House passed the Health Bill

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3251380
Look closer. Title V, particularly subtitle C, sections 5202-5701, "Increasing the supply of the healthcare workforce"=more providers. The discussion might be whether this is sufficient, or too much (depends on your outlook), but it is in there.
Show me the money! How many? where?and how much? I'm a simple Emergency physician. I see my workload increasing, my salary decreasing and my taxes, well, they already taxed me out of the apartment business.
No tort reform, no addressing of illegals ( more on that to come apparently).
The IRS grows, and the gov't grows to make sure you buy an approved plan. When in our history has our gov't mandated we buy something? What next I have to buy a GM or Chrysler to bail them out too?
Once again, a rare politician telling the truth
http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-aud...rol-the-people
How many of you out there want to be controlled? I for one do not.
Less safety net and more hammock, that's what this is. Cradle to grave gov't telling me they know how to live my life better than me. They already tell me they know better how to spend my money.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3251523
I beg to differ there. It was a political statement. It not only had everything to do with Democrats and Republicans, we also issued the rest of the world a thinly veiled threat, all the while claiming what we were doing, both domestically and overseas, was in the name of Democracy.
Sure if you are willing to say that the democrat party supports Islamic extremist terrorism...
No but seriously, I'd be willing to accept that foreign policy is political. And I will accept that that statement applied to people in our own country. However telling the world where you stand on a matter, and saying look if you aren't with us, you're against us. All he's saying if you do nothing to stop it in your neck of the woods, you're condoning terrorism and we'll go after you. I fail to see the issue with that. But let me clarify a little bit. Bush wasn't telling Democrats if you don't support my policies I'll consider you an enemy. (although politically he really should have). If anything Bush's failure was too much compromise (on domestic issues) to much reaching across the isle. (see TARP, No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Coverage, Immigration, and the list goes on)
And the funny thing is, even today, our "brilliant" president is blaming him for failures that can be attributed to compromise.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3251520
There are also docs who won't accept various existing private insurance plans (largely HMO's) for much the same reason.
Not sure I understand your point?
Do you even know how an HMO works? The doc have to join the network to even participate.
If you expand the size of the pool of medicaid patients you need to increase the pool of docs, you ain't going to do that under the current formula. It's just going to make a bad sistuatiin worse which is the whole point of this health care bill. You have to ruin the current system before you convince people we need a new one.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3251533
Sure if you are willing to say that the democrat party supports Islamic extremist terrorism...
No but seriously, I'd be willing to accept that foreign policy is political. And I will accept that that statement applied to people in our own country. However telling the world where you stand on a matter, and saying look if you aren't with us, you're against us. All he's saying if you do nothing to stop it in your neck of the woods, you're condoning terrorism and we'll go after you. I fail to see the issue with that. But let me clarify a little bit. Bush wasn't telling Democrats if you don't support my policies I'll consider you an enemy. (although politically he really should have). If anything Bush's failure was too much compromise (on domestic issues) to much reaching across the isle. (see TARP, No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Coverage, Immigration, and the list goes on)
And the funny thing is, even today, our "brilliant" president is blaming him for failures that can be attributed to compromise.
We should have bombed McDurmutt and Murtha too

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3251561
Do you even know how an HMO works? The doc have to join the network to even participate.
Ummm, SERIOUSLY???? We've discussed this before.
Yes, having had cancer, I'm well acquainted with what works and what doesn't under the formerly existing system.
If you expand the size of the pool of medicaid patients you need to increase the pool of docs, you ain't going to do that under the current formula. It's just going to make a bad sistuatiin worse which is the whole point of this health care bill. You have to ruin the current system before you convince people we need a new one.
I never said that either the current situation or the proposed solution is ideal.
I've repeatedly and often stated my opinion on the subject. What we've arrived at is the worst of all worlds, namely, a political solution to a practical problem...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3251592
Ummm, SERIOUSLY???? We've discussed this before.
Yes, having had cancer, I'm well acquainted with what works and what doesn't under the formerly existing system.
I never said that either the current situation or the proposed solution is ideal.
I've repeatedly and often stated my opinion on the subject. What we've arrived at is the worst of all worlds, namely, a political solution to a practical problem...
I think someone else asked the best question, what besides the military does our government do well? Why anyone would want them to run the Health care system is beyond me.
As it stands if your health care provider hoses you over you can go to the government seeking relief. If we are stupid enough to let Obama take over health care lock, stock and barrel who do we go to when we get bent?

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3250543
We just spent 900 billion to save 100 billion....so essentially we just added 800 billion to our debt. This money is NOT paid for. It is not accounted for.
I realize that this is probably how your news is spinning this, but that is not what the CBO estimates said. Now, if you want to disagree with assumptions, I think that is more than valid, but the way you stated the numbers is not.
The CBO estimates that it will cost $940B, but will bring in $1,078, therefore NETTING $138B over ten years, not saving $138B in year ten.
The second second decade is estimated to show a saving of $1.2 trillion= $2.4T revenue- $1.2T expenses. This one is highly unlikely b/c it banks on cost cutting through not raising medicare payments (at least from what I've read).

