Is Obamacare cooked??

[OULenexaman]

Obama health plan in doubt as Democrats reject fast fix. WASHINGTON | House won't pass Senate bill.

January 22, 2010

ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Though reeling from a political body blow, House Democrats rejected the quickest fix to their health-care dilemma Thursday and signaled that any agreement on President Obama's signature issue will come slowly, if at all.

Democrats weighed a handful of difficult options as they continued to absorb Republican Scott Brown's election to the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. Several said Obama must forcefully help them find a way to avoid the humiliation of enacting no bill, and they urged him to do so quickly, to put the painful process behind them.

House leaders said they could not pass a Senate-approved bill, standing by itself, because of objections from liberals and moderates alike. Such a move could have settled the matter because it would not have required further Senate action. Brown's stunning victory restored the GOP's power to block bills with Senate filibusters.

Democratic leaders weighed two main options, both problematic. The first would require congressional Democrats to muscle their way past stiff GOP objections despite warning signs from Massachusetts voters and worries about next November's elections.

The other would pare down the original health-care legislation in hopes of gaining some Republican support. But the compromise process is more difficult than many lawmakers suggest.

So can we stick a fork in it??

[yermom]

if one election of one Senate seat topples your plans and is a "body blow" perhaps there is something wrong with the system in general

[OklahomaTuba]

Yeah, its only "just" one election. Keep telling yourself that.

The system is fine.

The problem is ZeroCare is an epic disaster that will most likely hand congress back to the GOP, and not puts the Senate in play as well.

Perhaps if Dear Leader spent his energy trying to fix the economy, and not trying to take it over, he might be more than a one term wonder.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Describe to me exact passages from the legislation and what makes them bad and/or good.

Every single time these discussions come up both sides spout off generalities that match what was said before anything was even voted on or even written.

Just one time I'd like to see both sides of the argument here cite specific examples from the bill that support their opinions on the legisl;ation as a whole...not what Rachel Maddow or Rush Limaugh said, but actual content.

*Moderate waiting for replies*

[OklahomaTuba]

Describe to me exact passages from the legislation and what makes them bad and/or good.You mean the one that has federal funding of abortions and the government run and paid for insurance system??

Or maybe the bill that forces you to buy a policy from a private company, no matter if you want it or not??

[1890MilesToNorman]

The one senate seat the Dem's haven't had to worry about in 50 years was lost. That's why it's such a big deal.

[MojoRisen]

How about waiting 6 months for a critical surgery that you need in 2-3 weeks or die!

If everyone has healthcare, we run out of docs quickly and service is backed up dramatically. I would think that people who have paid for their healthcare would want to get treated. That is one arguement

The only government run healthcare plans thus far in 2 states bankrupted quickly and service went way down.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I mean I want to hear, pro or con, exact passages supporting either the pro or the con argument for a change...Pretty simple. For all the argument out of both sides all I hear is "There's a part that says bla-bla-bla" and the other side says yeah but this other undefined uncited part says "bla-bla-bla".

[Crucifax Autumn]

How about waiting 6 months for a critical surgery that you need in 2-3 weeks or die!

If everyone has healthcare, we run out of docs quickly and service is backed up dramatically. I would think that people who have paid for their healthcare would want to get treated. That is one arguement

The only government run healthcare plans thus far in 2 states bankrupted quickly and service went way down.

See what I mean? "Bla-bla-bla...opinion without citation...bla-bla-bla"

I don't care which side of the debate anyone falls on, I want to see actual passages supporting the opinions on the bill.

[OklahomaTuba]

I mean I want to hear, pro or con, exact passages supporting either the pro or the con argument for a change...Pretty simple.The problem is, there is no one bill.

the donks are still making their smoky backroom deals trying to figure out who else they can bribe and pay off to get this thing passed.

Labor got their pay off, as did Nebraska and Louisiana. Who else has to get a bribe to get this thing passed? That's what I want to know.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Cru, how can I give a pro or con argument when everything they say is a crock of crap! We do not need any more gubmint entitlements period. I would bring up the Constitution but I'm sure I'd get lambasted for bringing out that old dusty document no one has read in 50 years.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Okay then. Let's limit it to the current version of the Senate Bill that the house has just decided they can't pass as is. Just for the sake of a coherent argument.

Both sides can consider this to be a chance to tell me, a moderate with no solid party affiliation, why their side is right and I WILL NOT accept opinion or speculation as a valid argument. Make it clear to me, if this was my #1 issue, wjy I should vote for candidates that are either for or against it.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Cru, how can I give a pro or con argument when everything they say is a crock of crap! We do not need any more gubmint entitlements period. I would bring up the Constitution but I'm sure I'd get lambasted for bringing out that old dusty document no one has read in 50 years.

For the sake of argument, the constitution doesn't matter. We have madeicare, medicade, social sedurity, food stamps and a host of other things not laid out in the constitution. This is happening or not outside of any constitutional argument.

So what specific things in the bill, crap or not, make it good or bad?

[1890MilesToNorman]

I haven't read the bill and I would wager 80% of the house of reps haven't read it either.

[Crucifax Autumn]

And yet they, and you, and tons of other are arguing supposed specific things in the bill to pass or not pass it.

That's what I want to know. What have those 20% read that had them take a side, not the 80% that polled their district or vote the party line regardless.

[OklahomaTuba]

So what specific things in the bill, crap or not, make it good or bad?Federally funded abortion.

And make it federal law that you have to buy a product from some company or your are fined, or worse.

That's not only wrong, its unconstitutional.

[soonerscuba]

See what I mean? "Bla-bla-bla...opinion without citation...bla-bla-bla"

I don't care which side of the debate anyone falls on, I want to see actual passages supporting the opinions on the bill.There are two bills, one for the House and one for the Senate. The trick is consolidating those bills into a citable entity is very tricky, it takes time, comprimise and work. I think that most agree on the provisions of Part A within the Senate bill, but the House wants a gov't option, which are so fundamentally different that it surprises me zero that they're at impasse.

Part A is for the most part a refutaion of everything most hate about insurance. Which is basically the profit side of denied coverage.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Can I see those passages from the bill? I've heard some big giant argument on the abortion part on tv and last I heard that was soemthing that had to be paid separately by the consumer, but I can't find the passage allowing it or the passage saying it was an extra "cadiallac" plan that allows it.

This is my point...Where is the actual text that has everyone for or against and how can I tell what to think without any facts from either side?

[Crucifax Autumn]

There are two bills, one for the House and one for the Senate. The trick is consolidating those bills into a citable entity is very tricky, it takes time, comprimise and work. I think that most agree on the provisions of Part A within the Senate bill, but the House wants a gov't option, which are so fundamentally different that it surprises me zero that they're at impasse.

Part A is for the most part a refutaion of everything most hate about insurance. Which is basically the profit side of denied coverage.

This is why, for the sake of argument, i said let's focus on the senate bill and hear some actual provisions and why they are good or bad. All the arguing we've had, here and nationwide, and I never see actual passages.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Knock yourself out Cru, here is the link. 615 pages.

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

[MojoRisen]

What is the cost of the senate plan compared to the House plan- House plan was a trillion dollars right?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Knock yourself out Cru, here is the link. 615 pages.

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

That's the closest we've come to discussing actual facts. But you see, I'm just dumbazz John Q. Public and I want all you edumacated conservatives and liberals with solid opinions on it to enlighten me and point to specific points in that 615 pages as to why I should or shouldn't write my congressman and tell 'em to git r done. :confused:

[Crucifax Autumn]

What is the cost of the senate plan compared to the House plan- House plan was a trillion dollars right?

See? There's an easy one for you healthcare scholars. How much and why is it worth it or not worth it based on the services and benefits provided, or not, based on the text 1890 linked?

[OklahomaTuba]

The fact the libz had to try to pass it at 1:00 AM on Christmas eve And had to bribe people to support it was enough for most people to understand this is a POS bill.

And why nearly 60% of the country opposes it.

And why the donks are now toast in Nov.

[JLEW1818]

So does Obama know that he ****ed up??

[1890MilesToNorman]

That's the closest we've come to discussing actual facts. But you see, I'm just dumbazz John Q. Public and I want all you edumacated conservatives and liberals with solid opinions on it to enlighten me and point to specific points in that 615 pages as to why I should or shouldn't write my congressman and tell 'em to git r done. :confused:

Read the first 5 or 6 pages of bullet items to get a general idea of the scope. Remember, the devil is in the details.

[Crucifax Autumn]

The PDF file conveniently has page numbers and line numbers so it should be pretty easy for you all to cite specific examples of wht it does and why it is bad.

"X" is bad because on page 398 line 12 it says "X provides for Y which is horrible because Mary Q will have an abortion which is bad but her husband MArk Q will have to wait 6 weeks to see a doctor about the heart attack he had when he heard" Or "Poor Mike W doesn't have a job because he has a curable condition and page 487 line 14 says Mike gets it fixed and is so healthy he gets TWO jobs now!"

[Crucifax Autumn]

And why nearly 60% of the country opposes it.


But what parts do those 60% oppose and what do the other 40% think is so important it MUST pass?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Read the first 5 or 6 pages of bullet items to get a general idea of the scope. Remember, the devil is in the details.

Yes...That is where the devil resides, but what precisely is he sitting on that we should be for or against?

[stoopified]

Yeah, its only "just" one election. Keep telling yourself that.

The system is fine.

The problem is ZeroCare is an epic disaster that will most likely hand congress back to the GOP, and not puts the Senate in play as well.

Perhaps if Dear Leader spent his energy trying to fix the economy, and not trying to take it over, he might be more than a one term blunder.Fixed

[Crucifax Autumn]

So does Obama know that he ****ed up??

From his town hall today he doesn't think he did and seems to be solodly behind finding a way to pass some sort of bill, but he didn't cite specifics either, thus my desire to finally understand it all and have the wise sages of SF fill me in and help me form and informed opinion. :D

[MojoRisen]

40 % depend on a vote who doesn't have healthcare to win their seat is possible.


OBITUARY
Born 1776, Died 2008

It does not hurt to read this several times.







Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

• Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
• Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million
McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Yes...That is where the devil resides, but what precisely is he sitting on that we should be for or against?

I ain't gonna read it tonight, I been drankin and it's Friday night. Maybe tomorrow. :D

[soonerscuba]

40 % depend on a vote who doesn't have healthcare to win their seat is possible.


OBITUARY
Born 1776, Died 2008

It does not hurt to read this several times.







Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

• Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
• Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million
McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.Every time you believe an email forward God kills a puppy. Go to snopes yourself, because I'm tired of proving this to be wrong.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I ain't gonna read it tonight, I been drankin and it's Friday night. Maybe tomorrow. :D


I seriously doubt if any of the biggest advocates or opponents ahs read 1 little bit of it. I want some damned details!!!!!!!!!

How can I form an opinion without any solid, documented information????!!!!!!


Help SF sages!!!!! Help me!!!!!!

[MojoRisen]

Those percentages represent a 40% of the population could be tied into the 40% of folks who need those votes.

The cost alone is what is freaking people out and the care has been proven all over the world to be extremely poor. Simple Clinton couldn't do it, Obama sure as hell can't even with a majority!

[Crucifax Autumn]

Those percentages represent a 40% of the population could be tied into the 40% of folks who need those votes.

The cost alone is what is freaking people out and the care has been proven all over the world to be extremely poor. Simple Clinton couldn't do it, Obama sure as hell can't even with a majority!

I still don't see anyone actually citing the legislation but I'll bite:

So the cost is what's freaking the opponents out. The cost of not having it is one of the biggest arguments of those who support it.

