Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;779103]Yeah but it's completely retarded and a waste of time for the house republicans to spend time voting on something that has literally zero chance of passing.

Thanks for grandstanding on my dime, assholes.[/quote]It was completely retarded for Obamacare to be jammed through Congress without those voting on it even reading it.

It's even more retarded for elected representatives (the Senate and the President in this case) to ignore a strong majority of the people on this program that will degrade healthcare and bankrupt the country.

This is a lot more than political posturing. Try to force each senator go on record on where they stand on Obamacare, it will be a major point in 2012. Funding for Obamacare still goes through the House. Voting on the repeal was an important first building block to limiting the damage from Obamacare.

12th, unless there is a major decline in the unemployment rate, gas prices stay below $ 3.50 (unlikely), and the out of control gov't spending gets put in check, 2012 will be another bloodbath for the left. Check out the seats up for re-election in the Senate in 2012.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779135]It was completely retarded for Obamacare to be jammed through Congress without those voting on it even reading it.[/quote]

I don't disagree, but it's been signed into law. Why spend time to repeal something that will just get vetoed? Makes no sense.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779135]It's even more retarded for elected representatives (the Senate and the President in this case) to ignore a strong majority of the people on this program that will degrade healthcare and bankrupt the country.[/quote]

No, the retarded thing is spending time on something that CANNOT help the majority of people, rather than spending time on something that CAN. If you can't get a bill past Obama's desk, then why try? Instead focus your energy on other ways to help your constituents. If you take your eye off that all-important ball, you won't be credited with any successes come 2012.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779135]This is a lot more than political posturing. Try to force each senator go on record on where they stand on Obamacare, it will be a major point in 2012. Funding for Obamacare still goes through the House. Voting on the repeal was an important first building block to limiting the damage from Obamacare.[/quote]

Democrats have the financials on their side on this issue: repealing Obamacare will raise the deficit. That according to the independent CBO. Republicans should be careful not to compromise their positions as spending hawks; the Republican house just voted to do something to increase the deficit. So not only are they wasting time, they're voting to flush money down the toilet. It's pretty easy for the Dems to poke holes in this position come 2012. Dumb move all around, which disappoints me, because I'm red.

Re: Obama Care
 

and the front runner for the GOP is??

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779135]It was completely retarded for Obamacare to be jammed through Congress without those voting on it even reading it.

It's even more retarded for elected representatives (the Senate and the President in this case) to ignore a strong majority of the people on [B]this program that will degrade healthcare and bankrupt the country.[/B]

This is a lot more than political posturing. Try to force each senator go on record on where they stand on Obamacare, it will be a major point in 2012. Funding for Obamacare still goes through the House. Voting on the repeal was an important first building block to limiting the damage from Obamacare.

12th, unless there is a major decline in the unemployment rate, gas prices stay below $ 3.50 (unlikely), and the out of control gov't spending gets put in check, 2012 will be another bloodbath for the left. Check out the seats up for re-election in the Senate in 2012.[/quote]

PS, I'm in healthcare finance. The bolded statement is woefully off the mark when compared to the general consensus of the financial professionals within the industry. The model for care delivery will no doubt change, but those ill-prepared to adapt will go extinct, while the providers who remain standing will deliver care in a more cost effective manner with greater efficiency and quality.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;779146]and the front runner for the GOP is??[/quote]

Yeah, if it's Palin, I'll definitely vote for Obama. She has no business coming anywhere near the presidency.

Re: Obama Care
 

Before the Arizona shooting, Palin was the front runner. Now I think you'll see Mitt Romney start to poll well.

Re: Obama Care
 

They kept their promise...what comes next?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;779149]PS, I'm in healthcare finance. The bolded statement is woefully off the mark when compared to the general consensus of the financial professionals within the industry. The model for care delivery will no doubt change, but those ill-prepared to adapt will go extinct, while the providers who remain standing will deliver care in a more cost effective manner with greater efficiency and quality.[/quote]

How so?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=FRPLG;779163]How so?[/quote]

I'm not quite sure which portion of my comment your question is directed at, but...

The biggest change with healthcare reform is that eventually providers will be reimbursed for episodes of care, rather than for encounters or procedures performed.

