House passed the Health Bill

[baloo6969]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3249632
Must be some pretty good doctor's if they think they can charge a $2000 membership to have an opportunity to see them.
HaHa, no. but atleast I wouldent have to stand in line, since 90% of the people infront of me, are there compliments of my hard work.
Any idea how much the gov will suck out of us hard working, college eduacated, married with 1 child, with a house, 2 car payments, and 2 college loans...so people who donot know what BC is and/or donot want to work can go to the DR's?

 

[reefraff]

I think this whole bill is designed to fail. They want socialized medicine and wont stop until they get it. This is going to raise costs for everyone pulling their own weight short term and likely decrease the standard of service we get. It will give them the excuse that they tried and the private system wont work.

 

[el guapo]

Geee I can't wait for all this fun to start. Thanks Omaba.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3249639
You would still need insurance, since the $2K wouldn't cover hospitalization. labs, X-ray, etc. Eventually the marketplace will end the "boutique" trend.
Usually that yearly charge is only for exclusivity, and some other "wellness" type services. You still pay for the service provided via copay or cash or whatever...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3249544
Well, we can look at the bright side, this blows Unervo's argument out of the water, that both parties are the same...

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say that. My point is that the Republicans don't like the bill because it hurts their campaign contributions, not because it's a bad bill. The Democrats like it because it helps their campaign contributions, not because it's a good bill.
All that makes a difference on any given piece of legislation is whose ox could potentially get gored. Whether it's good for the country as a whole or for we, as individuals, is of no concern to our elected representatives. All that matters to them is which pays better: an "aye" or a "nay" vote.
Two sides of the same coin - whatever is best for the party is best for the country. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3249713

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say that. My point is that the Republicans don't like the bill because it hurts their campaign contributions, not because it's a bad bill. The Democrats like it because it helps their campaign contributions, not because it's a good bill.
Two sides of the same coin - whatever is best for the party is best for the country. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Uh, so far for the 2010 election cycle the insurance companies have given more to the Dems than the Republicans so that dog wont hunt.

 

[oscardeuce]

Not quite right. If I remember correctly, the hospiital I worked for as a resident provided insurance for me and my family. So, I've had insurance since I was 25, and I think since I was still a student, my dad's covered me in med school. It's been a long time, but that is how I remember it.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3249728
Uh, so far for the 2010 election cycle the insurance companies have given more to the Dems than the Republicans so that dog wont hunt.
I think you misunderstand what I mean - you're wagging the wrong dog's tail...
More (and I'll run with that "fact" because I haven't had time to check it) has been given to the Democrats because more harm to the companies which stand to lose as a result of the bill can come from the Democrats.
In opposite partisan situations, the obverse is equally true.
It's a simple equation.

 

[reefraff]

But are you following the right tail? Are the parties chasing the money or is the money chasing the parties, big difference there. In the case of a lot of industries you can make a direct correlation between who is in power and who gets the most money, insurance being one of those.
Trial lawyers and unions are both consistently in bed with the Democrats no matter who is in control, and who got looked out for in this bill?
I ain't saying they both don't play the game but it's pretty obvious who was the corporate winner in this deal.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3249790
But are you following the right tail? Are the parties chasing the money or is the money chasing the parties, big difference there. In the case of a lot of industries you can make a direct correlation between who is in power and who gets the most money, insurance being one of those.
Trial lawyers and unions are both consistently in bed with the Democrats no matter who is in control, and who got looked out for in this bill?
I ain't saying they both don't play the game but it's pretty obvious who was the corporate winner in this deal.
Yes, I'm following the right tail. There is only one tail to follow.
Whether the parties are chasing the money or the money is chasing the parties is not the question.
Who the corporate winner is, is precisely my point. Either way, the answer is: a Corporation.
The real question is: Why have We the People put ourselves in the position where that situation is the only possibility?