Can someone tell me approximately what the cost is of NOT having healthcare? That seems fundamental to the argument and we can't have a real conversation without a reconciliation of these 2 numbers: What does healthcare cost and hwta does not having it cost in terms of total dollars spent by the federal and state governmets and ultimately by taxpayers, citizens, and those who buy insurance and pay assorted fees that get funneled into the system?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Allow me to disqualify any arguments based on the system in Canada, Great Britain, or any other socialized medicine worldwide. First off I hear examples pro and con from the citizens of all those countries. Secondly I don't care. Third, you have to assume we would do, at a minimum a better job than all those places much like we build a better military, better roads, better EVERYTHING. We're Americans not the friggin' French right?

[SCOUT]

OK, I'll give you an example. This isn't a huge issue, but it is one I was discussing with a benefit provider today. Page 76, section 3105 titled Navigators. It is generally providing for the qualifications and restrictions that will be placed on government employees who will act as something like guidance counselors. ON page 77 rows 16-21, it says that you cannot be a navigator if you have received "consideration directly or indirectly" from insurance companies for insurance coverage. This will effectively put every benefit broker in the US out of business.

Also, it has the potential, depending on how they interpret the language, to eliminate anyone who has operated as a benefit broker from being a navigator. In other words, those who are licensed and most knowledgeable about health insurance will be prohibited from giving people advice on health insurance.

To me this is just a minor example, but it illustrates the law of unintended consequences. It sounds like a good idea to limit those individuals because of kickbacks etc. but commissions are the standard form of payment today. The quality of the advice will be reduced in addition to preventing a portion of the country from keeping their jobs.

[MojoRisen]

The senate cost is 868 Billion dollar plan, it is supposed to be Deficit Nutural and actually reduce the budget by about 700 Billion by 2029. Although this is supposedly based on unrealistic Tax Increases and Medicare reductions that Congress won't follow through with. Basically it could cost us a trillion and basically not work and not reduce the deficit at all.

Sounds like they are just playing with numbers- maybe they will get there but it doesn't seem likely now.

So cost savings in the long run, for the deficit doesn't look promissing at this point. To the normal person, maybe a little over the course of the year 3-4K but- service could be non existent - compared to what we get now.

[Crucifax Autumn]

OK, I'll give you an example. This isn't a huge issue, but it is one I was discussing with a benefit provider today. Page 76, section 3105 titled Navigators. It is generally providing for the qualifications and restrictions that will be placed on government employees who will act as something like guidance counselors. ON page 77 rows 16-21, it says that you cannot be a navigator if you have received "consideration directly or indirectly" from insurance companies for insurance coverage. This will effectively put every benefit broker in the US out of business.

Also, it has the potential, depending on how they interpret the language, to eliminate anyone who has operated as a benefit broker from being a navigator. In other words, those who are licensed and most knowledgeable about health insurance will be prohibited from giving people advice on health insurance.

To me this is just a minor example, but it illustrates the law of unintended consequences. It sounds like a good idea to limit those individuals because of kickbacks etc. but commissions are the standard form of payment today. The quality of the advice will be reduced in addition to preventing a portion of the country from keeping their jobs.

Assuming that the pro-reform people are correct in their assertation that insurance companies, and by extention their employees, are evil, then what does this mean. If the insurance companies actually do make a business of making sure they deny enough benefits to make a profit, isn't this a fully intentioned effect of the legislation and thus an acceptable sacrifice?

Not arguing that is true, just asking for the sake of the discussion. When other industries become obsolete, the people working in said inmdustries move on to a different profession. How would this be different and in the case they did stay in the industry, what denies them the ability to begin selling the cadiallac plans as they are called?

[Crucifax Autumn]

The senate cost is 868 Billion dollar plan, it is supposed to be Deficit Nutural and actually reduce the budget by about 700 Billion by 2029. Although this is supposedly based on unrealistic Tax Increases and Medicare reductions that Congress won't follow through with. Basically it could cost us a trillion and basically not work and not reduce the deficit at all.

Sounds like they are just playing with numbers- maybe they will get there but it doesn't seem likely now.

So cost savings in the long run, for the deficit doesn't look promissing at this point. To the normal person, maybe a little over the course of the year 3-4K but- service could be non existent - compared to what we get now.

How then would this effect the people who currently get no care at all? Does this mean that while they would have to wait awhile, ultimately they WOULD see care whereas they currently get none or does it mean that they, along with the people who do get care now, would be screwed and just "die or get better"? OR would this ultimately lead to more college students seeing the lack of enough doctors to treat everyone and become doctors, make up the shortage, cause people to get treated quicker, and these new doctors then know they are guaranteed payment for their services?

[SCOUT]

Assuming that the pro-reform people are correct in their assertation that insurance companies, and by extention their employees, are evil, then what does this mean. If the insurance companies actually do make a business of making sure they deny enough benefits to make a profit, isn't this a fully intentioned effect of the legislation and thus an acceptable sacrifice?

Not arguing that is true, just asking for the sake of the discussion. When other industries become obsolete, the people working in said inmdustries move on to a different profession. How would this be different and in the case they did stay in the industry, what denies them the ability to begin selling the cadiallac plans as they are called?

Benefit brokers are independent of the insurance companies. The intent seems to be to replace their roles with more of a DMV type customer service person. Think a professional job vs. an entry level job.

People will, and do, adapt to a changing job market. My point is that a noble intent will have a negative impact on the quality of information while eliminating jobs. If not eliminating, reducing the quality of the job at best.

My summary would be that anyone who is licensed to give their professional opinion on this subject will be prevented from giving their advice on this subject for a living. Doesn't seem like that good of an idea to me.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Okay...I misunderstood then...Which is why I'm trying to force a real, fact-based discussion rather than the bullshat we've heard for a solid year.

[MojoRisen]

It would extend coverage to 31 million people, but it cost a trillion dollars and reduces the deficit not at all in cost savings.

Better for the 31 million, but overal brings down service considerably. I would be all for reform, but not to just save the world and add to the deficit. 31 millon votes is 31 million votes though -

Curious how long it would take to bridge the gap - and get more doctors 20-30 years?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Benefit brokers are independent of the insurance companies. The intent seems to be to replace their roles with more of a DMV type customer service person. Think a professional job vs. an entry level job.

People will, and do, adapt to a changing job market. My point is that a noble intent will have a negative impact on the quality of information while eliminating jobs. If not eliminating, reducing the quality of the job at best.

My summary would be that anyone who is licensed to give their professional opinion on this subject will be prevented from giving their advice on this subject for a living. Doesn't seem like that good of an idea to me.

Would those people in any way be able to find a way to work within the new system? Not as the "dmv" types you describe, but in more administrative roles? How many people currently provide this service? How many people are affected by that section of the legislation and is it a good or bad tradeoff in the context of the goals of the legislation? Obviously it's bad for the individual pushed out of a profession, but in the grand scheme what is the effect?

[Crucifax Autumn]

It would extend coverage to 31 million people, but it cost a trillion dollars and reduces the deficit not at all in cost savings.

Better for the 31 million, but overal brings down service considerably. I would be all for reform, but not to just save the world and add to the deficit. 31 millon votes is 31 million votes though -

Curious how long it would take to bridge the gap - and get more doctors 20-30 years?

Very good question and one that must be weighed in the context of the actual effect of the system. Is there some part of the legislation that in any way ranks the illness of the people and moves emergencies to the front of the line? This already occurs in the microcosm of ER triage...Would it work on a grand scale? These are the questions I'd like this thread to explore...INTHE CONTEXT OF THE ACTUAL BILL, not in some fantasyland "what if" scenario from a comic book or a sci-fi novel.

[SCOUT]

Would those people in any way be able to find a way to work within the new system? Not as the "dmv" types you describe, but in more administrative roles? How many people currently provide this service? How many people are affected by that section of the legislation and is it a good or bad tradeoff in the context of the goals of the legislation? Obviously it's bad for the individual pushed out of a profession, but in the grand scheme what is the effect?

At this point, it becomes my opinion. It is certainly possible that they could find a way to work within the system. That is the crux of this bill though. The reason you are having such a tough time getting someone to give you a specific beef is because the language is so lawyerly. It could mean that they can't do anything, it could mean that they could do something or even anything. We just don't know. That is how many of the sections of the bill read. I did a word search last week on the House bill and the phrase "The Commissioner shall" appeared something like 262 times. Most of those were followed by words like, decide, determine, assess etc. So much is left to be determined later than no one really knows, not even the authors. I used this example just because I am familiar with it, but it illustrates that point to me.

I don't have an exact number of benefit brokers but it is a relatively common role that the majority of companies have as a vendor. In my opinion it is a good intention with possibly bad results. The goal of the legislation, and this section in particular, to keep bias out of the recommendation process. What they are failing to understand is that their bill is affecting people who are giving advice without bias. Commissions are not the same as kick-backs or bribes. Their commissions come as a percentage of the insurance plan. That percentage is negotiated each year and is transparent to the customer.

The grand scheme impact is keeping the people who actually know what they are talking about out of the equation. That is a negative impact in my mind.

[1890MilesToNorman]

In my opinion this legislation would severely reduce the number of doctors over the next 10 years. I have a couple of docs in the family and they have talked about national healthcare since the 70's saying they would have chosen a different profession if the gubmint was in control of medicine.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Okay...So out of that massive bill, I now have one thing I have a basic understanding about. Unfortunately, while helpful, it leaves a lot more to be discussed.

On to the rest guys. There is an entire year of opinions on this board without citation of the bill. Everyone who has had an opinion about some benefit and/or shortcoming of the bill, or a moral objection to a part of it now has the actual bill (Senate version) at their disposal. So, who wants to go next and point out a specific section of the bill and how that ties in with your belief it should be passed or voted down.

Time is running out!

[Crucifax Autumn]

In my opinion this legislation would severely reduce the number of doctors over the next 10 years. I have a couple of docs in the family and they have talked about national healthcare since the 70's saying they would have chosen a different profession if the gubmint was in control of medicine.

[healthcare reform advocate]But as it is now, the insurance companies run medicine and the doctor's opinion on the best care is often overruled by the insurance guy.[/healthcare reform advocate]

[Collier11]

Okay...So out of that massive bill, I now have one thing I have a basic understanding about. Unfortunately, while helpful, it leaves a lot more to be discussed.


Crux, here is my initial opinion of what you are asking and how the majority of people feel, I may be wrong that most people feel this way but I dont think so.

Ok, we have this massive health care overhaul that the Democrats were trying to rush through a vote for approval, a bill that most of us have no idea what it specifically says, only what it costs.
Now take that bill that most of the people who it will cover dont understand and realize that the overwhelming majority of those people who are supposed to be representing the good of the people and passing this bill and think about the fact that they havent even read it. They dont even know what it says, this is what bothers me and I assume most who oppose it.

Something as important as health care has no place for blind partisanship yet that is what we were getting

[Crucifax Autumn]

And right here, in this thread, with a link to the actual text of the bill, people have the opportunity to site the specific examples of why it is good OR bad. That's exactly what I'm asking and the stuff you are saying is specifically why I am asking. The bill consist of more than "whhat does it cost?", "Will I get to go to the doctor now?" and "does it cover abortion?"

Most of those things have answers that can probably be pointed to in the bill and I want people to go look at it, find theri pet bitch, and cite it here, explaining why it is bad or good, and make a fact-based case for their opinion. You know...Facts instead of South Oval hyperbole and bull**** so and so on Fox/MSNBC/Talk Radio said it said and said we should think.

