Change is here!!!

[HAOLE]

"We're going to have a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general... who is... obese, and financed by a country that's broke. What the ---- could possibly go wrong??"

 

perfect!!!

[iwishiwascool]

The black dude from Goergia said it best yesterday, "there are no rules today." Iwishiwascool, ive got a bunch of reasons but i bet youll just shoot them down like you do on CDSM. I live with my grandma who has a pretty set income and has to work. She is 65. Her Medicade is going to go up now. She will not be able to make ends meet more than likely now or be living close to the edge. IS THAT FAIR TO HER? A woman who has raised two kids, struggled living on her own for 30 some years and worked since she was 18.

 

Secondly, how about all those people that make only enough or dont even live in a home and are now going to be forced to buy health care. What happens if you dont? The IRS will take your money. If you dont pay, you go to jail. Then what happens, the state is force like they are now to provide health care coverage to you when you are in the pen. Great! Even more handouts that the state is forced to give because of FEDERAL laws.

 

We need to FIRST, give back the states rights and remove federal deviousness. Secondly, we need to remove this bill from law and make health care reform by doing TORT reform. Which is the best way to remove those idiotic health care companies rules. Like no covering because of a preexisting condition. Thats the MOST INHUMANE thing a company has EVER done and they get away with it. Tort reform is what needed to happen. NOT THIS BILL!

 

-Link me to a source stating that her "medicade is going up"

-You massively misunderstand that the brunt of the cost of this bill is dedicated to those who cannot afford the mandate.

-The CBO numbers that are being purported as massively overstating the long term savings of this bill say Tort reform would reduce costs by a small percent. So the CBO both over-estimates when it doesn't suite your narrative and under-estimates when it does. Tort reform needs to happen, but it is not the answer.

-Tort reform and pre-existing condition clauses have no relation. How you suspect that tort reform resolves that is a massive cognitive jump that I can't seem to ride along with.

[V8 Beast]

Bumping again so that people in the other one see that this one is here...

 

 

PS if you are going to debate with Ken you need to bring facts or he'll make you look like you dropped out in the second grade. I'm a smart guy (sometimes ) and even I would spend 60 minutes googling references before I even thought to get involved in a political debate with him.

[AWW$HEEET]

I want to know why it was passed when it was widely unpopular? Is there a chance it can be repealed?

[Guest Spam]

So you would rather make ONE large jump rather than a few small ones? First reform the system see what happens? The Govt thinks all these changes are going to happen all at one and its not going to happen. And im sorry, i meant medicare. LAstly, the worst part about this, is our astute president had to use an executioner order to pass the bill. Its all bullshit and politics, and the whole USA saw it happen. This bill will be the downfall of a lot of people when 2012 comes around.

[Guest Spam]

What would you do Ken since you know everything.... Would you keep this bill or make a new one. If new, what would you do differently.

[V8 Beast]

So you would rather make ONE large jump rather than a few small ones?

 

Good point.

[NTHER91]

The other thread started to blame people who didn't know anything, just that he was black for voting for him., well I do not blame the fools I blame the ones that thought they knew what they were doing buying into "yea we can" they are the idiots this bill may help it may not but I shouldn't have to pay for sown lazy college student or some broke ass mom with 8 kids and drug dealer bf to have better insurance than me, wait I already do thanks welfare! All this bill did was cause working Americans to have to pay more taxes....

[iwishiwascool]

I want to know why it was passed when it was widely unpopular? Is there a chance it can be repealed?

 

Anything can be repealed... with a 2/3 majority and a presidents signature.

 

The same polls that showed the bill being unpopular also asked people about whether they support the individual components of the bill. Each of the issues were widely popular. It shows that a majority of people are confused by what the Bill really accomplishes.

 

You can see evidence of this whenever you see someone refer to it as a "Takeover" or Socialism. Regulating a broken industry is far from a takeover. Even if we were debating a single payer system, we would still be a very far cry from a free market economy.

[Drewhop]

I want to know why it was passed when it was widely unpopular?

 

Dont come in here with your common sense.

[V8 Beast]

The other thread started to blame people who didn't know anything, just that he was black for voting for him., well I do not blame the fools I blame the ones that thought they knew what they were doing buying into "yea we can" they are the idiots this bill may help it may not but I shouldn't have to pay for sown lazy college student or some broke ass mom with 8 kids and drug dealer bf to have better insurance than me, wait I already do thanks welfare! All this bill did was cause working Americans to have to pay more taxes....

 

I see we have now added lazy college students into the equation with welfare moms.. change is happening!!!

