Health Care Passes... We are all screwed.O

[fusion]

"Both sides would do well to remember the dignity of the house." Said on the House floor just moments ago during a outcry.

I got a good chuckle out of that. The people said they didn't want this but Pelosi's betting pool on the number of votes they'd get was more important.

Which polls are we using again?

[dmagicglock]

in case any of you missed it.. the only good thing to come out of the healthcare debate was John Boehner's speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_PcUUAi52I

[RVTPilot]

The impact of this bill will ripple through the nation like an atomic shockwave. One of the ways this is being funded is through an excise tax on medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers (one of the leading ones in this great nation is the company I work for), which at this time is not tax deductable. Should that maintain that status through the implementation of this bill, that would be a $17-20 million tax on my company right off the top of its profit. That is insane. Compound that by the large numebr of our customers that are Medicade users and places are no longer working with Medicade/Medicare users (see Walgreens in Washington state) and the gov't is ultimately pissing in the face of those whom they are trying to "help".

[chevysoldier]

in case any of you missed it.. the only good thing to come out of the healthcare debate was John Boehner's speech

YouTube- Hell No you cant! John Boehner Historic Speech on health care passing

+1

[Disclaimer]

Said some stuff

I am wondering how you'll be affected. I hope it works out in the end for you guys, overall, but I think it'll depend on how the CEO handles it and exactly what the legislation says, not estimates.

[Uncle Punk]

The CEO will do what he has to by keeping his company competitive. This will be moving the rest of his production offshore. Medicare already reimburses at the lowest rate of any insurance provider so if he wants’ any type of company left he will have to reduce his costs to remain a viable option in the medical field.

[magley64]

I fixed that for you Magley.

I've already stated my opposition to that clause, I don't approve of it at all...However, everything else I've read of the 2409 pages makes sense...

and almost all of the "doomsday" talk (that I've read so far) is either completely false, completely hypothetical, or personal attacks on obama that have nothing to do with the bill at all.

[Rod38um]

Ooooh, I'm excited by the prospect of this new health care plan. I mean think about it: 17,000 new IRS agents hired to police the industry!!! that should stimulate the economy...... 107 boards and panels created to deal with patient/doctor issues.... I figure these will have to be at least regional so that should be about 107,000 employees....... Add those together and multiply by the average government wage of $79,000 per year!!!! just hink how all that Chinese money will stimulate our economy!!!!

It absolutely makes sense to me how health care will now be cheaper having all these government workers looking out for my best interests. I bet the national debt clock has already started running backwards: Lets see... http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Hmmm...... doesnt seem to be happening yet...... guess I'll check back in a few minutes after the Obama magic has had a chance to work a bit longer.....

Also if I look at history.... everywhere the government has made people dependent upon it..... people have flourished..... I mean.... check out any city listed high on government aid like East LA.......... Billions spent in aid to make it the industrial leader it is today! You dont hear people there crying they need jobs! Nothing motivates people more than not having to do anything for their own needs!

God Bless America!

[magley64]

The "Individual Mandate" makes the bill illegal. Not sure how long it will take to kill it' date=' but the SCOTUS will squash this like a grape on the turnpike.[/quote']

hope you're right...that was the only clause that made no sense...

if the health coverage is going to be so affordable, and so good, we'll all WANT to buy it, there is no need to mandate it.

[fusion]

The "Individual Mandate" makes the bill illegal. Not sure how long it will take to kill it' date=' but the SCOTUS will squash this like a grape on the turnpike.[/quote']

I don't like that either but if I remember correctly Massachusetts has it in theirs and it hasn't been killed yet. If someone doesn't want insurance they shouldn't have to have insurance, but to balance it you have to give hospitals the freedom to turn away patients without fear of a law suit.

[Uncle Punk]

The "Individual Mandate" makes the bill illegal. Not sure how long it will take to kill it' date=' but the SCOTUS will squash this like a grape on the turnpike.[/quote']

The problem with a challenge is the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014. No one will have cause until then and by that time Obama could have placed the deciding vote in the court.

[justin0469]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L32E20100322

Virginia to sue government over healthcare reform

NEW YORK

Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:28am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage, and provides subsidies to help lower-income workers afford it.

No Republican voted for the bill, which passed the House on Sunday night by a 219-212 vote

[Casper]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L32E20100322

Hopefully more follow.

[jon_SV650]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

[RFM]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L32E20100322

I choose to no longer buy auto insurance.

[Uncle Punk]

I don't like that either but if I remember correctly Massachusetts has it in theirs and it hasn't been killed yet. If someone doesn't want insurance they shouldn't have to have insurance, but to balance it you have to give hospitals the freedom to turn away patients without fear of a law suit.

You just solved the whole problem right there. The government mandates treatment but doesn't fund it. Hospitals have to give services away so they pass the cost on to their other consumers. The government created the problem they are trying to fix. I really don’t trust them not to screw this up even bigger.

[Disclaimer]

I don't like that either but if I remember correctly Massachusetts has it in theirs and it hasn't been killed yet. If someone doesn't want insurance they shouldn't have to have insurance, but to balance it you have to give hospitals the freedom to turn away patients without fear of a law suit.