[Collier11]

Exactly but you know that Americans in general are apathetic towards most things, stuff like this people have just passed off to their representatives and they count on them reading and voting yes or no for their benefit even when they have no idea what they are voting for or if they even read it

[Crucifax Autumn]

So? Does that mean we have to be apathetic in this discussion? Just because most people are stupid isn't an excuse for us to blindly spout off ignorant talking points provided by our party of choice.

Let's mobilize the South Oval and discuss specifics and help dumbasses like me understand the actual bill and what's in it, thus giving everyone a well cited, actual analasys of the bill and the opinions we've been slinging around for a year.

[Collier11]

Im just explaining why you arent getting many responses that amount to sh*t

[Crucifax Autumn]

Oh, I know that. But I'm just demanding that I do!

[OU_Sooners75]

This is the best I can do:

http://brainshavings.com/images/obamacare-poopile.png

[Crucifax Autumn]

What page of the bill is that on?

Shortly before you left you were arguing the other side.

What page of the bill changed your opinion? I'd love to hear it as it would help me formulate a fact based opinion on what to tell my congressman when I write him urging him to support or oppose the bill going forward.

[Collier11]

I think that is article 5d, line 333

[Crucifax Autumn]

I didn't realize they'd put out a picturebook edition for the kids. That might make my quest for understanding easier.

[OU_Sooners75]

I have not read the bill...

But from what I have heard about it. I think the Congress needs to make it where they are covered by the same standards as the US Citizens.

If not, then they should not even vote this in.

Also:

Say I started my own company and I employed say 25 people. If my business is fledgling even after the first year, how can I as a business owner afford to have group insurance when the business is still trying to thrive?

There is a passage in the bill that states small businesses in their first year of operation are exempt. But after that, that small business must offer insurance to their employees.

Just a couple of things that do not fly well with me.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Why shouldn't businesses provide health insurance? What happened to the bill since the beginning when the whole concept WAS to provide the same coverage congress had.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Besides...If those are your problems, cite for me what page of the bill those things are on.

[Sooner24]

Besides...If those are your problems, cite for me what page of the bill those things are on.

Man your lazy. :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

Intentionally. I don't have an opinion but other people have such a stron opinion I assumed they'd researched the fine points extensively and want to benefit from their vast knowledge of the facts.

[OU_Sooners75]

Besides...If those are your problems, cite for me what page of the bill those things are on.

Google the damn thing, you lazy bastage! :texan:

[OU_Sooners75]

Why shouldn't businesses provide health insurance? What happened to the bill since the beginning when the whole concept WAS to provide the same coverage congress had.

Because the insurance companies charge an outrageous amount for group insurance.

My dream is to open my own restaurant...and if it is still barely making it on labor costs, food costs, and any other operating expenses...how is it fair that I should provide insurance for people that would make it where I was unable to live off the business that is my dream?

Kinda stupid isnt it?

Want my version of a health care bill?

The government should insure all children from the birth to 18 (21 if in college). Anyone that falls out of that age group, then the adults should foot the bill for themselves.

yeah, it is still a hand out, but at least it goes to those that are the highest of uninsured in this country!

[OU_Sooners75]

Intentionally. I don't have an opinion but other people have such a stron opinion I assumed they'd researched the fine points extensively and want to benefit from their vast knowledge of the facts.

And what makes you think some if not most have not done that research?

Maybe if you would take the time to actually stop trolling and read the bill, you would find things in the proposal that is not needed or that are just flat out outrageous in nature.

[Collier11]

You are missing his point, Cru's point is that there are many on this board on both sides of the aisle who b*tch and moan about the bill left and right but cannot site one specific part of the bill that they dont like or they do like. They only site stuff they heard on tv or on the internet

[soonerloyal]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a14/KevAndLori/Spine.jpg

[Crucifax Autumn]

You are missing his point, Cru's point is that there are many on this board on both sides of the aisle who b*tch and moan about the bill left and right but cannot site one specific part of the bill that they dont like or they do like. They only site stuff they heard on tv or on the internet

Bingo!

[Crucifax Autumn]

Because the insurance companies charge an outrageous amount for group insurance.

My dream is to open my own restaurant...and if it is still barely making it on labor costs, food costs, and any other operating expenses...how is it fair that I should provide insurance for people that would make it where I was unable to live off the business that is my dream?

Kinda stupid isnt it?

Want my version of a health care bill?

The government should insure all children from the birth to 18 (21 if in college). Anyone that falls out of that age group, then the adults should foot the bill for themselves.

yeah, it is still a hand out, but at least it goes to those that are the highest of uninsured in this country!

The children thing is ALMOST in existence as it is, but what do those kids do if their parents die or can't work due to untreated medical conditions? What do poeple in a new job do if they have a pre-existing condition? What stops insurance companies from cancelling coverage when someone has an expensive and ongoing illness?

Also...isn't the expense of group health plans, and even moreso individual plans, one of the main things the bill is supposed to address? How is that addressed for the employer in the bill? What options are there in the bill for low wage employees to address this? How can the needs of employer and employee be reconciled? What help is there for someone with decent wages who has to live like a 3rd worlder thanks to the cost of insurance and drugs?

I'm looking for people who feel strongly one way or aopther to express themselves in the context of the actual bill and then explain ways they'd change particular parts to make it workable or explain with the help of facts why it is unworkable. Call it a SO town hall meeting without cheap talking points and childish "fer it or agin it" bullshat. To hear the people arguing either side it should be pretty simple to cite actual reasons. Hell, for that matter it should be pretty simple for someone to offer up a workable plan that addresses the huge number of problems we have in this country and do so in a way that benefits everyone.

Make the debate and the arguments sensible enough and I'll send our solutions to all the politicians involved. Let's have a smart conversation and be part of the solution rather than being apathetic and not caring like another recent thread seems to propose. There are enough intelligent people here with viewpoints from every socio-economic background, level of wealth, family situation, location, general level of health, etc. that we should be able to argue concrete facts and comeup with ways to make it all work, partticularly since everyone acts as though they have a solution and know better than elected officials on both sides.

Come on guys, let's save our country and save the sick while saving businesses and preserving jobs! We can do it!!!!

[Harry Beanbag]

You are missing his point, Cru's point is that there are many on this board on both sides of the aisle who b*tch and moan about the bill left and right but cannot site one specific part of the bill that they dont like or they do like. They only site stuff they heard on tv or on the internet

I don't want it because I believe in the most limited government possible. I don't have to cite a passage in the ****ing bill to despise it based on that. I'm opposed to the mere idea of it.

[Frozen Sooner]

40 % depend on a vote who doesn't have healthcare to win their seat is possible.


OBITUARY
Born 1776, Died 2008

It does not hurt to read this several times.







Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election:

• Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
• Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million
McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.


Anyone uncritical enough to not realize this steaming pile of prairie oysters is bull**** as soon as it claims there's only 48 states is just dumb enough to believe it.

[delhalew]

If you argue the details of this thing, you have already lost.

I refuse to pretend the Constitution does not exist for the sake of this argument.

[delhalew]

1. Allow customers to do business with providers in any state.
This will foster competition and allow consumers to get the best deal.
This circumvents the restrictions of particular states, which drive up prices by limiting your options, without the Federal gov removing these obstacles(which would be unconstitutional).

2. No more pre-existing condition restrictions which can be easily exploited.

3. Allow individuals access to the same pools of plans that businesses can participate in. As well as allowing individuals to fund Health Savings Accounts with pre-tax dollars.

4. Some reasonable torte reform.
This further drive down costs.


There is your health care bill. If it is longer than 100 pages, somebody needs to die. Nothing to hide. No language that can be twisted at a later date to suit the whims of the leaders of the day.

When anyone writes a 1000 page bill and won't show it to you, but said bill creates new offices of this or that and adds more a trillion to the deficit, we should all get to line up and kick every person involved in the crotch.

[John Kochtoston]

Anyone uncritical enough to not realize this steaming pile of prairie oysters is bull**** as soon as it claims there's only 48 states is just dumb enough to believe it.

Froz, you've got to realize that most of the folks that forward this load of hokum don't recognize Hawai'i as a state, anyway. So, that gets you down to 49. They'll have us down to 48 when Texas secedes, so there really are only 48 states.

[Okla-homey]

Okay. I'll bite. One part of this unabashed attempt to take over our health care system is the part that has a lot of support on both sides of the aisle. To wit, this federal proscription against health insurers refusal to write a policy for people who have "pre-existing conditions."

That right there will be the end of the actuarial-based health insurance biz, and will absolutely guarentee everyone with private health insurance, either employer-provided, or individually purchased, will pay more. And people on employer-provided plans won't get off Scot-free, because the company will get it back somehow, probably by cutting somewhere else. As in personnel.

Bear with me. Heath insurance companies are in business to make a profit. This is America, remember? The way they make that profit is by writing policies, and charging premiums based on the insured's characteristics and the statistical liklehood he/she will get sick and need a bunch of expensive care.

If they are doing it right, they construct a risk pool filled with lots of otherwise healthy people, over which they sprinkle some folks who are reasonably healthy, but statistically likely to need some moderately expensive care in the near term. In the end, as things stand now, the people with fewer, or no claims, end up subsidizing the people with claims, and the insurance company stays afloat and its shareholders are happy.

Now, shake the Etch-A-Sketch and bring on this "No policy refusals based on pre-existing conditions" who-ha that draws applause everytime a politician yells it, and you know what happens? That morbidly obese, diabetic, alcoholic, smoker with a heart condition, who previously couldn't get private health insurance because the insurance company underwriting department where those actuarial guys and gals with all the probability tables said "hay-ul no," now gets to join the pool. And you know what else? We got a lot of those kind of people with pre-existing conditions in the US.

Thus, if "No policy refusals based on pre-existing conditions" becomes law, the only way to keep it all in balance, so the company can still make money, is to charge EVERYBODY it insures more. Lots more.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a14/KevAndLori/Spine.jpgHave the courage to force something on the populace that you either don't approve or even fully understand, and that you exempt yourself from? And, as a bonus, could jeopardize your re-election...Oh, hell yes!

[Crucifax Autumn]

So Homey...In the current system, what happens to all those people with pre-existing conditions and what system should be in place to deal with these people?

[Okla-homey]

So Homey...In the current system, what happens to all those people with pre-existing conditions and what system should be in place to deal with these people?

The answer to your first question is, if they aren't covered by Medicaid (poor) or Medicare (retired), if they can't pay their bills, they eventually default on their medical creditors and are forced into bankruptcy.

As to what system needs to be in place, I don't think we need a universal "system" engineered by gubmint to deal with people who are uninsurable.

No. 1, many "uninsurable" folks made bad lifestyle choices to get in the health pickle they're in. Many, not all, but far too many. Should government continue down this path of, "do your thing, and we'll be there to catch you when you eat, drink, smoke, or 'sexy-time' yourself to bad health?"

Lest I be taken for Scrooge, let the folks who are uninsurable due to preexisting conditions, be given a healthcare debit card with which they pay their med bills at the point of service. The government could reload the card each month, just like they do with food stamp cards right now.

Whatever we do, we must have substantial co-pays indexed to a person's income. Otherwise, people will abuse the entitlement we will have created.

No. 2, we already have Medicaid for poor people who can't afford insurance, and we've got poor kids covered already through Medicaid and the states.

No. 3, people who are reasonably healthy who can get private health insurance should buy it. I don't think they should be required to buy it by law, because I think there are big Constitutional issues with that, but darn-it, if they could have gotten insurance, but were too bent on spending their money on the sweet hoop-de-hoop coupe or haute couture fashions, then let them incur huge bills and file bankruptcy. We've learned one thing about uninsureds through all this mess. That is, the vast majority of American citizens who are uninsured choose to be because they would rather spend their money on discretionary purchases.