Let's say you fall and break your leg. Right now, every time you come to the hospital for an X-Ray we get $90, every time you come for an outpatient surgery we get $1500, every time you come for an inpatient admission we get $7000. I'm making up numbers and oversimplifying, but you get the picture. You can clearly see that the more we see you, the more we get paid. So there's an incentive to see you over and over. Lots of doctors order unnecessary tests because of this.

Under healthcare reform though, if you fall and break your leg we'll get paid a lump sum $8000 to take complete care of you, from the first time you see us to when you're either healed or the year ends. So then it's up to the doctor to decide when ordering a test is really necessary, which he'll be incented to do to watch his bottom line.

Now, before you freak out about a doctor withholding tests in the name of his (or his hospital's) bottom line, malpractice and licensing issues still are strong incentives to keep them from rationing care.

But it's easy to see; why order 4 x-rays on the leg when all you need is 2? It will reduce redundant tests, which reduces costs to the consumer in the long run.

So clearly testing volume will drop at hospitals, so competition will become more fierce. If testing levels drop enough, some hospitals may not be able to support themselves and may have to close. But that just speaks to the excess capacity of healthcare facilities and equipment that we have in SOME parts of the country. Closing those facilities will be a good thing in the long run, it's a market force that will bring capacity more in line with patient demand.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779135]It was completely retarded for Obamacare to be jammed through Congress without those voting on it even reading it.

It's even more retarded for elected representatives (the Senate and the President in this case) to ignore a strong majority of the people on this program that will degrade healthcare and bankrupt the country.

This is a lot more than political posturing. Try to force each senator go on record on where they stand on Obamacare, it will be a major point in 2012. Funding for Obamacare still goes through the House. Voting on the repeal was an important first building block to limiting the damage from Obamacare.

12th, unless there is a major decline in the unemployment rate, gas prices stay below $ 3.50 (unlikely), and the out of control gov't spending gets put in check, 2012 will be another bloodbath for the left. Check out the seats up for re-election in the Senate in 2012.[/quote]

We have our opposing views on Obamacare, as you call it, so there's no need to beat that dead horse again. It's the law of the land and public sentiment is about evenly divided. My guess is as more of these provisions come online it will gain in popularity. As far as the rhetoric about jamming this bill through congress, well, Barack Obama was elected with a mandate and he and the Democrats delivered on the promise of healthcare for all Americans.

If you're looking for a repeat of the mid-terms you just might be misinterpreting the electorate in 2012; it will be a more moderate, more diverse, and younger voting bloc. Even if unemployment drops modestly, the president will be hard to unseat and we're already starting to see a shift in his favorables.

Sarah Palin has gone into complete meltdown mode. Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour and, God forbid, Newt Gingrich will just be warm bodies on the stage with old GOP talking points and no new ideas to make us competitive globally. And that pretty much leaves Mitt Romney explaining to the Tea Party why he likes universal healthcare, his signature piece of legislation as governor of Mass, and why he supported bailing out the auto industry. So much for socialism, I guess.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;779168]I'm not quite sure which portion of my comment your question is directed at, but...

The biggest change with healthcare reform is that eventually providers will be reimbursed for episodes of care, rather than for encounters or procedures performed.

Let's say you fall and break your leg. Right now, every time you come to the hospital for an X-Ray we get $90, every time you come for an outpatient surgery we get $1500, every time you come for an inpatient admission we get $7000. I'm making up numbers and oversimplifying, but you get the picture. You can clearly see that the more we see you, the more we get paid. So there's an incentive to see you over and over. [B]Lots of doctors order unnecessary tests because of this.[/B]

Under healthcare reform though, if you fall and break your leg we'll get paid a lump sum $8000 to take complete care of you, from the first time you see us to when you're either healed or the year ends. So then it's up to the doctor to decide when ordering a test is really necessary, which he'll be incented to do to watch his bottom line.

Now, before you freak out about a doctor withholding tests in the name of his (or his hospital's) bottom line, malpractice and licensing issues still are strong incentives to keep them from rationing care.

But it's easy to see; why order 4 x-rays on the leg when all you need is 2? It will reduce redundant tests, which reduces costs to the consumer in the long run.