[sol740]

There's a whole lot of rhetoric, and partisan propaganda-ism going on in here. There is a simpler way look at the issue.

 

Healthcare costs have been skyrocketing for many, many years. Republicans had the power to make sweeping changes to the system over the course of 8+ years. Not just healthcare though, throw in every major economic issue we are having. Then when these same issues came to a head, they just blamed it on "not being conservative enough". Even when they had complete executive and legislative control, it was the Dems fault.

 

Hold that thought, I think a piece of the sky just grazed my skull, someone call a TOWN HALL !!! I need to yell incoherently !!! THIS BILL ISN'T ABSOLUTELY PERFECT !!!

[iwishiwascool]

What would you do Ken since you know everything.... Would you keep this bill or make a new one. If new, what would you do differently.

 

It has been shown (I can cite if you would like) that incremental changes cost dramatically more and have less overall impact.

 

Let's talk about how incremental change would work.

 

We all agree that pre-existing conditions, life-time caps, and dropping sick people need to be fixed. Let that be the goal.

 

We decide to take the first incremental step and make the above practices illegal. The immediate ramification is that premium costs skyrocket as people wait to self-insure until after they are sick or need care... what's worse is that they drop insurance as soon as they are cured or healed. Insurance companies would literally go bankrupt.

 

So now we've swung in a direction that unilaterally supports the people but screws the providers. So how do we make sure that people don't abuse the system? If having insurance is a necessity the problem is resolved. But now people who are too poor, unemployed, or retarded. Instead of emergency rooms writing off their massive losses year after year, these people are covered by a less costly government subsidy. Frankly, if we can pay farmers to not produce corn, we can cover a few folks who have genuine need.

 

I don't think this bill is the answer, but I think it's a start. I think the next step is establishing cost controls and streamlining processes... including tort reform. I would tack on welfare reform to get the (small percentage) of abusers off the system and fucking dead for all I care. I hate social sponges as much as the tea party but I realize that they represent a relatively small fraction of the social safety net.

[wagner]

There's a whole lot of rhetoric, and partisan propaganda-ism going on in here. There is a simpler way look at the issue.

 

Healthcare costs have been skyrocketing for many, many years. Republicans had the power to make sweeping changes to the system over the course of 8+ years. Not just healthcare though, throw in every major economic issue we are having. Then when these same issues came to a head, they just blamed it on "not being conservative enough". Even when they had complete executive and legislative control, it was the Dems fault.

 

Hold that thought, I think a piece of the sky just grazed my skull, someone call a TOWN HALL !!! I need to yell incoherently !!! THIS BILL ISN'T ABSOLUTELY PERFECT !!!

 

Stop talking level headed so I can yell moar neat slogans and hold up signs.

 

RIOT@#@#@#@#@#@#@#

[kshymkiw83]

Just expect more of this:

 

 

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_1742b9b9-082d-5c50-be1e-54b50543ae7a.html

Idaho first to sign law against health care reform

 

 

 

Idaho is leading the charge in a states-rights push to defeat a proposal in Congress that would require people to buy health insurance, a key piece of reforms being pushed by President Barack Obama.

 

Republican Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter used a ceremony Wednesday afternoon to become the first governor to sign into law a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government over any such insurance mandates.

 

There's similar legislation pending in 37 other states, a point Otter stressed when asked if the bill he signed can succeed, given constitutional law experts are already saying federal laws would supersede those of states in a U.S. District Court fight.

 

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,'" he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

 

The state measures working their ways through statehouses from Missouri to South Carolina reflect a growing frustration with President Obama's health care overhaul, especially in Republican-dominated regions.

 

The Democratic president's proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.

 

Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.

 

With Washington closing in on a deal in the monthslong battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers are stepping up opposition.

 

Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.

 

"Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Christie Herrera, the group's health task force director.

 

Still, David Freeman Engstrom, a constitutional law expert at Stanford University Law School, said all these measures face significant legal hurdles. Freeman said there is the question of whether a state has standing to bring the lawsuit, or if that role is better served by an individual who could show they were harmed by the mandate to buy health insurance.

 

Idaho's law faces an even bigger challenge, he said, by setting up a direct conflict with the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution.

 

"That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law," said Freeman. "So it really doesn't matter what a state legislature says on this."

 

Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation.

 

He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.

 

"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.

 

Minority Democrats who make up less than a quarter of the Idaho Legislature who opposed the bill called any lawsuits over health care reform frivolous.

 

Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year.

 

Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.

 

"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."

 

At the White House, spokesman Reid Cherlin declined to comment Wednesday night.