 

[reefraff]

Money is a fact of life in politics, it isn't goig anywhere. As long as we can look and see who's paying to play it wouldn't be so bad. That's why I like the idea of posting contributions on line as soon as they are given.
But anyway I would a whole lot rather see the money follow the politics than the other way around.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3249800
Money is a fact of life in politics, it isn't goig anywhere. As long as we can look and see who's paying to play it wouldn't be so bad. That's why I like the idea of posting contributions on line as soon as they are given.
Yah. CA passed a law to that extent stating that those who fund a bill need to name themselves. That worked well...
But anyway I would a whole lot rather see the money follow the politics than the other way around.
As long as money is part of the equation that's not gonna happen. It is a rule of nature that dogs chase their own tails. Legislation against will not change the fact that dogs are dogs or that they find their own tails intriguing.
The term "Public Service" is a jingoism. It is neither public nor is it a service.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/3249543
no...most full time jobs offer health insurance. hell, even food stores offer health insurance.
not true, I know many people in the Financial Services industry, most notably CPAs such as my brother and brother-in-law, who do not receive health insurance with employment. Why? Cost to the firm. So they have to drop a ton of money on single family policies.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3249586
Except, the govt is going to be subsidizing it. So they'll tax you more then turn around and pay someone 50% or whatever of what they need to be paying. They're saying you must buy healthcare, then subsidizing you to buy it. With your own money...
It's already subsidized....By your employer.

 

[sickboy]

http://us.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22...egy/index.html

 

[reefraff]

I know probably half dozen people who have held elected office and I don't think one of them would do something for a campaign contribution and there is a US congressman in the mix, well ex US Congressman. Did two terms and got out.

 

[jackri]

So now it will be illegal to NOT have health insurance. By being born you lose the freedom to chose to have health insurance or not and the government will tell you what will be affordable.
With car insurance I can choose not to drive.
I have to keep repeating this to myself over and over "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan"

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by jackri
http:///forum/post/3249912
So now it will be illegal to NOT have health insurance. By being born you lose the freedom to chose to have health insurance or not and the government will tell you what will be affordable.
With car insurance I can choose not to drive.
I have to keep repeating this to myself over and over "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan" "it takes a Carter to get a Reagan"
But I don't see any Reagans waiting in the wings

 

[bionicarm]

Do you have school-aged kids? Is it the Federal Govt. or the State that mandates that all school children are required to have specific immunizations before they can be admitted to school. Some municipalities have even gone as far as rounded up parents and brought them to court, stating they either get their children immunized or face fines or even jail time. Do you have a problem with this law?
Our illustrious Governor Rick Perry of Texas tried to force all girls age 11 - 15 to get this Gardisil HPV virus immunization, whether the parents felt they needed it or not. Fortunately, there was enough public outcry, and he backed off. Why? Upcoming re-election. The same can be done with the health bill. If there's enough people who get out there and tell their Congressmen they disagree with this bill, and several of them are coming up for re-election this November, you would see changes made in this bill that people disagree with. I constantly read and see people whining and yelling about how bad this health care reform is, how we will become a Socialized country, how we will go bankrupt, yet they do it in the wrong places. The place to do it is at your local Congressman's office, their emails, their phone banks. Most importantly, AT THE VOTING BOOTH. Statistics have shown that less than 10% of the voting public in this country vote in mid-term elections. Most of the people who do vote, vote for the same candidate they've always voted for, vote strictly by a name, or vote by political party affiliation. They don't even bother to read or research the candidate's political views or campaign promises before voting for them. Until people change their attitudes about who they vote into office, and more importantly actually get off their couch and take 15 minutes to vote, then they or anyone else has only themselves to blame for whose running this country right now.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3249713

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say that. My point is that the Republicans don't like the bill because it hurts their campaign contributions, not because it's a bad bill. The Democrats like it because it helps their campaign contributions, not because it's a good bill.
All that makes a difference on any given piece of legislation is whose ox could potentially get gored. Whether it's good for the country as a whole or for we, as individuals, is of no concern to our elected representatives. All that matters to them is which pays better: an "aye" or a "nay" vote.
Two sides of the same coin - whatever is best for the party is best for the country. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
lol, I'm not even that cynical.