[ndpruitt03]

Saying the current system is fine is just as ridiculous as saying that a universal system will take care of it. We need to tweak the system we have now. But we don't need to have a public option or government take over healthcare because that changes very little and will make premiums in healthcare sky rocket and in the end make it more expensive. Do we need to tweak it so that healthcare can be sold across state lines thus making more competition and lower prices in the end? Yes. Do we need to have it to where pre existing conditions shouldn't decide if someone needs to stay on helathcare? Yes. Do we need tort reform so that doctors won't get sued for so much that they won't provide for certain types of care?

People will still cheat the healthcare system the way it is but they will still cheat it when the government takes over and it'll be worse because of all the limits people will have on their healthcare. It won't be worth getting healthcare if the government takes over.

[Chuck Bao]

The answer to your first question is, if they aren't covered by Medicaid (poor) or Medicare (retired), if they can't pay their bills, they eventually default on their medical creditors and are forced into bankruptcy.

As to what system needs to be in place, I don't think we need a universal "system" engineered by gubmint to deal with people who are uninsurable.

No. 1, many "uninsurable" folks made bad lifestyle choices to get in the health pickle they're in. Many, not all, but far too many. Should government continue down this path of, "do your thing, and we'll be there to catch you when you eat, drink, smoke, or 'sexy-time' yourself to bad health?"

Lest I be taken for Scrooge, let the folks who are uninsurable due to preexisting conditions, be given a healthcare debit card with which they pay their med bills at the point of service. The government could reload the card each month, just like they do with food stamp cards right now.

Whatever we do, we must have substantial co-pays indexed to a person's income. Otherwise, people will abuse the entitlement we will have created.

No. 2, we already have Medicaid for poor people who can't afford insurance, and we've got poor kids covered already through Medicaid and the states.

No. 3, people who are reasonably healthy who can get private health insurance should buy it. I don't think they should be required to buy it by law, because I think there are big Constitutional issues with that, but darn-it, if they could have gotten insurance, but were too bent on spending their money on the sweet hoop-de-hoop coupe or haute couture fashions, then let them incur huge bills and file bankruptcy. We've learned one thing about uninsureds through all this mess. That is, the vast majority of American citizens who are uninsured choose to be because they would rather spend their money on discretionary purchases.

What about all of those newly-laid off workers or those losing their company health care plan? If you are unemployed, it is probably difficult to afford $500-1,000 monthly insurance premium for a family of four.

What is unemployment now? About 10% of the American workforce? Probably more because of the way the number is calculated. Honestly, I do not believe that the job market in the US will recover for another 2-3 years. Even when these laid-off workers find employment again, I do not believe that terms will be as generous.

Corporate profits over the last six months were supported by severe cost cutting. These companies are not going to willingly allow costs to rise again. I hear that more and more companies are going to contract workers with no benefits.

At the end of the day, somebody has to pay. Bankruptcy means that the hospitals pay and then increase prices for the rest of us. I would assume that taxpayers would have to pay in case of a big jump in Medicaid and Medicare payouts.

You didn't mention tort reform. In my opinion, bringing down medical malpractice premiums should be the very first step in reducing medical costs.

[JohnnyMack]

You didn't mention tort reform. In my opinion, bringing down medical malpractice premiums should be the very first step in reducing medical costs.

That's cause he's a dirty stinking lawyer. :D

[John Kochtoston]

At the end of the day, somebody has to pay. Bankruptcy means that the hospitals pay and then increase prices for the rest of us.

THIS.


You didn't mention tort reform. In my opinion, bringing down medical malpractice premiums should be the very first step in reducing medical costs.

Not so much this. Although I do agree medical malpractice premiums should be more in line with the risks of losing lawsuits physicians actually face.

[OUHOMER]

We had a lady who worked for us, her husband had testicular cancer. he ended up losing his job. Our company insurance cover him. She than got laid off, found another job with insurance, but they would not cover him because of pre existing condition.

Funny thing was, it was the same insurnace company.

Fair ?

[Curly Bill]

Just to be the Devil's advocate...

...but where do we find that guarantee that life is supposed to be fair? Is it in the Constitution?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Just to be the Devil's advocate...

...but where do we find that guarantee that life is supposed to be fair? Is it in the Constitution?With the govt. granting rights that aren't natural rights(that all require money), there's no entity able to grant the govt. a right to make people produce goods and services.

[OUHOMER]

Just to be the Devil's advocate...

...but where do we find that guarantee that life is supposed to be fair? Is it in the Constitution?

Nope, nary a word.

[Okla-homey]

That's cause he's a dirty stinking lawyer. :D

Who happens to be very concerned when legislatures try to jigger with our Constitutional rights. See the VII Amendment. It's one of the Big Ten "Bill-o-Rights."

We've already cussed and discussed this issue. 95% of docs are fine professionals who do a great job. But, the spectre of medmal lawsuits are the only thing standing between you and that 5% of docs who are too high, drunk, old or braime-damagd to be left loose on the patient public.

Oh, and don't forget, last year (2009) not a single plaintiff won a medmal case at trial in Oklahoma. Huge problem, huh?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Don't bring logic to an Obama thread...you will just get hurt

[JohnnyMack]

Who happens to be very concerned when legislatures try to jigger with our Constitutional rights. See the VII Amendment. It's one of the Big Ten "Bill-o-Rights."


Same reason you oppose the DOMA, right?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Someone please explain how to fix the scenario just mentioned where someone can't get coverage do to a pre-existing condition.

I'd like to hear some solutions for that.

[Collier11]

I thought under obama care that pre-existing conditions cant be discriminated against?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Under Obamacare they can't, but I'm asking the people against it to explain how we should solve that problem, particularly in light of what it does to the overall cost for "healthy" people.

[Frozen Sooner]

Same reason you oppose the DOMA, right?

The DOMA is facially Constitutional, though I believe marriage has been described as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court.

Then again, the Court has repeatedly held that state-law caps on tort claims are also Constitutional. That's a pretty settled matter. All the Seventh does is preserve a right to jury trial in matters where the amount in controversy is more than $20. I don't think it's ever been read to mean that states can't cap jury awards in tort claims.

The better (and accurate) claim of the unconstitutionality of "tort reform" for medmal at the Federal level is that the Congress simply doesn't have the power to do so. Medmal is exclusively the province of the States, and there's no way the current Court could consistently rule that it's not.

edit: important to note that there is NOT a right to a jury trial in ALL civil matters. Simply those in which a right to a jury trial existed in 1789, which is roughly any civil matter in which monetary relief is sought.

[ndpruitt03]

Under Obamacare they can't, but I'm asking the people against it to explain how we should solve that problem, particularly in light of what it does to the overall cost for "healthy" people.

Making healthcare cheaper would probably help.

[Crucifax Autumn]

That's a very simplistic answer. How do you go about making it cheaper?

[ndpruitt03]

That's a very simplistic answer. How do you go about making it cheaper?

Allowing healthcare insurance across statelines helps, tort reform helps.

[Crucifax Autumn]

How will that force the insurance providers to insure people with pre-existing conditions? Once you factor in the increased payouts for people with terminal illnesses the rates for everyone else have to go up to offset it and keepo the insurance company profitable.

As for tort reform, how do you counter the statements Homey made in that regard? Seems to me it's the malpractice insurance that is too high, not the awards in malpractice suits. It's just as easy to say "Don't let bad doctors do stupid **** and there won't be any lawsuits to reform".

And honestly, even if you did both of these the medical care itself would still be overly expensive, leading to higher insurance rates, which in turn leads to a lot of people not being able to afford insurance and still leaves the issue of what to do about companies dropping people's policy when they become sick and companies refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions.

So what is a real workable solution that takes all this into account?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I hate to bring some seriousness to this thread but when do I get my Viagra is all I need to know!!

[ndpruitt03]

How will that force the insurance providers to insure people with pre-existing conditions? Once you factor in the increased payouts for people with terminal illnesses the rates for everyone else have to go up to offset it and keepo the insurance company profitable.

It won't force anything. Technically there's nothing they can do to force pre existing conditions not without a complete system change but making things cheaper makes it easier to access and easier to afford even if a company doesn't have some pre-existing condition. And I think pre-existing conditions need to be gotten rid of but that just won't happen. I bet everyone can technically have some type of pre-existing condition to some disease or another. It's so stupid to even have something like that.

[Frozen Sooner]

Once again, federal level tort reform for medical malpractice is unconstitutional. The Congress absolutely does not have the power to set limits in state law tort actions.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So assuming there is no workable fix for pre-existing conditions and people getting dropped when they get sick, then what?

[Collier11]

die

[Crucifax Autumn]

die

That's pretty much the only option since the previous solution offered is to get the care, agree to pay, and then go bankrupt. That second option sounds feasible right up until you factor in that if you are uninsured and not in the ER, hospitals and doctors insist on a large payment upfront, leaving the bankruptcy option an impossibility.

[SCOUT]

Once again, federal level tort reform for medical malpractice is unconstitutional. The Congress absolutely does not have the power to set limits in state law tort actions.

In your opinion, does the Congress have the power to mandate health insurance choices and premiums?

[Frozen Sooner]

In your opinion, does the Congress have the power to mandate health insurance choices and premiums?

Arguably yes under the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses. There is no argument at all regarding the Congress' power to regulate state law tort claims, though. That's just out. Heck, even CONGRESS says they don't have the power to do that.

Since insurance companies presumably conduct business over state lines, they are subject to federal regulation through the ICC. Generally, premium setting has been handled on a state-by-state basis through the offices of the individual insurance commissioners (which is something the Insurance Companies have fought tooth and nail to preserve, and the major reason you can't buy health insurance across state lines.) Mandating the purchase of a health care plan itself is more problematic and goes to the fundamental right to contract, and it's the major problem I have with the current bill. It's also one reason why I prefer a single-payer system versus a kludge like we're getting.

[SCOUT]

Arguably yes under the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses. There is no argument at all regarding the Congress' power to regulate state law tort claims, though. That's just out. Heck, even CONGRESS says they don't have the power to do that.

Since insurance companies presumably conduct business over state lines, they are subject to federal regulation through the ICC. Generally, premium setting has been handled on a state-by-state basis through the offices of the individual insurance commissioners (which is something the Insurance Companies have fought tooth and nail to preserve, and the major reason you can't buy health insurance across state lines.) Mandating the purchase of a health care plan itself is more problematic and goes to the fundamental right to contract, and it's the major problem I have with the current bill. It's also one reason why I prefer a single-payer system versus a kludge like we're getting.
While I disagree with your conclusion about the single-payer system, I greatly appreciate your honest assessment of the legal aspects.

Do you think that the general welfare clause has been stretched at all?

Thanks for your direct and honest response.

[Crucifax Autumn]

What is of higher concern? The constitution or the well being of our citizens? Is there no way to reconcile the 2?

[Frozen Sooner]

Haha, thanks.

It's a major bone of contention whether the General Welfare clause grants the power to enact laws for the general welfare or if it simply means you can't levy taxes in order to benefit only some. I think the way the Court has generally interpreted it is that it allows Congress to enact laws, but that those laws have to be of general benefit. Ask me again in a few months and I may have a different answer. Heck, even the Framers disagreed as to what it meant.

I don't know that the original intent of the clause implied national health care, but I don't know that the Framers didn't leave it purposefully vague so that later legislators could determine what they thought was to the general good later.