So clearly testing volume will drop at hospitals, so competition will become more fierce. If testing levels drop enough, some hospitals may not be able to support themselves and may have to close. But that just speaks to the excess capacity of healthcare facilities and equipment that we have in SOME parts of the country. Closing those facilities will be a good thing in the long run, it's a market force that will bring capacity more in line with patient demand.[/quote]

Lots of doctors order unnessary test so they don't get sued. A good portion of those test are done by specialist and the doctor ordering them makes nothing of them.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;779175]We have our opposing views on Obamacare, as you call it, so there's no need to beat that dead horse again. It's the law of the land and public sentiment is about evenly divided. My guess is as more of these provisions come online it will gain in popularity. As far as the rhetoric about jamming this bill through congress, well, Barack Obama was elected with a mandate and he and the Democrats delivered on the promise of healthcare for all Americans.

If you're looking for a repeat of the mid-terms you just might be misinterpreting the electorate in 2012; it will be a more moderate, more diverse, and young voting bloc. Even if unemployment drops modestly, the president will be hard to unseat and we're already [B]starting to see a shift in his favorables.[/B]

Sarah Palin has gone into complete meltdown mode. Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour and, God forbid, Newt Gingrich will just be warm bodies on the stage with old GOP talking points and no new ideas to make us competitive globally. And that pretty much leaves Mitt Romney explaining to the Tea Party why he likes universal healthcare, his signature piece of legislation as governor of Mass, and why he supported bailing out the auto industry. So much for socialism, I guess.[/quote]

Really last pole I saw had him now under 50%. Not sure why the left keeps saying Sarah Palin is our front runner because that not true at all. Newt Gingrich is smater then anyone in the Whitehouse now or maybe running in 2012.

Re: Obama Care
 

First, the ONLY poll that I've seen Obama under 50% is Rassmussen, which is far right. But most he's between 50%- 53%, let's hope it lasts!

Newt Gingrich? Please tell me you're kidding.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;779181]First, the ONLY poll that I've seen Obama under 50% is Rassmussen, which is far right. But most he's between 50%- 53%, let's hope it lasts!

Newt Gingrich? Please tell me you're kidding.[/quote]

No Newt got a bad rap in the press and is one of the smarter people to have held office lately. You don't have to agree with a person for them to be smart. I thought Bill C was smart I just did not agree with him.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;779194]No Newt got a bad rap in the press and is one of the smarter people to have held office lately. You don't have to agree with a person for them to be smart. I thought Bill C was smart I just did not agree with him.[/quote]

But see that's the thing, rarely does the smartest guy get elected. It usually boils down to who we like the most. Sarah Palin is exhibit A. Newt has waaaaay too much bagage and he'll just remind people of the Clinton years. No way, no how, no Newt! Great bumper sticker.

Re: Obama Care
 

Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.[64][65] They had two daughters. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.[66][67] According to Battley, Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after it was final, Gingrich wed Ginther in 1981.[68][69]

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior; they continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal.[70] In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife Ginther. He and Callista currently live in McLean, Virginia.[71] taken from wikipedia

this is a smart guy?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;779145]Democrats have the financials on their side on this issue: repealing Obamacare will raise the deficit. That according to the independent CBO. [/quote]I know how you lean politically and your HC finance background, however don't buy the left-wing spin.

[URL="http://blog.heritage.org/?p=49568"]Reality Check: Repeal of Obamacare Would Not Increase the Deficit | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.[/URL]

[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Obamacare-Impact-on-Future-Generations"]Obamacare: Impact on Future Generations of the Health Care Reform | The Heritage Foundation[/URL]

Remember CBO only evaluates the information given it, so doo-doo in = doo-doo out.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779205]I know how you lean politically and your HC finance background, however don't buy the left-wing spin.

[URL="http://blog.heritage.org/?p=49568"]Reality Check: Repeal of Obamacare Would Not Increase the Deficit | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.[/URL]

[URL="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Obamacare-Impact-on-Future-Generations"]Obamacare: Impact on Future Generations of the Health Care Reform | The Heritage Foundation[/URL]

Remember CBO only evaluates the information given it, so doo-doo in = doo-doo out.[/quote]

So all these some 30 years, CBO is just sort of irrelavent. Mhmmm...

