOBODY knows either way whether this will work or not. and like family health insurance plans if you already have a preexisting condition you should be screened because you will become a VERY expensive customer and your premiums will be very high (as they should be)



I just get a kick out of the supporters saying with 100% assurance that this will work when the ****ing President or anybody else doesnt know.

You are trying to answer an argument I did not make. I did not go to the typical "well, we have to buy car insurance, so we should also have to buy health insurance too, so THERE!"

Put down your talking points and read what I wrote. I'm explaining why taking in sick people isn't automatically a financial disaster in and of itself, since we also take in healthy people, and because employer health plans basically do this now, and we already indirectly pay for uninsured people who seek treatment anyway. I could have just as easily used group life insurance as my example.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 06:18 PM
You are trying to answer an argument I did not make. I did not go to the typical "well, we have to buy car insurance, so we should also have to buy health insurance too, so THERE!"

Put down your talking points and read what I wrote. I'm explaining why taking in sick people isn't automatically a financial disaster in and of itself, since we also take in healthy people, and we already indirectly pay for uninsured people who seek treatment anyway. I could have just as easily used group life insurance as my example..

LOL! what talking points? answer my question. how do you know this will work? answer : you don't. so um you put down the talking points. god knows how much fraud and illegals will be included in this thing too.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 06:44 PM
LOL! what talking points? answer my question. how do you know this will work? answer : you don't. so um you put down the talking points. god knows how much fraud and illegals will be included in this thing too.

Here, let me give a detailed example. I honestly think you dont know what I'm saying, and that is my fault for not being clear.

----------------------------------

Without UHC: There are 5 people in this city, 4 of them are healthy and have insurance, the 5th one is unemployed, cant afford insurance, has cancer, and is uninsured.

There is one hospital and one insurance company (insuring those 4 people) in the city. To make the math easier, both of these companies are non-profit and have no expenses. (we can make the math more complicated if you want, but it makes no difference to this example)

The uninsured person with cancer knows the hospital has to treat him, and he doesn't care about the cost. He just wont pay the bill, and if the bill collectors get too obnoxious, he'll just declare bankruptcy. His bill (that he won't pay) is expected to be $1,000. The 4 insured healthy people are expected to have claims of about $400.

The hospital's total cost is $1,400. They know the guy with cancer wont pay, so they pass the cost on. The insurance company for the 4 insured healthy guys get billed for $1,400. The insurance company therefore asks for a premium of $1,400 / 4 = $350. Each of the 4 people have to pay $350 for their insurance.

-----------------------------------

With UHC: Same as before, except the 4 healthy people, who are middle-class, are taxed to help the 5th guy buy insurance, and the insurance company can't bar him or charge him more.

The cost to the hospital is again $1,400. This time everyone has insurance. Again, the hospital bills the insurance company $1,400. The insurance company asks for a premium of 1,400 / 5 = $280. The 4 middle-class healthy guys have to pay $280 for their insurance. The city also taxes these 4 middle-class healthy guys $70 each to pay for the insurance for the 5th guy with cancer. Total out-of-pocket expense is $350 for each of them.

----------------------------------

I'm not suggesting this bill is guaranteed to be a net wash, because as I mentioned above in my earlier post, there are other things (that unsinsured sick guy would have decided not to get treatment because he's afraid of getting a bill, so he just dies and no one would have had to pay for it) that could increase the cost. However, since we are basically paying for the medical treatment of that uninsured guy when he does go to the hospital anyway, its not like adding him will automatically spike the premium for everybody, especially since we'll be adding more healthy people.

I guess if you currently are one of the few who have an individual plan (not from your employer), and the underwriters decided you were in terrific health and deserve a discount, you might (I don't know the exact details of what they can and cant rate for now) go back to just an "average" rate instead of a "better than average" rate.

Anyway, yes our taxes are low, but the amount of money we pay for health care per person is astounding, and blows away the amount that european countries pay per person for health care.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 06:55 PM
With UHC: Same as before, except the 4 healthy people, who are middle-class, are taxed to help the 5th guy buy insurance, and the insurance company can't bar him or charge him more.

Al, I have a problem with that. I understand your point. my point is make these people earn a living and buy their own health insurance.

Look, I pay $411 a month for my health insurance. I can never pay out of pocket more than $1200 in one calendar year no matter what happens to me. looking at the big picture I like my health insurance (even though its fucking pricey)

The other thing that concerns me is how many illegals will be gobbling this up too. is there any fraud protection in this bureaucracy?

alnorth
03-23-2010, 06:58 PM
adding one more thing that is obvious, but want to make sure people dont think I just ignored it.