[SCOUT]

What is of higher concern? The constitution or the well being of our citizens? Is there no way to reconcile the 2?

This is the crux of our dilemma. I am afraid that the answer is utopia and I don't think that will ever exist.

[Crucifax Autumn]

It's impossible that there is no solution. 75% of the posters on the SO claim to know EVERYTHING. With such vast knowledge, there has to be a solution we can reach.

[Collier11]

The solution has been reached, Dems are idiots and Repubs are idiots and MSNB is most evil and FOX is most evil and Obama is satans brother and...

[SCOUT]

It's impossible that there is no solution. 75% of the posters on the SO claim to know EVERYTHING. With such vast knowledge, there has to be a solution we can reach.

I guess that I fall into the 25%. People are going to get sick. It is going to cost money to treat them. Someone is going to have to pay for it. You can't hide the real cost in a plan masked by a pretty name.

Universal health care at a reduced cost is nice idea, but it falls short when reality is applied, again IMO.

[Crucifax Autumn]

The solution has been reached, Dems are idiots and Repubs are idiots and MSNB is most evil and FOX is most evil and Obama is satans brother and...

That's not good enough. I demand a solution that is workable, moral, constitutional, compassionate, and affordable!

I say again, with all the geniuses in here that know everything, this should be easier than a no-bake jello pie.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I guess that I fall into the 25%. People are going to get sick. It is going to cost money to treat them. Someone is going to have to pay for it. You can't hide the real cost in a plan masked by a pretty name.

Universal health care at a reduced cost is nice idea, but it falls short when reality is applied, again IMO.

You are correct. I have rarely, if ever, heard you claim to know everything or act as though you do. But I'll give you a pass on that and allow you to contribute what you can to saving society along with all the brillian know-it-all people who frequent this forum. :D

[SCOUT]

You are correct. I have rarely, if ever, heard you claim to know everything or act as though you do. But I'll give you a pass on that and allow you to contribute what you can to saving society along with all the brillian know-it-all people who frequent this forum. :D

I'll do my best :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

I just think the brightest minds of three generations should be able to find the solution that the "pinhead politicians" who don't know "**** from shinola" and "never worked a day in their lives" don't seem to be able to come up with.

[OU_Sooners75]

I just think the brightest minds of three generations should be able to find the solution that the "pinhead politicians" who don't know "**** from shinola" and "never worked a day in their lives" don't seem to be able to come up with.

Still at this huh?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Until it's solved!

[Okla-homey]

Since insurance companies presumably conduct business over state lines, they are subject to federal regulation through the ICC. Generally, premium setting has been handled on a state-by-state basis through the offices of the individual insurance commissioners (which is something the Insurance Companies have fought tooth and nail to preserve, and the major reason you can't buy health insurance across state lines.)

Okay Froze, I'm gonna cut you some slack because you only have one semester of law skool under your belt.;)

Ever flown into Las Vegas? You probably flew into McCarran Airport. McCarran was a donk congressman from Nevada who sponsored a federal law that created the federal hands-off insurance dealio and is the correct reason insurance is exclusively regulated by the states. The act exempts insurance companies from the federal anti-trust legislation that applies to most businesses and allows state law to regulate the business of insurance without federal government interference.

But for this act, the federal governmnet could regulate insurance because SCOTUS held in 1945 in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Google: McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015.

Thus, before interstate sale of health policies is possible, Congress would need to amend or repeal this 65 year-old federal law and its progeny. And for the record, I think it should, because the competition among health carriers nationally would probably serve to lower prices and make health policies better nationally.

BTW Froze, are you aware there is only one company allowed by state law to write health policies in the state of Alabama?

[delhalew]

Until it's solved!

I solved it for ya' a couple pages back Cru.:D

[Okla-homey]

Since insurance companies presumably conduct business over state lines, they are subject to federal regulation through the ICC. Generally, premium setting has been handled on a state-by-state basis through the offices of the individual insurance commissioners (which is something the Insurance Companies have fought tooth and nail to preserve, and the major reason you can't buy health insurance across state lines.)

Okay Froze, I'm gonna cut you some slack because you only have one semester of law school under your belt.;)

Ever flown into Las Vegas? You probably flew into McCarran Airport. McCarran was a donk senator from Nevada. Wanna know the correct reason insurance is exclusively regulated by the states? The act is a United States federal law that exempts insurance companies from the federal anti-trust legislation that applies to most businesses and allows state law to regulate the business of insurance without federal government interference.

But for this act, the federal governmnet could regulate insurance because SCOTUS held in 1945 in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Google: McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015.

Thus, before interstate sale of health policies is possible, Congress would need to amend or repeal this 65 year-old federal law and its progeny. And for the record, I think it should, because the competition among health carriers nationally would probably serve to lower prices and make health policies better nationally.

BTW Froze, are you aware there is only one company allowed by state law to write health policies in the state of Alabama?

[Frozen Sooner]

Okay Froze, I'm gonna cut you some slack because you only have one semester of law skool under your belt.;)

Ever flown into Las Vegas? You probably flew into McCarran Airport. McCarran was a donk congressman from Nevada who sponsored a federal law that created the federal hands-off insurance dealio and is the correct reason insurance is exclusively regulated by the states. The act exempts insurance companies from the federal anti-trust legislation that applies to most businesses and allows state law to regulate the business of insurance without federal government interference.

But for this act, the federal governmnet could regulate insurance because SCOTUS held in 1945 in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Google: McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015.

Thus, before interstate sale of health policies is possible, Congress would need to amend or repeal this 65 year-old federal law and its progeny. And for the record, I think it should, because the competition among health carriers nationally would probably serve to lower prices and make health policies better nationally.

BTW Froze, are you aware there is only one company allowed by state law to write health policies in the state of Alabama?

Homey, while I wasn't aware of the precise legislation nor of the relevant caselaw, nothing you posted contradicts what I wrote so I don't know why I would need any slack.

Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate insurance. Check. We agree.

Congress does not regulate insurance at this time. Check. Again, we agree. Just because a body has Constitutional authority does not mean it has statutory authority, as anyone who's taken Civ Pro should know. Fortunately for Congress, they have the authority to repeal any legislative restriction on their own power.

Insurance premiums are regulated by state insurance commissioners. Check. Again, we agree.

Insurance companies DO NOT want federal regulation of the insurance industry. I don't know if we agree, but when I was getting insurance trade magazines, they were pretty against it. That stance may have changed over the last few years.

Thanks for the specific citations though. Those will come in handy next semester.

[King Barry's Back]

I thought under obama care that pre-existing conditions cant be discriminated against?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'll try to tread carefully.

FACT: The basic challenge to something like "universal coverage", or at least greatly increased coverage, is to get the "young and healthy" to buy health insurance, which would then pay for the "old and sick" to be covered.

COMMENT: It seems that only govt can coerce people to pay for what they do not want -- which is why this always starts with big govt plans. I have heard Obama's people say they are trying to make the "young and healthies" be responsible, and good citizens. But in the end, they are doing nothing other than creating another subsidy from a group of people that will have to pay for another group who will get something for nothing. Through time, of course, it would be equalized, as the young and healthies eventually become the old and sick.

Regarding Collier's quote and the idea of "pre-existing conditions" being uninsurable -- You buy insurance to cover you against something that has a statistical probability of happening to you. You pay, for example, 1/1000th of the cost of cancer treatment because there is a 1 in a thousand chance that you will get cancer.

But, in terms of pre-existing conditions, if you already have cancer -- you have a 100% probability and you are no longer buying insurance. So my first suggestion would be to stop calling it "insurance" for pre-existing conditions, and just call it "subsidized medicine."

And there was a link to a Senate bill earlier in the thread. There was no number on that bill, however, indicating that it was posted BEFORE entering the Senate's system. Therefore, there is almost zero chance that the bill linked earlier is the CURRENT bill passed by the Senate.

Does anybody know where to get a hold of that?

If no one does, I will do some trolling, but I don't want to do it if someone else already has.

And one final point, several posters stated earlier that the "devil will be in the details." Crucifax then made some comment along the lines of "Which details? Let's find that devil!"

I think the real point is that hte devil will be in the implementation and nobody alive or dead has any idea how this will be implemented.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So if you were tasked with coming up with a workable system, in which everyone receives the care they require, what would be your basic outline for this plan?

[OklahomaTuba]

You mean like the one we currently have, and a majority of people like?

[ndpruitt03]

So if you were tasked with coming up with a workable system, in which everyone receives the care they require, what would be your basic outline for this plan?

Why does everyone have to have heathcare? What about the people that practically never use it?

[OULenexaman]

"
Obama is seeking to offer some attractive options to taxpayers, mindful of the painful implications of the loss of a traditionally Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts to Republican Scott Brown. White House advisers see Wednesday's State of the Union speech as a key opportunity for Obama to recalibrate his message and reset his presidency after that stinging setback, which took away the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority in the Senate and put his main domestic agenda item, a health care overhaul, in doubt."


Get ready for some of the biggest spin talk we have ever heard from this jackass on Wednesday....

[OklahomaTuba]

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0a7B2Y71ji7IX/610x.jpg
Oh dear Lord...

[JohnnyMack]

So if you were tasked with coming up with a workable system, in which everyone receives the care they require, what would be your basic outline for this plan?

I. Allow insurance to bought across state lines. Froze says the insurance companies don't want this but I suspect it would end up increasing competition.

II. Tax credit allowed for individuals who purchase their own policies (to encourage young people to buy insurance which in turn should lower the overall risk in the pool).

III. Allow everyone to be insured, including those with preexisting conditions, just make 'em pay an appropriate premium.

There's my rough draft.

[Chuck Bao]

Who happens to be very concerned when legislatures try to jigger with our Constitutional rights. See the VII Amendment. It's one of the Big Ten "Bill-o-Rights."

We've already cussed and discussed this issue. 95% of docs are fine professionals who do a great job. But, the spectre of medmal lawsuits are the only thing standing between you and that 5% of docs who are too high, drunk, old or braime-damagd to be left loose on the patient public.

Oh, and don't forget, last year (2009) not a single plaintiff won a medmal case at trial in Oklahoma. Huge problem, huh?

Seems to be a pretty inconsistent statement - 5% of docs shouldn't be let loose on the public and yet not a single plaintiff won a medmal case in Oklahoma in 2009.

Did Oklahoma doctors get reduced medmal insurance premiums because of no plaintiff winning their case in Oklahoma last year? Yeah, it is still a huge problem.


Once again, federal level tort reform for medical malpractice is unconstitutional. The Congress absolutely does not have the power to set limits in state law tort actions.

I can't argue with that, obviously. I would prefer tort reform but if that can't happen, there still should be a way to bring down medmal insurance costs. The government can offer medmal insurance at affordable rates, if it has to.

No, I am not going to give up on this idea. Think about it. We are trading off health care for millions for the right of a few to sue for millions. Does that make sense?

[Frozen Sooner]

I. Allow insurance to bought across state lines. Froze says the insurance companies don't want this but I suspect it would end up increasing competition.

When you realize that monopolists don't want increased competition, you understand why those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

[JohnnyMack]

When you realize that monopolists don't want increased competition, you understand why those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm a Chutes & Ladders man.

[Okla-homey]

Seems to be a pretty inconsistent statement - 5% of docs shouldn't be let loose on the public and yet not a single plaintiff won a medmal case in Oklahoma in 2009.


It isn't inconsistent if you understand the cases in which the doc or hospital messed someone-up badly and negligently, get settled and never see the courtroom.

