Obama Care

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

Helping the wicked is a hard pill to swallow but I'm a soldier. Righteousness and helping the meek is in my DNA.

Self-righteous is more like it, but I don't look gift horses in the mouth. Quote the Bible to someone who cares what's in it.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

any reason for the personal attack?

Yeah I think you're dumb when it comes to politics. You should have seen what I first wrote.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I was under the impression that you were tax paying citizen not some poor bum with his hands out. In any case, the way I see it I pool my tax money with others to lower cost and get better coverage. If i end up paying more than average tax payer that's OK.

You're Welcome.

Explain to me how adding approximately 10% of new customers to an already overburdened and flawed system without a plan to expand the ability to provide services will lower costs? Yes, for those w/out coverage, better coverage is a given. For those with coverage, even a poor plan, explain to me how increasing the burden on providers will provide these individuals with "better coverage" either in a qualitative or quantitative way.

Another side effect I see from this plan is that more bad doctors will get into and stay in practice. They are in high demand now - particularly the GP's - and the only way that our current system will be able to handle the new customers will be to lower the standards for the profession. Get ready for an inflx of MD's from the Aruba School of Medicine.

Regardless - don't confuse this bill with healthcare reform. It is merely healthcare inflation.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by dmek25

check your history. the GOP was also against medicare. that runs fine. what about the post office? i can mail a letter from Pa., and have in Cal. 3 days later for .50. sounds like a pretty good deal to me. does SS still pay out? last time i checked, it still works. what Gov't programs don't work? other then the no child left behind?

It seems like a wonderful deal until you learn that the USPS lost $2.8billion last year.

[JoeRedskin]

^^ Which works out to about a $10/person/year surcharge on US Citizens in addition to actual usage. Still a pretty good deal in my opinion. IF the healthcare bill magically provided coverage for all while increasing the quality of care for everyone for $10/person/year, I would gladly pay it.

It will not and we will end up, IMHO, artificially inflating the current system to the point where healthcare costs become the largest expense for individuals and families - and not by a small amount.

Rather than FIRST regulating the system in a manner to create a truly open market for health care services and THEN creating a regulatory framework to provide universal coverage in a cost efficient manner, the mandatory expansion of the flawed market system will find a way to incorporate the worst effects of socialization and capitilism.

Pardon my doom and gloom. While the goal was worthy, the solution was not.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

^^ Which works out to about a $10/person/year surcharge on US Citizens in addition to actual usage. Still a pretty good deal in my opinion. IF the healthcare bill magically provided coverage for all while increasing the quality of care for everyone for $10/person/year, I would gladly pay it.

It will not and we will end up, IMHO, artificially inflating the current system to the point where healthcare costs become the largest expense for individuals and families - and not by a small amount.

Rather than FIRST regulating the system in a manner to create a truly open market for health care services and THEN creating a regulatory framework to provide universal coverage in a cost efficient manner, the mandatory expansion of the flawed market system will find a way to incorporate the worst effects of socialization and capitilism.

Pardon my doom and gloom. While the goal was worthy, the solution was not.

Why do you have to go and piss on my parade. I was looking forward to free sedatives!

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Yeah I think you're dumb when it comes to politics. You should have seen what I first wrote.

why hold back? if your going to attack, go full bore. from now, when i need a political opinion, ill ask you first. you seem to have all the answers

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I don't know,the 47 million uninsured and those under-insured wouldn't think them contradictory. Oh you don't have to participate in the government plan if you don't want to. You do however have to carry insurance. If you don't want your tax dollars going into the pool tough shit...I got other programs I don't want my money going to as well. I know, life isn't fair...suck it up and make a play!

For the 260 Million insured, it is contradictory. For the portion of the 47 Million of young healthy adults who have no health issues (estimates run between 15-25 Million), it is a contradiction.

As I have argued before, by creating a governmental insurer of last resort, you will be creating an entity that will either a) be so cost inefficent as to be a huge money pit; or b) a system that will be just competitve enough to drive out similar private systems and make the more comprehensive plans affordable to only the wealthy.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Because they cant sustain. Some day all these gov't programs that "work" are going to bankrupt our country and then we will all be screwed. They'll be no programs at all because they'll be no money. Seriously. What do we do then? What do we do when the constant push it forward mentality finally collapses? Can you even comprehend the consequences? Can anyone?

Seriously, can we not just....."Hope" they succeed?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Seriously, can we not just....."Hope" they succeed?

You sound like a Redskins fan

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

why hold back? if your going to attack, go full bore. from now, when i need a political opinion, ill ask you first. you seem to have all the answers

No it's saden who thinks he has all the answers.

[dmek25]

thank god i dont have the answers. or otherwise i might feel compelled to " attack" someone

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Explain to me how adding approximately 10% of new customers to an already overburdened and flawed system without a plan to expand the ability to provide services will lower costs? Yes, for those w/out coverage, better coverage is a given. For those with coverage, even a poor plan, explain to me how increasing the burden on providers will provide these individuals with "better coverage" either in a qualitative or quantitative way.

Another side effect I see from this plan is that more bad doctors will get into and stay in practice. They are in high demand now - particularly the GP's - and the only way that our current system will be able to handle the new customers will be to lower the standards for the profession. Get ready for an inflx of MD's from the Aruba School of Medicine.

Regardless - don't confuse this bill with healthcare reform. It is merely healthcare inflation.

The only reason you and I can afford healthcare is because we pool your hard earned dollars with our co-workers through our employer to negotiate a cheaper rate. The same principle applies with this bill as it sets up an exchange where anyone can purchase insurance. The bill also addresses increase in demand by allocating grants to Clinics and Health Centers (sec. 2511), grants for Nursing Education (sec. 2521), High School Health Science Training (sec. 2533), Health training programs for Community Colleges (sec. 118), class size reduction in nursing programs (sec. 2536). While the bill is not perfect it certainly goes a long way in addressing some of the future problems with our healthcare system. Let's not also forget that all of these new people won't use the system all at the same time.

If France can do it, we can do it. It's that simple.

[Hog1]

On a more elemental level...will it cost more? I would think...yes?
How will that be paid for?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For the 260 Million insured, it is contradictory. For the portion of the 47 Million of young healthy adults who have no health issues (estimates run between 15-25 Million), it is a contradiction.

As I have argued before, by creating a governmental insurer of last resort, you will be creating an entity that will either a) be so cost inefficent as to be a huge money pit; or b) a system that will be just competitve enough to drive out similar private systems and make the more comprehensive plans affordable to only the wealthy.

Why is it contradictory? Unless you know something I don't it seems to me that you can keep whatever you have.

• Insurance exchange | The bill would set up a new national health insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals who do not have employer-sponsored insurance would be able to shop for plans. The exchange would also be open to small businesses, and more would be able to join each year. Companies with 25 or fewer employees would be able to join in 2013, companies with 50 or fewer employees could join in 2014, and companies with fewer than 100 employees could join by 2015.
• Public insurance option | The health insurance exchange would include a government-run public plan. Federal officials would negotiate payment rates with doctors and hospitals that accept the plan.
• Employer mandate | Employers with annual payrolls greater than $500,000 would be required to either provide health insurance for their employees, or contribute 8 percent of their payroll to a federal fund to help subsidize employees who purchase coverage through the exchange. Employers with payrolls less than $500,000 would be exempt from the mandate.
• Individual mandate | Individuals will be required to purchase health insurance, or pay a penalty fee. Some people would be eligible to apply for a hardship waiver.