[kshymkiw83]

Personally I applaud the States signing onto this, like Idaho.

 

Social Healthcare only benefits the freeloaders.

[V8 Beast]

People that dont have health care (and get sick) are also the ones that dont pay their hospital bills. With it being mandatory would hospitals/doctors benefit?

[hpfiend]

This is an interesting thread- good to see some people that care- Some of you should obviously work in the political arena if you do not already. Edited March 23, 2010 by hpfiend

[V8 Beast]

Who do I need to talk to so that it will be ok to not pay my mortgage so I can get a 3% rate, still don't pay and then have my mortgage principal reduced, get huge tax refund checks, obtain health insurance for free, and have other people pay for the food for my kids?

 

Talk too GM workers.. a lot of them recently found themselves forced into a situation where they need this type of help. They could point you in the right direction.

[HAOLE]

People that dont have health care (and get sick) are also the ones that dont pay their hospital bills. With it being mandatory would hospitals/doctors benefit?

 

The short answer is no. What will continue to happen will be a free fall of reimbursement. Since the 1980's reimbursement rates drop hence doctors and hospitals make far less than they used to. More people on the insurance rolls will mean more services, the total cost of health care will skyrocket in the next few year at a pace that make the last 20 years look like child's play. To control the rising cost, reimbursement will be cut even further.

[NTHER91]

Talk too GM workers.. a lot of them recently found themselves forced into a situation where they need this type of help. They could point you in the right direction.

 

This also causes GM to have to pay a fine..

 

and yes lazy kids and welfare moms are the same when talking in very simple terms ( freeloaders)

 

how about all the Somalians and Mexicans that he wants to make citizens ( fast track was used) then they would get free healthcare....this seems like a sure fire way to get re-elected cuz no true american will vote for him again so why not make more Americans and give them free heath care and money???????

 

hes not a dumb man by any means, but he deff is not a good president at all.

 

and if anyone wants to argue that wait till he effects your pay check and then make your decision.

 

on a side note the spell check thingy in here is awesome I feel like I graduated school now, wait i have to use it I better go back to school.

[kshymkiw83]

The short answer is no. What will continue to happen will be a free fall of reimbursement. Since the 1980's reimbursement rates drop hence doctors and hospitals make far less than they used to. More people on the insurance rolls will mean more services, the total cost of health care will skyrocket in the next few year at a pace that make the last 20 years look like child's play. To control the rising cost, reimbursement will be cut even further.

 

Along those lines. My wife has a VERY specialized doctor, like one of 10 in the US who does what he does.

 

He brings people in from all over the world, literally. We were there in Janruary, and there were at least 13 diffrent countries being represented in his office, with patients. I have to ask myself, how she will be treated. She took on an elective, but necessary surgery. He charges upwards of 100k per Surgery. I have a sinking feeling that if he is forced into this, he will go somewhere else, where he can make his money. If he does it is really going to suck.

[HAOLE]

Along those lines. My wife has a VERY specialized doctor, like one of 10 in the US who does what he does.

 

He brings people in from all over the world, literally. We were there in Janruary, and there were at least 13 diffrent countries being represented in his office, with patients. I have to ask myself, how she will be treated. She took on an elective, but necessary surgery. He charges upwards of 100k per Surgery. I have a sinking feeling that if he is forced into this, he will go somewhere else, where he can make his money. If he does it is really going to suck.

 

The devil will be in the details. I have not been able to find out if doctors will be able to "opt out" of the networks. We may be forced to accept all insurance that the government approves or face civil or criminal penalties.

[V8 Beast]

The short answer is no. What will continue to happen will be a free fall of reimbursement. Since the 1980's reimbursement rates drop hence doctors and hospitals make far less than they used to. More people on the insurance rolls will mean more services, the total cost of health care will skyrocket in the next few year at a pace that make the last 20 years look like child's play. To control the rising cost, reimbursement will be cut even further.

 

So the rich are not getting richer, the poor won for a change, and I'm going to have to schedule my appointments 7 weeks out because all the doctors will be overrun with people that suddenly got health care.

[Smokey]

I realize that my question is likely fickle, but I guess everyone wants to think of how they're affected.

 

I have a pretty good insurance plan thru work, and my wife has what I would consider a great insurance plan. She has a personal deductable each year and then 100% coverage except for copays. Is her plan going to be considered one of the "Cadillac plans" that will no longer be offered by health insurers?

 

I would be upset if we could no longer have that option, especially as we're planning on trying to raise a family and that coverage would be what I want for my wife and children.