The ones that are left are the sketchy ones that the plaintiffs never win in Oklahoma anyway. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, those cases are taken on a contingency basis, thus, no win, no fee for the lawyer.

Bottomline, at least for me, is this. Why should docs get a bulletproof lawsuit shield anyway? I mean, that's what most people seem to want, at least those on the right. Frankly, I can't think of another profession that gets a bulletproof lawsuit shield. What's so special about docs? Oh, I forgot, they're serving their fellow man, don't get paid a dime, and are forced to live in shacks just outside of town and all drive old beaters, thus they deserve it.;)

[JohnnyMack]

What's so special about docs? Oh, I forgot, they're serving their fellow man, don't get paid a dime, and are forced to live in shacks just outside of town and all drive old beaters, thus they deserve it.;)

Says the man who just moved Jed Clampett style into a midtown mansion.

:texan:

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I. Allow insurance to bought across state lines. Froze says the insurance companies don't want this but I suspect it would end up increasing competition.

II. Tax credit allowed for individuals who purchase their own policies (to encourage young people to buy insurance which in turn should lower the overall risk in the pool).

III. Allow everyone to be insured, including those with preexisting conditions, just make 'em pay an appropriate premium.

There's my rough draft.

I generally agree with this. Here's one more I would add that probably wouldn't be popular.

IV. People that engage in a high risk lifestyle (e.g. overweight, smokers, etc.) pay a higher premium.

[Collier11]

Why does everyone have to have heathcare? What about the people that practically never use it?

Ive gone to the doctor once in the last 5+ years

[JohnnyMack]

I generally agree with this. Here's one more I would add that probably wouldn't be popular.

IV. People that engage in a high risk lifestyle (e.g. overweight, smokers, etc.) pay a higher premium.

The Big Mac tax. I'm definitely a fan. Use the revenue generated from that to offset the revenue lost by those people who get off their *** and buy their own insurance.

[ndpruitt03]

Ive gone to the doctor once in the last 5+ years

That's my point. Is it even profitable to buy healthcare if you don't use it? I can understand it being used for those that are young and real old because those 2 groups are vulnerable. And people who have diseases like Asthma, diabetes etc, but why does EVERYONE need healthcare when they don't use it? Isn't that just a waste of money?

[Collier11]

I certainly shouldnt be fined if I decide not to buy it

[JohnnyMack]

That's my point. Is it even profitable to buy healthcare if you don't use it? I can understand it being used for those that are young and real old because those 2 groups are vulnerable. And people who have diseases like Asthma, diabetes etc, but why does EVERYONE need healthcare when they don't use it? Isn't that just a waste of money?

So you should just be able to not carry insurance, become a professional bull rider and then call the insurance company from the ambulance on the way to the hospital and get coverage?

[Collier11]

I think the point is that it should be a choice as opposed to a forced decision

[Chuck Bao]

It isn't inconsistent if you understand the cases in which the doc or hospital messed someone-up badly and negligently, get settled and never see the courtroom.

The ones that are left are the sketchy ones that the plaintiffs never win in Oklahoma anyway. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, those cases are taken on a contingency basis, thus, no win, no fee for the lawyer.

Bottomline, at least for me, is this. Why should docs get a bulletproof lawsuit shield anyway? I mean, that's what most people seem to want, at least those on the right. Frankly, I can't think of another profession that gets a bulletproof lawsuit shield. What's so special about docs? Oh, I forgot, they're serving their fellow man, don't get paid a dime, and are forced to live in shacks just outside of town and all drive old beaters, thus they deserve it.;)


Now you have confused me. What is the point of having said the following, when you knew that some cases had settled out of court and the insurance had to pay out?


Oh, and don't forget, last year (2009) not a single plaintiff won a medmal case at trial in Oklahoma. Huge problem, huh?

Honestly, this is disgusting to me. Maybe it is personal. My dad never came home from a routine heart exam. My mom said that she will never sue a hospital, ever.

I guess there are juries that want to help the injured and there are some people who feel like they've won the lottery.

I am just amazed at the doctors who prescribe unnecessary treatment and medicine because of the fear of lawsuits when that money could be put to better use.

[yermom]

That's my point. Is it even profitable to buy healthcare if you don't use it? I can understand it being used for those that are young and real old because those 2 groups are vulnerable. And people who have diseases like Asthma, diabetes etc, but why does EVERYONE need healthcare when they don't use it? Isn't that just a waste of money?

i haven't needed liability insurance on my car for like 10 years either

[ndpruitt03]

i haven't needed liability insurance on my car for like 10 years either

There's probably a better chance of you having some type of car problem than having to go to the doctors office for some major medical issue if you are pretty healthy.

[ndpruitt03]

So you should just be able to not carry insurance, become a professional bull rider and then call the insurance company from the ambulance on the way to the hospital and get coverage?

Okay those people probably have a need for healthcare. Most poeple aren't professional bull riders. I'm talking about the average person. Should we be forced to pay for something we don't use at all and probably won't have much of a need for it. You shouldn't be forced to buy healthcare.

[Chuck Bao]

Heh! I can get liability insurance for my motorcycle in Thailand only because it is required by the law.

I cannot get health insurance by the big US health insurance companies operating in Thailand because I ride a bike. And, I haven't had a major crash up in like more than 10 years. ;)

[JohnnyMack]

Okay those people probably have a need for healthcare. Most poeple aren't professional bull riders. I'm talking about the average person. Should we be forced to pay for something we don't use at all and probably won't have much of a need for it. You shouldn't be forced to buy healthcare.

No, you absolutely shouldn't have to buy healthcare. You also shouldn't complain that if you get cancer at 28 and don't have healthcare and then you can't afford the cost of care. It's all part of that whole pesky personal responsibility thing.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

This is where the decay of community really shines through. My Mom always talks about how when people used to die, people would bring so much food that the family wouldn't need food for several weeks. Now she says they barely get enough to make it through a day let a lone a week. Back in the day, if someone needed something, we would all work together and raise the money. Now, we are taught to fear our neighbors trying to rip us off and what not.

[Chuck Bao]

Also concerning the "dead" topic of tort reform, American companies are being put out of business by cheap overseas competition because of pretty hefty premiums on product liability insurance.

This is way off topic but maybe relevant in a tangential way. Who insures potentially defective import products? In a sense, American workers are getting the same treatment of getting priced out in an uneven playing field.

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Okay those people probably have a need for healthcare. Most poeple aren't professional bull riders. I'm talking about the average person. Should we be forced to pay for something we don't use at all and probably won't have much of a need for it. You shouldn't be forced to buy healthcare.

WHen was the last time you called the fire dept? Cops? Water dept?

[Frozen Sooner]

Also concerning the "dead" topic of tort reform, American companies are being put out of business by cheap overseas competition because of pretty hefty premiums on product liability insurance.

This is way off topic but maybe relevant in a tangential way. Who insures potentially defective import products? In a sense, American workers are getting the same treatment of getting priced out in an uneven playing field.

Those overseas companies are subject to the same product liability judgments that American companies are when they bring their goods over here to sell. Which means they have to buy the same insurance. Unless I'm missing something in what you're saying, logically that's a nonfactor. Honda's paid out some pretty significant PL claims in the past that've even made the casebooks.

[Chuck Bao]

Those overseas companies are subject to the same product liability judgments that American companies are when they bring their goods over here to sell. Which means they have to buy the same insurance. Unless I'm missing something in what you're saying, logically that's a nonfactor. Honda's paid out some pretty significant PL claims in the past that've even made the casebooks.

Honda has significant operations in the US and must comply with standards and seek comparable PL insurance. But, what about the toy manufacturers and the pet food manufacturers and countless other small business manufacturers?

[Frozen Sooner]

SOMEONE in the chain has a presence in the United States and gets tagged with PL claims. The cost of the insurance gets factored in somewhere, even if its the importer who has to increase the price and not the manufacturer. Which is sort of reasonable, when you think about it. If I'm Joe Chinese Toy Manufacturer and I make toys which I don't have any idea are going to the US, great. I comply with Chinese standards and don't buy a GCL policy with a US coverage area because I don't really expect to be haled into a US court. The importer who buys the toys though? That guy has knowledge that he's going to get sued if the toys he imports don't meet certain safety standards, so HE buys a policy and passes that cost along.

If, however, I'm Joe Chinese Toy Maker and I sell toys directly to US Toy Stores, I'm subject to jurisdiction of the US courts because I've purposefully directed my activities towards the forum. Now, you could say so what? I'm in China! That Chinese company is still going to have assets in the United States that anyone holding a judgment can execute against.

There's a lot more that goes into this, but basically anyone who sells a significant amount of stuff in the US is going to have products liability insurance.

[Okla-homey]

Honda has significant operations in the US and must comply with standards and seek comparable PL insurance. But, what about the toy manufacturers and the pet food manufacturers and countless other small business manufacturers?

Easy peasy. Just sue the guy in the distribution chain with the deepest pockets. You can't get any money out of the CHICOMs, but you can get money out of the Wally-world, Target, etc. that sold the dangerous product. Trust me.

[OULenexaman]

I am not an expert on it.....neither is Pelosi's House of morons...but I do know that the original bill that was drawn up from the House calls for my employers contribution to both mine and my wifes would become a 1099 as additional income. I would have to claim that as additional income and be taxed on it . That would suck because I actually never received that income....it was a benefit. And that tax money is part of paying for the plan....I call that double taxation. If that's a word.....anyway that's what our HR dept. tells us at work....they were very concerned about it....

[Crucifax Autumn]

This is getting fun. We have a consistent conservative arguing against a conservative, teabagger mainstay while a consisten liberal argues for it.

We have people saying that if they get hit by a train walking along the tracks, they will lay at home in bed until their wounds heal or they die. We have people basically saying if a criminal shoots them they won't get the gunshot tended to until the lawsuit against the shooter works its way through court.

We have people saying they shouldn't be taxed for a service they don't use, yet they pay their property, sales, and income taxes as well as their payroll taxes, even though they haven't used the police, fire department, state/national parks, interstate, etc. They haven't had need of the military defending their county from invasion nor have they had the national guard pull them from a flooded area.

Common sense says we need an answer to how to make our healthcare system work for everyone, and personal responsibility seems to be a dead end when all the variables and possibilities are factored in.

So, given that, how do we change the plan and/or how do we build a system or reform the current system to make it workable and guarantee that people don't either fall through the cracks or become as burden on everyone else?

[Sooner24]

This is getting fun. We have a consistent conservative arguing against a conservative, teabagger mainstay while a consisten liberal argues for it.

We have people saying that if they get hit by a train walking along the tracks, they will lay at home in bed until their wounds heal or they die. We have people basically saying if a criminal shoots them they won't get the gunshot tended to until the lawsuit against the shooter works its way through court.

We have people saying they shouldn't be taxed for a service they don't use, yet they pay their property, sales, and income taxes as well as their payroll taxes, even though they haven't used the police, fire department, state/national parks, interstate, etc. They haven't had need of the military defending their county from invasion nor have they had the national guard pull them from a flooded area.

Common sense says we need an answer to how to make our healthcare system work for everyone, and personal responsibility seems to be a dead end when all the variables and possibilities are factored in.

So, given that, how do we change the plan and/or how do we build a system or reform the current system to make it workable and guarantee that people don't either fall through the cracks or become as burden on everyone else?

What's your plan?

[Crucifax Autumn]

I stated near the beginning that I'm just an idiot asking the smart people for answers!

[Sooner24]

I stated near the beginning that I'm just an idiot asking the smart people for answers!