The biggest risk to increasing costs is the fact that people without insurance would currently be likely to "tough it out", never get exams or check-ups, and only go to the hospital when they are bleeding and oozing multi-colored fluid.

The cost of routine procedures and exams probably will be a net added cost to the system, but it will at least mitigate some of the big expenses. There's a reason why my insurance (which has a huge deductible) gives me one free exam with no deductible per year. If I have a problem, they want to catch it early while it is still cheap, before something serious develops and it gets expensive.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 07:03 PM
Al, I have a problem with that. I understand your point. my point is make these people earn a living and buy their own health insurance.

Look, I pay $411 a month for my health insurance. I can never pay out of pocket more than $1200 in one calendar year no matter what happens to me. looking at the big picture I like my health insurance (even though its ****ing pricey)

The other thing that concerns me is how many illegals will be gobbling this up too. is there any fraud protection in this bureaucracy?

Great. Tell that to the kid born with health problems and the insurance company refuses to let him be kept on the parent's health care. Tell that to the stay-at-home mom who was covered on her husband's plan, who decided he was no longer in love and divorces her ass. Without marketable skills, maybe she gets a job at McDonald's and cant afford insurance.

People who are uninsured aren't all deadbeats who "deserve it". We've been taking the easy way out this whole time, by rationing health care away from the poor. I happen to believe in UHC, which would also have to be paid for.

My problem is that the democratic solution is nowhere close to what I would've chosen, but since the GOP was dead-set against any UHC and was fine with continuing to let people be uninsured, there wasn't much alternative. They certainly didn't think it was worth looking at very much when they had total power for 4 years during the Bush era.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 07:15 PM
I don't disagree with this at all. I think the right is blowing this whole thing waaaay out of proportion. People knew this was the platform, they're just pissed that it was half assed.

This place will implode if the Republicans don't take the majority back.

No sensible political professional that I know of is predicting that the Republicans are likely to take back both houses of Congress in November. In the Senate, at best, they have an outside shot at it, but more likely, they will just narrow the dem majority by gaining 4-6 seats. In the House the story is different and there's a decent chance they can do it, but I don't know if they'd be favored to do it or not. They've got a lot of ground to make up and the democrats have a long time to sooth the irritation over healthcare.

I'm going to say that they narrowly take back the House and that they end up with 45 Republican Senators.

Bwana
03-23-2010, 07:15 PM
ROFL

I think you are in for one hell of a shock in November.

Bill Parcells
03-23-2010, 07:16 PM
Great. Tell that to the kid born with health problems and the insurance company refuses to let him be kept on the parent's health care. Tell that to the stay-at-home mom who was covered on her husband's plan, who decided he was no longer in love and divorces her ass. Without marketable skills, maybe she gets a job at McDonald's and cant afford insurance.

People who are uninsured aren't all deadbeats who "deserve it". We've been taking the easy way out this whole time, by rationing health care away from the poor. I happen to believe in UHC, which would also have to be paid for.

My problem is that the democratic solution is nowhere close to what I would've chosen, but since the GOP was dead-set against any UHC and was fine with continuing to let people be uninsured, there wasn't much alternative. They certainly didn't think it was worth looking at very much when they had total power for 4 years during the Bush era.
Listen, I have a friend who's had throat cancer for 6 years now. he was supposed to be dead 6 years ago. he has a wife and 2 kids. you know how he has stayed alive and amazed the doctors here in the us of A? he had to go to the bahamas back in 2006 when he was still in good shape for a radical cancer treatment. he goes back every 6 months and brings back a special freeze dried elixir that he has to inject himself with for the rest of his life. the initial visit cost 21k dollars. the treatment is not legal in the US..lol

I am not fine with everybody being uninsured. but this thing has been ram rodded through all because somebody's legacy is at stake. IMHO fixing the economy was way more on top of the priority list than this thing.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 07:18 PM
ROFL

I think you are in for one hell of a shock in November.
http://www.gallup.com/tag/Healthcare.aspx
Poll taken Monday
For the bill 48%
Against 40%

patteeu
03-23-2010, 07:19 PM
That's me. I disaproved of the bill for a number of reasons. But I sure as hell won't be voting to go back to what we had before. Not regarding health care, and not regarding corpo-repbulican government.

As I was channel surfing last night I saw a poll that combined the people who approved of the bill with those who disaproved of the bill because it didn't go far enough. That number bested the number who opposed the bill because it went too far by 10 points.

I think once the all the inflammatory rhetoric and distortions start to abate somewhat we'll see that the massive outrage republicans are counting on is being exaggerated by those who are doing their best to incite that outrage.