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;779208]So all these some 30 years, CBO is just sort of irrelavent. Mhmmm...[/quote]I never said CBO is irrelevant, but it does not make judgements on the information presented to it by Congress, it only calculates exactly what is presented.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;779145] No, the retarded thing is spending time on something that CANNOT help the majority of people, rather than spending time on something that CAN. If you can't get a bill past Obama's desk, then why try? Instead focus your energy on other ways to help your constituents. If you take your eye off that all-important ball, you won't be credited with any successes come 2012.[/quote]


Further, if repealing this is [I]really[/I] important, you work the positives accomplish what you can and then, in 2012, turn to the public and say:

"Look at our successes, we know how to work together. Obama has said he would veto any repeal of his healthcare law so we didn't waste our time with that. HOWEVER, this is it folks, we get one shot at repealing this bill before it gets to entrenched into the business cycle. In order to do so, we [I]need[/I] a Republican president to sign the bill; without a Republican Pres., Obamacare will not go away. Vote Republican and let us finish what we started in 2010."

Turn 2012 into a referendum on Obamacare. Assert that a Rep. pres. and Congress can find a way to repeal it at little or no cost (and then come up with a legitimate way to do so). It's a high risk/high reward kind of strategy that requires careful thought out planning and legislative victories now. Which is exactly why the Republicans can't pull it off.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;779176]Lots of doctors order unnessary test so they don't get sued. A good portion of those test are done by specialist and the doctor ordering them makes nothing of them.[/quote]

Right, which is why they'd institute the new methodology. One payment to cover everything, and then it's up to the providers to figure out a way to share that payment.

Then there's a downward pressure on ordering extra tests to counterbalance the risk of getting sued. It makes them walk the line.

Re: Obama Care
 

This was a simple vote that lets the Republican Representatives say we did what you said you wanted, in order to get it accomplished, we need a different Senate and President.

In 2012, when the country "really" votes (and I mean all those who only show up for the presidential elections - about a 20% swing in voter turnout):
the Republicans will point to 2010 saying they tried to repeal it, but need the Senate and Presidency to go along
the Democrats will point to 2008, and say we listened to the whole nation but now the vocal minority is blocking true reform.

Right now, it could go either way (regardless of current polling data)

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;779222]I never said CBO is irrelevant, but it does not make judgements on the information presented to it by Congress, it only calculates exactly what is presented.[/quote]

I've seen presentations from independent consultants back the CBO's findings, at least in terms of order of magnitude. Sorry, I can't take a conservative-leaning publication's word for it. If I'm truly thinking fairly, there's no reason for me to believe this is any more credible than independent sources.

They say x y z was doulbe counted in the numbers, but don't show their math or indicate who did the math.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;779232]Further, if repealing this is [I]really[/I] important, [B]you work the positives accomplish what you can[/B] and then, in 2012, turn to the public and say:

"Look at our successes, we know how to work together. Obama has said he would veto any repeal of his healthcare law so we didn't waste our time with that. HOWEVER, this is it folks, we get one shot at repealing this bill before it gets to entrenched into the business cycle. In order to do so, we [I]need[/I] a Republican president to sign the bill; without a Republican Pres., Obamacare will not go away. Vote Republican and let us finish what we started in 2010."

Turn 2012 into a referendum on Obamacare. Assert that a Rep. pres. and Congress can find a way to repeal it at little or no cost (and then come up with a legitimate way to do so). It's a high risk/high reward kind of strategy that requires careful thought out planning and legislative victories now. Which is exactly why the Republicans can't pull it off.[/quote]
Ahh the fairy dream of positive accomplishments.

The Democratic Senate and Presidency aren't going to give the Republican House any but the smallest of positives, and they will parlay them into big bad negatives. The Democrats have this type political strategy down to a science. Further, Pres Obama will play any "concession" made to the Republicans into the "evil corporations" mode, or some form of fear mongering.

The Republicans had to make this vote now, in order to avoid their constituency attacking them as not doing what they promised. Now the House Republicans can (but probably won't) take any small victories and say we tried to do more, but the Democrats blocked us. I doubt the Republicans have the ability to avoid looking like selfish, corporate suits, (cuz most are), but this initial vote simply set the stage for the 2012 referendum on Obamacare that you talked about.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;779181]First, the ONLY poll that I've seen Obama under 50% is Rassmussen, which is far right. But most he's between 50%- 53%, let's hope it lasts!