The libertarian me likes that, but the practical me says there's no f*(king way that would work given the rampant excuses the public has for being inbetween coverages or whatever.

Hypothetically. Lets say you choose not to carry health insurance, and you're T-boned by someone. The medics on scene have to make a call whether to treat you or not - by not carrying insurance, there's no guarantee they'll get paid, nor will the hospital. The accident wasn't your fault, but they don't know that. The cops on scene are still gathering statements from witnesses and reconstructing the accident. So, do they treat you under the assumption you have insurance, or do they not? Does the 'at fault' party have to carry additional insurance to pay for medical bills for the 'under insured' other party? What if the accident was YOUR fault? You made your bed by choosing no insurance, you wanna lie in it now?

I mean, there's so many what-if's that are eliminated if you make the assumption people are covered.

[justin0469]

I choose to no longer buy auto insurance.

youre only required to have liability coverage to pay for damages to other people's property or person.

[RVTPilot]

The CEO will do what he has to by keeping his company competitive. This will be moving the rest of his production offshore. Medicare already reimburses at the lowest rate of any insurance provider so if he wants’ any type of company left he will have to reduce his costs to remain a viable option in the medical field.

This isn't far from the mark. We had already taken manufacturing offshore to China before and brought it back thanks to quality issues. But I foresee our Mexican ops getting more work that is done now right here in Elyria. And R&D will get squashed I am sure. They have already stopped paying into our 401k due to the threat of the bill at the beginning of the year. But as it stands, we're waiting to see the finished product. If they end up allowing excise taxed companies claim the fee as a tax deduction, that will help offset some of the burden, but that still doesn't make it right or make us whole. Oh, and our premiums went up on '10 as well as our co-pays.

[magley64]

I choose to no longer buy auto insurance.

this is my big problem with equating it to auto insurance.

if you own your vehicle, you are required to carry liability, this covers people who may be damaged by your vehicle. There is no law requiring you to carry comprehensive, or collision insurance on your own vehicle. (unless it is financed, but that's mandated by the company that bought your car for you)

where is the health insurance equivalent to "liability"?

edit: justin beat me to it...

[fusion]

The libertarian me likes that, but the practical me says there's no f*(king way that would work given the rampant excuses the public has for being inbetween coverages or whatever.

Hypothetically. Lets say you choose not to carry health insurance, and you're T-boned by someone. The medics on scene have to make a call whether to treat you or not - by not carrying insurance, there's no guarantee they'll get paid, nor will the hospital. The accident wasn't your fault, but they don't know that. The cops on scene are still gathering statements from witnesses and reconstructing the accident. So, do they treat you under the assumption you have insurance, or do they not? Does the 'at fault' party have to carry additional insurance to pay for medical bills for the 'under insured' other party? What if the accident was YOUR fault? You made your bed by choosing no insurance, you wanna lie in it now?

I mean, there's so many what-if's that are eliminated if you make the assumption people are covered.

I think I agree and not everything would be black and white. There would have to be careful legislation around some emergency services where loss of life or limb is immediate.

[chevysoldier]

Which polls are we using again?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Two months where "In favor" was either equal to or greater than "against"

The American public remains evenly divided on whether President Obama's health care plan should be passed, according to the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll.

Forty-six percent of all respondents came out in favor of passing the bill, with 45 percent against it.

But even for those who voiced their support for the legislation, the President's plan is less than ideal. Only 36 percent of all poll participants thought the plan was a "good idea".

[Disclaimer]

This isn't far from the mark. We had already taken manufacturing offshore to China before and brought it back thanks to quality issues.

All companies have the goal to find the LCCS Strategy. This would've been done regardless of the bill. The bottom line is the company will making sourcing decisions based on making products as low cost as they can get, while trying to balance the COPQ and Logistics costs for doing so.

The only difference here is where the additional funds from the profit maximization exercise are going. Taxes, in this case.

[Uncle Punk]

This isn't far from the mark. We had already taken manufacturing offshore to China before and brought it back thanks to quality issues. But I foresee our Mexican ops getting more work that is done now right here in Elyria. And R&D will get squashed I am sure. They have already stopped paying into our 401k due to the threat of the bill at the beginning of the year. But as it stands, we're waiting to see the finished product. If they end up allowing excise taxed companies claim the fee as a tax deduction, that will help offset some of the burden, but that still doesn't make it right or make us whole. Oh, and our premiums went up on '10 as well as our co-pays.

The only reason the Mexican manufacturing was able to maintain any quality was because they were using US tooling. Once the ability to purchase quality US tooling is gone quality will become an issue again. You can get quality tooling from overseas but you have to have the stateside engineering to follow up, you can't give them free rein over engineering decisions. Garbage in garbage out. The Chinese will give you what you are asking for weather it's what you really need or not. You can't cut cost across the board and expect quality to be maintained. You need someone with experience to guide the process.

[Disclaimer]

And that's why there's penalties and fines for ridin' dirty like that too (if you get caught). You can't prevent it, but can deter it.

You can go without health insurance, just don't get caught. Can't be that hard... just don't ever get sick or injured.