When the distortions abate, people will see that this bill isn't really going to reduce their insurance premiums by $2500 or whatever ludicrous claim the pro-reform side was making.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 07:21 PM
Listen, I have a friend who's had throat cancer for 6 years now. he was supposed to be dead 6 years ago. he has a wife and 2 kids. you know how he has stayed alive and amazed the doctors here in the us of A? he had to go to the bahamas back in 2006 when he was still in good shape for a radical cancer treatment. he goes back every 6 months and brings back a special freeze dried elixir that he has to inject himself with for the rest of his life. the initial visit cost 21k dollars. the treatment is not legal in the US..lol

I am not fine with everybody being uninsured. but this thing has been ram rodded through all because somebody's legacy is at stake. IMHO fixing the economy was way more on top of the priority list than this thing.

fair enough.

Bwana
03-23-2010, 07:21 PM
http://www.gallup.com/tag/Healthcare.aspx
Poll taken Monday
For the bill 48%
Against 40%

BRC: I have also seen polls that go the other direction. I still say shit is going to hit the fan in November. I guess will will both know in five months.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 07:24 PM
BRC: I have also seen polls that go the other direction. I still say shit is going to hit the fan in November. I guess will will both know in five months.You haven't seen other polls since health care passed, There will be loss's. there always is during a mid term. This year won't be different. But how much will be dependent on the economy, not health care.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 07:26 PM
BRC: I have also seen polls that go the other direction. I still say shit is going to hit the fan in November. I guess will will both know in five months.

I believe that the GOP thinks they are larger than they really are.

The polls are misleading because a very large portion of the "oppose" vote were upset because they wanted the dems to go for single-payer, basically full-blown socialized medicine. Those "this bill is too conservative" voters are not voting for republicans.

The republicans are still likely to win in November, because the dems have an enormous number of seats to defend in an off-year, but I am not yet convinced they will retake the house.

A few dem senators who are in traditionally red states are having a tough year. Barbara Boxer is also in serious trouble in CA, which is quite a fluke, she is losing to a very moderate republican (pro-abortion, wants to legalize marijuana, agrees with full-blown gay marriage, will do anything to balance the budget, even raise taxes if needed) If he wins, the GOP will celebrate Boxer's retirement for half a year, then spend the other 5.5 years calling him a RINO.

Bwana
03-23-2010, 07:27 PM
You haven't seen other polls since health care passed, There will be loss's. there always is during a mid term. This year won't be different. But how much will be dependent on the economy, not health care.

If the economy does a 180 in the next 5 months, you're right. Do you HONESTLY see that happening?

Bwana
03-23-2010, 07:30 PM
I believe that the GOP thinks they are larger than they really are.

The polls are misleading because a very large portion of the "oppose" vote were upset because they wanted the dems to go for single-payer, basically full-blown socialized medicine. Those "this bill is too conservative" voters are not voting for republicans.

The republicans are still likely to win in November, because the dems have an enormous number of seats to defend in an off-year, but I am not yet convinced they will retake the house.

A few dem senators who are in traditionally red states are having a tough year. Barbara Boxer is also in serious trouble in CA, which is quite a fluke, she is losing to a very moderate republican (agrees with full-blown gay marriage, will do anything to balance the budget, even raise taxes if needed) If he wins, the GOP will celebrate Boxer's retirement for half a year, then spend the other 5.5 years calling him a RINO.

You may be right, but unless the economy tracks is a very positve direction before November, the republicans gain a lot of seats.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 07:34 PM
Yep, tax liens & jail

The only bending will be by people getting subsidies which we will all pay for in taxes

And people bending over when the tax man comes.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 07:34 PM
You may be right, but unless the economy tracks is a very positve direction before November, the republicans gain a lot of seats.On this we can agree.

Bwana
03-23-2010, 07:36 PM
On this we can agree.

Do you see the economy doing a 180 in the next five months BRC?

patteeu
03-23-2010, 07:37 PM
Yeah, it's almost like

<del>It's completely state owned

Rates weren't escalating at astronomical prices (making ours the highest in the world for 39th ranked care </del>

billay, here's a little tip for you:

1) When insurances companies are privately owned and totally unregulated, they, like any corporation will be about one thing: creating as much profit as possible for their stockholders.

Well, how does one do that? Paring the rolls helps, not covering conditions helps, and jacking up rates helps. Furthermore, passing the buck to the government for the undesirables who then get charged out the ass by hospitals.

No one is claiming that rates are going to go back to 1984 prices. The point is to reduce the rate of change.

Well, explain this to me:

1) If it covers more people
2) If it cuts the budget
3) If it prevents people from being tossed on their ass when they get sick


Why is this the epitome of all that is evil?