Newt Gingrich? Please tell me you're kidding.[/quote]

NG is a damn genius. No joke. Take away his well earned negative image and just listen to him speak on issues. You may not agree with him but he is the most articulate, well-informed and proactive politician I have ever heard. I think under the bad image is a politician that would do a remarkably good job as president in putting together bipartisan solutions. There's more than one reason he hasn't sought office..one of them is because the idiots who run the 'pubs don't like that he isn't a talking points guy. Gingrich really is an idea guy.

Re: Obama Care
 

Naw, Newt is wicked smaat. No doubt. One minute he's tossing red meat the masses, the next he's saying something brilliant. Funny, I think he and Al Sharpton are working with the White House on education reform.

Talk about Oscar and Felix.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Schneed10;779237]Right, which is why they'd institute the new methodology. One payment to cover everything, and then it's up to the providers to figure out a way to share that payment.

Then there's a downward pressure on ordering extra tests to counterbalance the risk of getting sued. It makes them walk the line.[/quote]

Makes no sense without ourt reform. What will happen is doctors will still have to order the test but now he will start eating the cost. DR. tells Obama care to Fu^% Off because they can make more money doing something else.

Re: Obama Care
 

i don't disagree with the mans intelligence. he is much like every other politician. his words don't match his voting record. he learned a long time ago, which the president is learning right now, the the almighty dollar controls the vote. most politicians are not whom they seem to be

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;779269]i don't disagree with the mans intelligence. he is much like every other politician. his words don't match his voting record. he learned a long time ago, which the president is learning right now, the the almighty dollar controls the vote. most politicians are not whom they seem to be[/quote]

I would beg to differ. Newt pretty much says and votes along the same lines. That whhy the liberal press and the dems attacked him back in the 90's while he was speaker of the house.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;779272]I would beg to differ. Newt pretty much says and votes along the same lines. That whhy the liberal press and the dems attacked him back in the 90's while he was speaker of the house.[/quote]

Hold your horses. NG is smart. Ignoring political winds to stay principled is not smart (at least it doesn't achieve anything in our system). NG played the politics game as much as anyone if not more. See exhibit A: Monica Lewinski

Re: Obama Care
 

thanks frplg. you beat me to it

Re: Obama Care
 

Despite his lukewarm policy marks, Obama has an enormous advantage because of how people see him personally; a whopping 83 percent call him likable, and 59 percent view him favorably. Majorities also consider him empathetic (63 percent), a strong leader (62 percent), and in-touch with ordinary Americans (61 percent).

The numbers are similar to the ones President Ronald Reagan faced before winning a second term in 1984.

taken from an ap poll

Re: Obama Care
 

Speaking of the big O he was in my area today. I work near the airport so I got to see Air Force One take off. Very cool.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Mattyk;779493]Speaking of the big O he was in my area today. I work near the airport so I got to see Air Force One take off. Very cool.[/quote]

At the GE Plant in Schenectady, home of the 12345 area code.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;779488]Despite his lukewarm policy marks, Obama has an enormous advantage because of how people see him personally; a whopping 83 percent call him likable, and 59 percent view him favorably. Majorities also consider him empathetic (63 percent), a strong leader (62 percent), and in-touch with ordinary Americans (61 percent).

The numbers are similar to the ones President Ronald Reagan faced before winning a second term in 1984.

taken from an ap poll[/quote]

I thought his numbers would definitely cross the 50% threshold, but not this soon. I was thinking more like the Spring.

Republicans shouldn't be too concerned with the shift in sentiment as these things tend to ebb and flow. There is a lot of politics left between now and 2012 and President Obama is in a much stronger position than he was, say, three months ago. Republicans would do well not to underestimate the president right now, people still personally like him and I hope he hits out the park on Tuesday. The longer they drag out this repeal Obamacare BS, I think they'll only hurt themselves in the future.

Re: Obama Care
 

Independent analysis on Obamacare's financial effects and keeping your current doctor/provider.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/]Medicare Actuary Doubts Health Care Law Will Hold Down Costs - FoxNews.com[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;779176]Lots of doctors order unnessary test so they don't get sued. A good portion of those test are done by specialist and the doctor ordering them makes nothing of them.[/quote]

Very good point... and when it comes to rationing care... who's going to sue the Federal Government? Back to the same old debate... allow marketing of healthcare plans across state lines.. crack down on frivilous lawsuits that jack up the rates of medical malpractice (also known as tort reform) cut out some of the costly Federal Regulations that also increase rates... there are a number of options available without a Government take over of healthcare.