Boy you got that right. :D

[JohnnyMack]

I stated near the beginning that I'm just an idiot asking the smart people for answers!

I'm really bored with your responses at this point.

[Crucifax Autumn]

You'll notice that prior to this thread I wasn't giving any opinions on healthcare or claiming to have the answers. Many others were, so I assume their thorough research has given them insight I lack.

[Okla-homey]

IMHO, it's a tough nut that requires a fundamental decison on the part of the American people going forward.

If we as a nation, want to create a right to health care, we need to haul off and pass the House bill. If we aren't sufficiently jazzed-up about creating such a federal right, let the states that have done so continue to provide the entitlement.

Otherwise, the admittedly flawed "system" now in place is working to the extent necessary to avoid the Pythonesque "bring out your dead" scenario.

The status quo could be improved with a few common sense steps, especially sale of policies across statelines which would induce competition and better, cheaper insurance for everyone willing to buy it.

Methinks the great mistake made here was to try to do it all at once. Baby steps work best.

[ndpruitt03]

IMHO, it's a tough nut that requires a fundamental decison on the part of the American people going forward.

If we as a nation, want to create a right to health care, we need to haul off and pass the House bill. If we aren't sufficiently jazzed-up about creating such a federal right, let the states that have done so continue to provide the entitlement.

Otherwise, the admittedly flawed "system" now in place is working to the extent necessary to avoid the Pythonesque "bring out your dead" scenario.

The status quo could be improved with a few common sense steps, especially sale of policies across statelines which would induce competition and better, cheaper insurance for everyone willing to buy it.

Methinks the great mistake made here was to try to do it all at once. Baby steps work best.
I agree, trying to change it all at once was just a bad idea. Same with the Cap and Trade bill. You can't have big bills that take forever to read pass because they become a mess and nearly impossible to pass.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Sounds reasonable.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

IMHO, it's a tough nut that requires a fundamental decison on the part of the American people going forward.

If we as a nation, want to create a right to health care, we need to haul off and pass the House bill. If we aren't sufficiently jazzed-up about creating such a federal right, let the states that have done so continue to provide the entitlement.

Otherwise, the admittedly flawed "system" now in place is working to the extent necessary to avoid the Pythonesque "bring out your dead" scenario.

The status quo could be improved with a few common sense steps, especially sale of policies across statelines which would induce competition and better, cheaper insurance for everyone willing to buy it.

Methinks the great mistake made here was to try to do it all at once. Baby steps work best.The objective is not to improve healthcare, but instead to gain greater govt. control over the citizens(and "other" potential voters) If actual improvement of healthcare was the goal, attempts would have been made by democrats to allow interstate purchasing of insurance, tort reform, and other steps that are sensible, and have been mentioned countless times on this board.

[Crucifax Autumn]

As pointed out earlier though, despite all the talk of tort reform this has to be done on the state level as the feds have very little power in that regard, if any at all.

[Frozen Sooner]

As pointed out earlier though, despite all the talk of tort reform this has to be done on the state level as the feds have very little power in that regard, if any at all.

He's not going to listen to you.

The only way Congress could get tort reform through is by issuing a mandate to the states that they will implement it or lose some money. If I'm not mistaken, this is a tactic that most conservatives detest. However, for Congress to simply pass legislation that there is a statutory cap on medical malpractice awards or to set a national standard for breach in medical malpractice is clearly unconstitutional and would be subject to challenge faster than you can say "Cut off the wrong guy's leg."

[Crucifax Autumn]

I just thought it needed to be pointed out. The tort reform crowd should really take the argument to thecorrect level if they want anything to happen. Personally I'm torn on it since frivolous suits generally get tosses out and some of the most famous cases that "show the need for reform" seem to fall apart when you really look into it and discover the judgement was deserved due either to the pure negligence or the huge number of times those negligent people and companies have settled and continued the same practice. A certain really popular and ridiculed case comes to mind...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He's not going to listen to you.

."Nor will you listen to "him"(does that mean me?) The bigger point was ignored, that there are remedies that foster competition in healthcare and healthcare insurance that the democrats totally stonewall, in favor of implementing actions that put the govt. in control of our personal healthcare decisions. Yeah, it sucks.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I think both sides are full of crap and in too many pockets to implement real solutions. It's pretty disgusting really.

[ndpruitt03]

Just because someone has health care insurance, doesn't mean they are covered. Here in TN, we have Tenncare. If you are otherwise unable to get insurance and get Tenncare, it makes the patient(and the liberals) feel like they have their medical needs covered.

The problem is that depending on the Tenncare insurer, they will only pay doctors a small percentage of the bill(as low as 8%). What doctor would sign a contract to do that?

So now you have doctors who won't see Tenncare patients(the doctors lose money seeing them) and patients who can't find doctors. If somehow a doctors has to see a Tenncare patient and Tenncare only pays 8%, then the doctor can send the patient a bill for the balance.

So we as a state are spending millions and the patient still will get a bill.

Now if you require physicians to take Tenncare(or medicare or whatever government nonpaying universal care plan), then you may have "coverage" for all, but who in their right mind would want to go into medicine?

So there isn't any care in healthcare?

[Chuck Bao]

Just because someone has health care insurance, doesn't mean they are covered. Here in TN, we have Tenncare. If you are otherwise unable to get insurance and get Tenncare, it makes the patient(and the liberals) feel like they have their medical needs covered.

The problem is that depending on the Tenncare insurer, they will only pay doctors a small percentage of the bill(as low as 8%). What doctor would sign a contract to do that?

So now you have doctors who won't see Tenncare patients(the doctors lose money seeing them) and patients who can't find doctors. If somehow a doctors has to see a Tenncare patient and Tenncare only pays 8%, then the doctor can send the patient a bill for the balance.

So we as a state are spending millions and the patient still will get a bill.

Now if you require physicians to take Tenncare(or medicare or whatever government nonpaying universal care plan), then you may have "coverage" for all, but who in their right mind would want to go into medicine?

That's like my company healthcare plan. I typically get much less than 8% of my bill covered by the plan. It is so little that I do not even bother claiming it. For some reason, I was thinking that the plan had a maximum payout per person for one year and I was reserving my allotment in the event I got seriously sick and had to spend some time in a hospital. It does work that way, but it really shouldn't be called healthcare coverage. It is just a little assistance. If your company goes to something like that to save costs, you will need to seek more adequate private healthcare insurance.

[ndpruitt03]

Capitalism is the thing that will best make healthcare cheaper. The current administration doesn't want to admit this. They think taking it over will somehow make it better for us.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Not if you have a plan like I mentioned. Right now, fewer and fewer physicians are taking medicare patients. Why? Because the government (Medicare) makes physicians jump through hoops to get paid and only pays a minimal amount. The difference in Medicare and noncontracted tenncare is that with tenncare, a doctor can still balance bill the patient.


Right now with the cuts at Medicare(and Obamacare), they are looking at killing cardiology as a profession. How, you may ask? The vast majority of cardiology patients are medicare; therefore, cardiologists have to take medicare patients to make a living.

Congress is looking at a 21% cut across the board in medicare. So basically, cardiologists could take up to a 21% cut in revenue. That means their actual take home pay may drop to upwards of 40% depending on their office overhead.

Do something like that and see how many good physicians would go into cardiology.The left doesn't understand that thinking. They don't fully grasp that people DON'T RESPOND POSITIVELY to punishment.

[Chuck Bao]

The left doesn't understand that thinking. They don't fully grasp that people DON'T RESPOND POSITIVELY to punishment.

No, the left understands it perfectly. Healthcare costs need to be discounted and made affordable to the average middle class family. The current system has priced itself out of the reach of most people. There has to be reform, but I am quite okay with the idea of baby steps in getting prices back to affordable levels.

[delhalew]

They can set down with with republicans and get a bill or they can ram it through and self-destruct. Them's the options.

[ndpruitt03]

No, the left understands it perfectly. Healthcare costs need to be discounted and made affordable to the average middle class family. The current system has priced itself out of the reach of most people. There has to be reform, but I am quite okay with the idea of baby steps in getting prices back to affordable levels.

The problem with healthcare right now is it's not really capitalistic. You have maybe 5 companies you can use in Oklahoma. I can't remember the exact number right now someone can correct me. I think there's some states(Alabama for one) that one have like 1 or 2 companies. If we allowed health insurance to be sold across state lines there would be no need for a government option. Prices would go down because of competition. Right now there is no competition and is no choice and having a government option doesn't change this.

[Frozen Sooner]

Just as a point of vocabulary and usage here, "monopoly power" is not logically inconsistent with "capitalism" and in fact is a semi-frequent result of capitalist systems. "Capitalism" is not synonymous with "perfect competition."

The health insurance field is most decidedly capitalistic now, unless you're somehow claiming that the problem with health insurance is that there's no private ownership of health insurers.

[ndpruitt03]

Just as a point of vocabulary and usage here, "monopoly power" is not logically inconsistent with "capitalism" and in fact is a semi-frequent result of capitalist systems. "Capitalism" is not synonymous with "perfect competition."

The health insurance field is most decidedly capitalistic now, unless you're somehow claiming that the problem with health insurance is that there's no private ownership of health insurers.

How is it capitalistic when you have maybe 2 or 3 companies in most states competing for the entire population of the state. And most healthcare is given to you if you have a good enough job without having to really purchase it. That is not capitalistic.

[Frozen Sooner]

Unfortunately, all you're doing is continuing to misuse the term "capitalism." It does not mean what you think it means, apparently. The word you're looking for is "competitive." It is perfectly logical and within the rubric of "capitalism" for oligopoly and monopoly to exist. Or do you think US Steel wasn't a capitalist venture? Standard Oil? DeBeers?

[ndpruitt03]

Capitalism doesn't work like it has in America for about 300 years unless there is Competition. Right now there is no competition with healthcare in America or most other nations in the world.

[Frozen Sooner]

You're finally walking down the right path, though you still cling to the incorrect notion that capitalism is synonymous with competition. You are correct-there is limited competition in the health insurance market. Theoretically, lowering barriers to competition should lead to lower prices.

[ndpruitt03]

You're finally walking down the right path, though you still cling to the incorrect notion that capitalism is synonymous with competition. You are correct-there is limited competition in the health insurance market. Theoretically, lowering barriers to competition should lead to lower prices.

Pure capitalism isn't synonymous with competition but America isn't pure socialist either. You do need to be more capitalistic for this system to work. Right now there is very little capitalism in America's sense in the medical field. It's actually nearly communist.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm curious. What do you think the terms "capitalist" "socialist" and "communist" mean?

[SCOUT]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0912/that-word-inigo-montoya-word-think-means-princess-bride-mand-demotivational-poster-1260739585.jpg

[ndpruitt03]

I'm curious. What do you think the terms "capitalist" "socialist" and "communist" mean?


Capitalism is where work produces price. You work hard you can get money and get more control of your own destiny. Yes there is complete capitalism is not a situation America unless you have no government at all. Government is good if it just regulates capitalism not if it takes over parts of the economy and takes capitalism away.

Socialism and communism are almost the same thing. In fact most Marxists will tell you socialism is just a bridge to communism. It's all about government providing for you and telling you what to do. It doesn't matter how much work or how hard you work. You will always make a fixed amount and be in a fixed position. It's theoretically good becuase everyone shares the wealth, but that never really happens.

[JLEW1818]

:eek:

[Crucifax Autumn]

Not if you have a plan like I mentioned. Right now, fewer and fewer physicians are taking medicare patients. Why? Because the government (Medicare) makes physicians jump through hoops to get paid and only pays a minimal amount. The difference in Medicare and noncontracted tenncare is that with tenncare, a doctor can still balance bill the patient.