You need to get over the thought that there is perfect legislation. It doesn't exist in a democracy (or a Republic). One of the reasons why Plato mentioned democracies are inherently inefficient in the Republic is precisely due to this. Concessions will be made. Flaws will be apparent. But if one applies the hedonistic calculus of Jeremy Benthem (basically greatest good for the greatest number) and it turns out that it has helped more people than it has harmed, then it's beneficial legislation.

I hate to break this to you, but "Government" doesn't equal "Corporation". Government's aren't bound by maximizing profits, and they don't work in the sociopathic way that corporations do. Even if this operates at a loss (comparitively it won't, it saves money), even then it could still be beneficial.

We don't live in an asocial world. This "gotta get mine" mentality is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are presented the illusion of the possibility of getting yours, all the while those who really have a chance to get it benefit from your vote and your support.

You must know absolutely nothing about the insurance industry if you think it's completely unregulated. It's one of the more regulated industries in our society.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 07:38 PM
What are you talking about??? They say we will get more for less and millions more people will be covered and it will lower the deficit. Are you saying that I am being mislead?

What they are saying is that they want you to bend over and like it...and pay
for it too.

BigRedChief
03-23-2010, 07:41 PM
Do you see the economy doing a 180 in the next five months BRC?No. Just a slow steady recovery. But we will never return to the old days. We don't make chit anymore. Just how are we suppose to grow an economy wthout making anything? There are only so many jobs moving the exsisting money from one company to another company.

alnorth
03-23-2010, 07:46 PM
No. Just a slow steady recovery. But we will never return to the old days. We don't make chit anymore. Just how are we suppose to grow an economy wthout making anything? There are only so many jobs moving the exsisting money from one company to another company.

Just because we don't make every single thing we use anymore (ignoring exotic things like diamonds and bananas) doesn't mean we export nothing.

First, some things are still economically worth making here than importing. Aside from that, our export market is pretty much focused on food, financial services, luxery items, and high-end technical goods.

Protective tariffs are counter-productive, we cant shield US industries that are extremely inefficient compared to the rest of the world. Steel and textiles are gone and not coming back, we've moved on.

patteeu
03-23-2010, 07:46 PM
Then why did the CBO project the next ten years after that and say it would save 1.2 trillion, primarily due to cuts in the growth of Medicaid?

Look up the amended letter sent from the CBO to Reid, specifically pages 16-18.

Because they were asked to score unrealistic assumptions. Can you honestly say you have any faith in projections that are 10 - 20 years out? Come on. You're too smart to be peddling this garbage.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 07:51 PM
If the economy does a 180 in the next 5 months, you're right. Do you HONESTLY see that happening?

It has a much greater chance of heading south again before it does the 180 to the good. 2.2 million houses in forclosure now with the average house payment on those forclosed homes being 18 months in the rears.

In 2009, 140 banks were taken over by the FDIC, 7 in the last week, 37 this year already, with estimates of 140 this year and double that the next year !!!

How many states are delaying tax refunds ?

What does that up to, Massachusettes voting for a Republican.

Chief Henry
03-23-2010, 08:39 PM
http://www.gallup.com/tag/Healthcare.aspx
Poll taken Monday
For the bill 48%
Against 40%


oops or should I say oh noess...the people ARE upset

Rasmussen poll shows that 49% of the people want the states to sue to stop the bill, compared to 37% that don't want the states to sue.

BWillie
03-24-2010, 12:36 AM
I don't think you should be able to go your whole life without health insurance, then decide you want to go ahead and get it when you become ill, and insurance companies are forced to provide insurance to you. Kinda defeats the purpose of "insurance".


Exactly. It's a bunch of crap. Why would someone want to cover a pre-existing condition in the first place? That is like buying a house that was destroyed by a fire, buying fire insurance, and getting payment for a new house. It's called insurance, it's not called CHARITY.

I get shafted at my employer w/ my health insurance. I'm a 27 year old healthy non-smoking male. I work out regularly. I am never ill. I've worked four years for my company and have used zero sick days. I pay the same premium as a 62 year old fat ass w/ emphysema who chain smokes all day and eats twinkies all day. I love subsidizing fat asses and people who throw their health down the shitter w/ little regard. But the insurance company doesn't have a choice.

I honestly am not opposed to some gov't funding for those extremely ill w/ a disease that they didn't self induce. Or some health care for the elderly and extreme poor, oh wait, we already have that. It's called medicaid and medicare.

If you drink like a fish every day for your entire life, and develop cirrhosis. Pay for your f*cking bills. If you are a skateboarder and you face plant down a flight of stairs. Foot your own medical bills or insurance premium. Have some personal accountability, don't expect people more successful than you to pay your sh*t.