Look prior to this whole healthcare problem was created by this administration... there were 275 Million people insured. How is there a crisis when 85% of the population was insured and "liked" their coverage? Infamous words of Rahm Emanuel... never let a good crisis go to waste.. in the words of Sal Aliniski.. the ends justify the means... in other words... since there wasnt any real crisis.... we make one up and then use it to our advantage.

How come there hadnt been a healthcare problem in this country since HillaryCare was blown up in 1993... until Obama was elected? The something for nothing crowd... screams again.

Now the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard is I can keep my dependent on my healthcare LOOOOONNNNGGGG after the Federal Government stops allowing me to claim them as a dependent for tax purposes. Do people realize this also includes "Married" dependents up to age 26? How can someone 25 years old.. married and maybe even with a child of their own... still legally able to be on their "Parents" policy?? makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I could understand if they were in grad school or something where their focus is supposed to be on their studies.. but damn this is more than ridiculous... and the Prez has the nerve to speak about self responsiblity during the State of the Union? I hate someone who talks out of both sides of their neck

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Tiggwin;780972]Very good point... and [B]when it comes to rationing care...[/B] who's going to sue the Federal Government? Back to the same old debate... allow marketing of healthcare plans across state lines.. crack down on frivilous lawsuits that jack up the rates of medical malpractice (also known as tort reform) cut out some of the costly Federal Regulations that also increase rates... there are a number of options available without a Government take over of healthcare.

Look prior to this whole healthcare problem was created by this administration... there were 275 Million people insured. How is there a crisis when 85% of the population was insured and "liked" their coverage? Infamous words of Rahm Emanuel... never let a good crisis go to waste.. in the words of Sal Aliniski.. the ends justify the means... in other words... since there wasnt any real crisis.... we make one up and then use it to our advantage.

How come there hadnt been a healthcare problem in this country since HillaryCare was blown up in 1993... until Obama was elected? The something for nothing crowd... screams again.

Now the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard is I can keep my dependent on my healthcare LOOOOONNNNGGGG after the Federal Government stops allowing me to claim them as a dependent for tax purposes. Do people realize this also includes "Married" dependents up to age 26? How can someone 25 years old.. married and maybe even with a child of their own... still legally able to be on their "Parents" policy?? makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I could understand if they were in grad school or something where their focus is supposed to be on their studies.. but damn this is more than ridiculous... and the Prez has the nerve to speak about self responsiblity during the State of the Union? I hate someone who talks out of both sides of their neck[/quote]


I think at some point to control cost we will have to ration care. We spend billions to keep people alive just a few days or weeks that could be spent on long healthy people and lower cost. I know that sounds cruel but we have to find away to say that it time to stop treatment on some people.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;781083]I think at some point to control cost we will have to ration care. We spend billions to keep people alive just a few days or weeks that could be spent on long healthy people and lower cost. I know that sounds cruel but we have to find away to say that it time to stop treatment on some people.[/quote]

Firstdown keep in mind Dr. Kavorkian (? sorry if I have brutalized his name) was tried and convicted of performing assisted suicides back in 1999... I didnt feel it was wrong then because it was a decision made between a patient and their Dr. If someone realizes they are terminal and they want to go out on their own terms I dont have an issue with that... but before I would agree to leave the rationing up to some bureaucrat in DC Id rather they create legislation to ration care to all of the 12,000,000 illegal aliens in this country.. Id rather they create legislation to limit care to people who choose to do nothing but game the system... People that arent even supposed to be here coming across the boarder to have their anchor babies.. They come here illegally and can get welfare and public assistance in times when our own citizens cant... that is where the majority of the spending is coming from. If Hospitals werent required to provide coverage to people who are in this country illegally (people who use the ER as their primary care physician) they would be able to charge less for services.. they have to make up for the loss somewhere. If we rationed their services we wouldnt have to ration services to a Senior Citizen who has most likely and most probably been a fairly productive member of our society.

And if costs were able to go down for services because of responsible rationing such as that... well then the services to Grandma might not be so expensive...

I aint saying.... Im just saying.... haha

Re: Obama Care
 

No bueno for Obamacare....

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE70U6RY20110131?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews]Judge rules healthcare reform unconstitutional | Reuters[/url]