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3251675
I realize that this is probably how your news is spinning this, but that is not what the CBO estimates said. Now, if you want to disagree with assumptions, I think that is more than valid, but the way you stated the numbers is not.
The CBO estimates that it will cost $940B, but will bring in $1,078, therefore NETTING $138B over ten years, not saving $138B in year ten.
The second second decade is estimated to show a saving of $1.2 trillion= $2.4T revenue- $1.2T expenses. This one is highly unlikely b/c it banks on cost cutting through not raising medicare payments (at least from what I've read).
That CBO number is garbage. Not nessesarily because they are partisan, but because what they fed them was garbage.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3251008
No that is what I actually like, the exchange idea is fine. It is the other crap involved. The cuts to medicare....basically eliminating an option for the elderly. The paying of certain states medicaid while not paying others. The federal government can't even cover the medicare cost now, and now they are shouldering more? .
Hmm...you don't think that the government will subsidize senior citizens to purchase private insurance if it is cheaper and they can't be dropped? Seems like a private sector solution to a public sector problem to me.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3251008
It created this exchange, but what insurance companies will join an exchange where they have to charge cheaper prices than to the regular consumer. Can someone tell me what forces these providers to join the exchange, and why would they do it if it is optional if they are forced to cover everyone at a reduced rate....including people like the 700 lb. chick that is eating herself to death.
Look up the following subjects: Statistics, Adverse Selection, and the demographics of the majority of the uninsured.
I understand all of your concerns, and the illegal immigrant problem that I did not respond to is an issue. But overall, look at the insurance companies from an actuaries point of view. There is a reason health stocks were up after the passage.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3251679
That CBO number is garbage. Not nessesarily because they are partisan, but because what they fed them was garbage.
That is why I said "if you want to diagree with assumptions, I think that is more than valid," but the way he was quoting the numbers was incorrect.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3251012
You're fooling yourself if you think this bill won't result in government run healthcare. This bill manipulates the market so that insurance companies will be put out of business due to new rules and regulations. The whole point of this bill is to create a problem so that the government can step in as saviors to "fix" the problem by creating a government run system.
How? Health insurance in and of itself already manipulates the market in a negative way and most of the healthcare inflation can be traced to 1) overconsumption due to the insurance product on price, & 2) Inducement by providers due to fee for service.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/3251044
wow, 90million dollar tax on the drug makers companies! so, that's going to raise prices on drugs, oh wait...no, they can't cause the prices are now regulated by the government. so...how are they going to pay for 90million more taxes...hmm...well, can't cut costs in material, so lets fire everyone!
You can't take these numbers by their shock value. AT&T today said it would cost them $1 billion, but this one billion is b/c it closes a tax loophole and is a non-cash cost, it alos only represents .8% of their projected annual profit. Same with caterpillar and whoever else came out with an estimate today, its just closing loop holes the companies should have been paying anyway.

 

[lovethesea]

okay, I am glad you stated that, I heard the whole 1bill today and it stated it was because they were taking subsidies for thier retiree's insurance drug benefits and would have to consider cutting. What does it mean it is a non cash cost?? and it closes a loop hole for them?? Sorry, I am trying to keep up with this and all of the nonsense that the media and the companies are spewing. I am sure companies will use this as an excuse for all of their problems and the media doesn't know where they stand anymore on this.........imo of course.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3251050
The Republicans have a lot less to fear than the Dems but they ignore the direction the Tea Party wants them to move they risk their own demise. Having worked in Republican party politics I have seen first hand how much those in power despise the little people. I hope they are finally listening
Looking at recent polls I would say the only ones that have to worry about the Tea Parties are the reps...

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3251093
but different...just like facism is similar to socialism in many aspects.
but different b/c they are on the other ends of the political spectrum?? Fascism='right', socialism= 'left'

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3251453
Got news for ya, it also didn't include the cost of the expansion of the IRS. Only a fool would believe this bill isn't going to be very expensive. There are already big businesses saying it's going to cost them 100's of millions, WHat do you think the real cost to the federal government will be.
You underestimate the power of technology, most of what the IRS does is not actually being "done" by a person.

 

[sickboy]

I own the 5th page! No, really, sorry for posting so much, I'm just catching up, posting as I go along.
Originally Posted by lovethesea
http:///forum/post/3251700
okay, I am glad you stated that, I heard the whole 1bill today and it stated it was because they were taking subsidies for thier retiree's insurance drug benefits and would have to consider cutting. What does it mean it is a non cash cost?? and it closes a loop hole for them?? Sorry, I am trying to keep up with this and all of the nonsense that the media and the companies are spewing. I am sure companies will use this as an excuse for all of their problems and the media doesn't know where they stand anymore on this.........imo of course.