BigRedChief
03-24-2010, 06:17 AM
Exactly. It's a bunch of crap. Why would someone want to cover a pre-existing condition in the first place? That is like buying a house that was destroyed by a fire, buying fire insurance, and getting payment for a new house. It's called insurance, it's not called CHARITY.

I get shafted at my employer w/ my health insurance. I'm a 27 year old healthy non-smoking male. I work out regularly. I am never ill. I've worked four years for my company and have used zero sick days. I pay the same premium as a 62 year old fat ass w/ emphysema who chain smokes all day and eats twinkies all day. I love subsidizing fat asses and people who throw their health down the shitter w/ little regard. But the insurance company doesn't have a choice.

I honestly am not opposed to some gov't funding for those extremely ill w/ a disease that they didn't self induce. Or some health care for the elderly and extreme poor, oh wait, we already have that. It's called medicaid and medicare.

If you drink like a fish every day for your entire life, and develop cirrhosis. Pay for your f*cking bills. If you are a skateboarder and you face plant down a flight of stairs. Foot your own medical bills or insurance premium. Have some personal accountability, don't expect people more successful than you to pay your sh*t.This is all good theory and valid points. But, where the rubber meets the road it falls apart. The fact that the skateboarder face plants and is taken to the ER where he get treated. He has no money. Who pays? Me and you. Whats your solution for that? Deny him care? Have guards at our ER's deny entry unless you have cash? You don't think there will be violence? Horrible stories of people dieing needlessly? Is that the type of country you want to live in? We allow our citizens to bleed out in the street because they don't have money for the surgery or an ER visit?

BWillie
03-24-2010, 12:00 PM
This is all good theory and valid points. But, where the rubber meets the road it falls apart. The fact that the skateboarder face plants and is taken to the ER where he get treated. He has no money. Who pays? Me and you. Whats your solution for that? Deny him care? Have guards at our ER's deny entry unless you have cash? You don't think there will be violence? Horrible stories of people dieing needlessly? Is that the type of country you want to live in? We allow our citizens to bleed out in the street because they don't have money for the surgery or an ER visit?

That is all fair and good, but nobody is denied emergency care anyway. It just might affect their credit...soooo I don't see where your point is. Illegals get all the free health care they want. Pretty good deal they have.

BigRedChief
03-24-2010, 12:01 PM
That is all fair and good, but nobody is denied emergency care anyway. It just might affect their credit...soooo I don't see where your point is.Whos paying for that care, the taxpayer. Thats the point. They are getting a free ride on our dime.

Dottefan
03-24-2010, 12:51 PM
DC LOUNGE IS NOW KNOWN AS DOTTEFAN LOUNGE....WE OWN IT..

ILChief
03-24-2010, 05:56 PM
Is that the type of country you want to live in? We allow our citizens to bleed out in the street because they don't have money for the surgery or an ER visit?

ahhh... a Republican utopia

alnorth
03-24-2010, 07:27 PM
This is all good theory and valid points. But, where the rubber meets the road it falls apart. The fact that the skateboarder face plants and is taken to the ER where he get treated. He has no money. Who pays? Me and you. Whats your solution for that? Deny him care? Have guards at our ER's deny entry unless you have cash? You don't think there will be violence? Horrible stories of people dieing needlessly? Is that the type of country you want to live in? We allow our citizens to bleed out in the street because they don't have money for the surgery or an ER visit?

Yeah, since we pay for this now indirectly anyway, I'm not as concerned about people gaming the system, except from a moral standpoint that they should not be allowed to do it simply because it is wrong.

What I'm a lot more worried about cost-wise are a couple things. First, although some people right now own nothing and go to the hospital with no intentions of paying the bill, other people who have a few things and get sick might not go because they are afraid to get a bill. Maybe because of this stupid decision they get sicker and die. We may want to insure him, and maybe thats the right thing to do, but that still costs something.

Second and more importantly, everyone will get routine care who currently dont bother to go. That may lead to a healthier population and may prevent some big-ticket illnesses, but it will probably add more cost to the system. At a minimum, the laws of supply and demand are going to do something. Maybe thats the right thing to do, but it will be expensive.

I would have liked to see a lot more personal responsibility enforced. I would say "ok folks, we'll make sure you dont go bankrupt and we'll give you 1 free exam per year, but for everything else, $1,000 deductible. (Maybe $250 if you are dead-ass broke) We'll give you an account to save for the deductible tax-free but if you sprain your ankle, please see if the pain goes away on its own after a couple days of hobbling around."