It is non-cash because they don't actually have to pay a fine or anything, it will be reflected in financial statements only. They are saying it is a cost b/c they previously weren't paying tax on a portion of the retiree's drug coverage and now they do, as I understand it anyway. Again, we are talking about less than 1% of their projected annual PROFIT, and they are acting like the sky is falling. btw, their shares were actually up .34% today, can't be hurting that bad, just "good" for media. The deduction/loop hole was closed with this bill so you will hear yelling & screaming about a measley $1B (comparatively). The comparison you won't see is the top 5-10 executive pay compared to the "new" cost of healthcare...

 

[vinnyraptor]

a death blow to liberty? WOW, this is providing liberty not taking it away. what i dont understand is how can the christian GOP not want to provide healthcare for those who cant afford it or cant get it because of a pre-existing condition, especially children. the people who are on the wrong side of this bill are the same ones who opposed the civil rights act and medicare. healthcare is not a privilage its a right, it's not just for those who can afford it. everyone deserves to see a doctor when they need to, from the homeless guy downtown to the ceo of the bank downtown. you know why? because there both human's and deserve to be treated with humanity. and for me it doesnt matter how much it costs, if we can build bowling alley's in Baghdad and billion dollar war machines then we can afford to cover the uninsured.
to me its ridiculious to even argue over the cost, we weren't debating the cost of the Iraqi invasion which was a huge waste of money and more importantly lives. this is money well spent IMO, even if it means that my rates will go up. like the banks that were out of control, the insurance companies needed to be regulated and this bill does that. it's not a take over, it's not unconstitutional, and it's not free.
this is the RIGHT thing to do, is it flawed? yes. is it perfect? no. we are the richest and greatest nation on the planet and supposedly a christian society. so i ask, what would Jesus do? would he say we cant cover the uninsured because its too expensive? you all know the answer to that. he would ask us all to sacrifice alittle and help our fellow man. this bill ask's us to do that. we have been trying to get a bill past for 50 years and finally we have one. GOD bless America!!!!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3251689
How? Health insurance in and of itself already manipulates the market in a negative way and most of the healthcare inflation can be traced to 1) overconsumption due to the insurance product on price, & 2) Inducement by providers due to fee for service.
I've argued many times, that the health insurance model is a small scale version a single payer system. The thing imo that makes it tolerable is the 10,000 or so different choices.
But here is why. 2 reasons, first off You have no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And second off the fines for not carrying insurance is very low, lower in fact than paying for health insurance. Couple that with the government regulation of premiums (insurance companies can't arbitrarily raise premiums.) In fact you have Nancy Pelosi saying if you raise premiums we won't allow you into the exchanges. What are you going to get. A bunch of people opting out of health insurance paying the fine, then on the way to the hospital buying coverage. If and when that happens, you'll have insurance companies dropping like flies...
The issue is the cost, now the dems toss around a number like 40 million uninsured in the United States. Toss out the illegals, and people who just don't want it. The closest number I get is around 12-15 million (now I can't really source this by a non-partisan source, but it is clear why no one would say this number) It doesn't cost 1.3 trillion dollars, (using a true 10 year number, not the 3 years of taxes for the 7 years of "benifits" number the CBO used scoring the bill) to cover the people who want health insurance and dont' have it. It would be really simple, if health care was truly the issue. (Geridoc, remember my Dems are masking their true intent argument) Write a guideline to define uncoverable by insurance companies, then pay for it.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3251719
a death blow to liberty? WOW, this is providing liberty not taking it away. what i dont understand is how can the christian GOP not want to provide healthcare for those who cant afford it or cant get it because of a pre-existing condition, especially children. the people who are on the wrong side of this bill are the same ones who opposed the civil rights act and medicare. healthcare is not a privilage its a right, it's not just for those who can afford it. everyone deserves to see a doctor when they need to, from the homeless guy downtown to the ceo of the bank downtown. you know why? because there both human's and deserve to be treated with humanity. and for me it doesnt matter how much it costs, if we can build bowling alley's in Baghdad and billion dollar war machines then we can afford to cover the uninsured.
to me its ridiculious to even argue over the cost, we weren't debating the cost of the Iraqi invasion which was a huge waste of money and more importantly lives. this is money well spent IMO, even if it means that my rates will go up. like the banks that were out of control, the insurance companies needed to be regulated and this bill does that. it's not a take over, it's not unconstitutional, and it's not free.
this is the RIGHT thing to do, is it flawed? yes. is it perfect? no. we are the richest and greatest nation on the planet and supposedly a christian society. so i ask, what would Jesus do? would he say we cant cover the uninsured because its too expensive? you all know the answer to that. he would ask us all to sacrifice alittle and help our fellow man. this bill ask's us to do that. we have been trying to get a bill past for 50 years and finally we have one. GOD bless America!!!!
Are you a christian? because if you are I would strongly suggest you read your bible. The bible is very clear on the subject of work, and the subject of giving. Notice I said giving, not taxing, against the people will.
But you ask what would Jesus do. I think he is very clear on what he'd do.
26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
Matthew 25
28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'