Right now with the cuts at Medicare(and Obamacare), they are looking at killing cardiology as a profession. How, you may ask? The vast majority of cardiology patients are medicare; therefore, cardiologists have to take medicare patients to make a living.

Congress is looking at a 21% cut across the board in medicare. So basically, cardiologists could take up to a 21% cut in revenue. That means their actual take home pay may drop to upwards of 40% depending on their office overhead.

Do something like that and see how many good physicians would go into cardiology.

Is that cut actually going to work that way? I was of the understanding that the proposed cuts are primarily administrative costs?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Capitalism is where work produces price. You work hard you can get money and get more control of your own destiny. Yes there is complete capitalism is not a situation America unless you have no government at all. Government is good if it just regulates capitalism not if it takes over parts of the economy and takes capitalism away.

Socialism and communism are almost the same thing. In fact most Marxists will tell you socialism is just a bridge to communism. It's all about government providing for you and telling you what to do. It doesn't matter how much work or how hard you work. You will always make a fixed amount and be in a fixed position. It's theoretically good becuase everyone shares the wealth, but that never really happens.

I think I agree with the people saying you have a limited grasp on the terminology you are using. I get what you mean and all, but you're using the wrong words.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think I agree with the people saying you have a limited grasp on the terminology you are using. I get what you mean and all, but you're using the wrong words.You know what he means when he says something else...

[Crucifax Autumn]

I can tell from the tone of his conversation and some of the context, despite his inability to say it in anything resembling the proper terminology.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I can tell from the tone of his conversation and some of the context, despite his inability to say it in anything resembling the proper terminology.Clear to me, too. Frozen was practicing law.

[Frozen Sooner]

Words mean things.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Don't get me wrong though. Just because his context made me know what he was talking about doesn't mean I don't think the kid should lear how to properly express WTF he's talking about! It's as if he was to give a speech espousing the writings of Ayn Rand and then wrap it up by calling it the philosophy of "objectifying". lmao

So anyway, where were we? Oh yes...Solving society's ills...

[Crucifax Autumn]

That is a pretty big cut! On the other hand those guys make too much money anyway, but I'd prefer to see it level out in a more sensible way.

We have many of the same problems in NV with Medicare/Medicaid that you mentioned earlier, but it's kinda weird. There are I think 2 different insurance companies that the programs run through here but I'll just use one as an example. Many doctors take Healthplan of Nevada and many take Medicare/Medicaid, but very few take medicaid/care THROUGH healthplan of Nevada. The other company is taken by very few period. This is why I feel like if they insist on ramming it through and insist on something resembling universal care I'd like to see some part of the legislation require that everyone takes any insurance company providing it OR cut them out entirely.

That goes against a lot of my instincts, but if they are actually going to ever pass anything sweeping, the only way for it to work is to be ridiculously sweeping. I think that's the big problem with trying to compromise on this crap. Even the dems compromising between the extremes of their party took away most of the effectiveness of the bill and I'm fairly certain if it was happening on the other side of the aisle we'd see similar problems.

[Frozen Sooner]

Don't get me wrong though. Just because his context made me know what he was talking about doesn't mean I don't think the kid should lear how to properly express WTF he's talking about! It's as if he was to give a speech espousing the writings of Ayn Rand and then wrap it up by calling it the philosophy of "objectifying". lmao

So anyway, where were we? Oh yes...Solving society's ills...


More along the lines of spouting the teachings of Ayn Rand and then calling them Classical Empiricism. Related concepts but not the same thing.

[Frozen Sooner]

Capitalism is where work produces price.

No. In fact, this is a central tenet of communism.


You work hard you can get money and get more control of your own destiny. Yes there is complete capitalism is not a situation America unless you have no government at all.

I suspect what you were saying here is that complete capitalism is impossible without anarchy. I don't think I agree with that, and I can't think of any anarchist society that has a functioning capitalist system.


Government is good if it just regulates capitalism not if it takes over parts of the economy and takes capitalism away.

Adam Smith just vomited and turned over in his grave. If I may be so bold, I suggest reading On the Wealth of Nations.


Socialism and communism are almost the same thing. In fact most Marxists will tell you socialism is just a bridge to communism.

Part of Marxist cant is that capitalism is a step on the path to Communism. That doesn't mean they're the same thing.


It's all about government providing for you and telling you what to do.

No. There are socialist countries that nonetheless have competitive markets. Socialist does not mean command economy. Denmark is a socialist country, for example. China is as well.


It doesn't matter how much work or how hard you work. You will always make a fixed amount and be in a fixed position.

You really think that it is a tenet of both Socialism and Communism that there's no such thing as raises or promotions?


It's theoretically good becuase everyone shares the wealth, but that never really happens.

Kind of a large simplification, but for the most part I agree with that last. Is that a failure of humans or a failure of the system? Regardless, I don't think Communism as a philosophy works for humans, no matter how philosophically attractive it might be for some.

[delhalew]

Just out of curiosity...name me a completely anarchist society. I am not aware of one.

[Frozen Sooner]

Just out of curiosity...name me a completely anarchist society. I am not aware of one.

Somalia seems to fit the bill pretty well. No government to speak of at least.

[delhalew]

Somalia. Otherwise known as "Libertarian Paradise."

Lol:D Don't they have a weaksauce and corrupt gov?

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. I redacted the Libertarian Paradise bit, since it's not really a fair argument. Most Libertarians want enough government to enforce contracts-which is where the anarchist argument for capitalism fails, since you can't have capitalism without the ability to enforce contracts (though there is an Anarcho-capitalist school of economic thought.)

Anyhow, Somalia's government, such as it is, exercises as near to 0 control as to fit the bill of anarchy as you're going to get. I mean, I could SAY that I'm the government of Tuscaloosa, but if I try to collect any taxes it's going to get tough.

[delhalew]

Anarchy is a weird thing. If you form a gang of toughs that go around enforcing your will on the community...when do you become a gov?

[Frozen Sooner]

Exactly. Just as Communism isn't a stable economic system for humans, anarchy isn't a stable political system for humans. Anarchy eventually coalesces into warlordism, then into despotism, then into monarchy (of some sort), etc...

[StoopTroup]

I believe he just tried to reach across the aisle again on Health Care.....so it's still up in the air....but if politics as usual continues....we're all cooked.

[delhalew]

Exactly. Just as Communism isn't a stable economic system for humans, anarchy isn't a stable political system for humans. Anarchy eventually coalesces into warlordism, then into despotism, then into monarchy (of some sort), etc...

Well said. Although, Iron fisted communism of doom can be stable economically if the right circumstances exist.

[ndpruitt03]

I can go through and argue through all of your points me but how can you say Communism/socialism has worked? Where has communism or socialism ever really worked? The answer is never. Even China right now is not a true communist government anymore. You won't find anywhere where communism has really worked.

[Frozen Sooner]

I can go through and argue through all of your points me but how can you say Communism/socialism has worked? Where has communism or socialism ever really worked? The answer is never. Even China right now is not a true communist government anymore. You won't find anywhere where communism has really worked.

I don't believe I said that. In fact, I flat-out said that Communism doesn't work for humans. A good start to arguing any of the points I made would be to correctly identify one.

[ndpruitt03]

Sorry misread what you said. Thought you said communism was the best system for humans.

[ndpruitt03]

Well said. Although, Iron fisted communism of doom can be stable economically if the right circumstances exist.

Those guy usually liquidate people to make those systems work.

[ndpruitt03]

I believe he just tried to reach across the aisle again on Health Care.....so it's still up in the air....but if politics as usual continues....we're all cooked.

After Obama's campaigning which was pretty much all lies I'm not gonna believe a word the guy says. I'll just believe his actions. If they ever cared to cross the aisle on healthcare then they would do it with actions instead of throwing the republicans out.

[Collier11]

After Obama's campaigning which was pretty much all lies I'm not gonna believe a word the guy says. I'll just believe his actions. If they ever cared to cross the aisle on healthcare then they would do it with actions instead of throwing the republicans out.

I agree but name me one president since youve been alive who hasnt lied their way through the election, it is a sad truth of politics these days

[JLEW1818]

YES WE CAN!!!!

[Collier11]

I love this quote tonight

"it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth."

I guess his first year was just a feeling out period?

[ndpruitt03]

No. In fact, this is a central tenet of communism.

No it's not. The central tenant of communism is everyone owning everything. But in reality the government owns everything. Pure communism is actually ideal but it never works because government gets too much control from it. It's not about working to get more money which is what capitalism is about.

Capitalism is about working to trade up and get more money and more power a pure capitalist society will probably never exist.


Part of Marxist cant is that capitalism is a step on the path to Communism. That doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Marxist views were on capitalism were a little wrong because his communism tried to get rid of government control but in use communism and socialism for that matter have always ended up with dictatorships. And usually evil ones.

No. There are socialist countries that nonetheless have competitive markets. Socialist does not mean command economy. Denmark is a socialist country, for example. China is as well.

China is still pretty weak right now, but it's getting stronger but it's also a weird state. Cities are basically more capitalists, rural areas are pretty much communist.


You really think that it is a tenet of both Socialism and Communism that there's no such thing as raises or promotions?

Those 2 are everyone sharing the wealth and the rich should be poorer so they don't want people to get better or rich.

Kind of a large simplification, but for the most part I agree with that last. Is that a failure of humans or a failure of the system? Regardless, I don't think Communism as a philosophy works for humans, no matter how philosophically attractive it might be for some.

Communism if you just read the message it's pretty idealistic. Everyone supposedly owns everything and everyone does everything democratically. But what happens is that it's government that owns everything and a leader/dictator tells you what to do.

[ndpruitt03]

I agree but name me one president since youve been alive who hasnt lied their way through the election, it is a sad truth of politics these days

Reagan maybe. He pretty much did what he said he was going to do even through a down period. But that was 30 years ago now. Bush didn't do the exact opposite of his campaigns either. But everything he's done is what's wrong with our country now if you listen to Obama and company. Bush's spending and going to Iraq was ridiculous.

[Crucifax Autumn]

After Obama's campaigning which was pretty much all lies I'm not gonna believe a word the guy says. I'll just believe his actions. If they ever cared to cross the aisle on healthcare then they would do it with actions instead of throwing the republicans out.

Can you itemize the lies? I lost track.

[Collier11]

The only thing that I give much of a crap about right now is that he said he was going to slash the deficit by so much before whatever year and he has tripled it or whatever

Well, that and the attempting to close Gitmo and the such, and giving terrorists federal rights

[Frozen Sooner]

No. In fact, this is a central tenet of communism.

No it's not. The central tenant of communism is everyone owning everything. But in reality the government owns everything. Pure communism is actually ideal but it never works because government gets too much control from it. It's not about working to get more money which is what capitalism is about.

Capitalism is about working to trade up and get more money and more power a pure capitalist society will probably never exist.


OK. You need to stop right here, because you simply don't know what you're talking about. Yes, indeed, the labor theory of value is a prime underpinning of communist thought and is something Karl Marx himself is credited with popularizing (though Ricardo had more to do with its development.)



Part of Marxist cant is that capitalism is a step on the path to Communism. That doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Marxist views were on capitalism were a little wrong because his communism tried to get rid of government control but in use communism and socialism for that matter have always ended up with dictatorships. And usually evil ones.

That doesn't actually address what I said. Simply saying that communism claims that socialism is a step on the path doesn't show that socialism and communism are the same thing. Marx believed that feudalism and capitalism were also steps along the path to communism. I agree with respect to communism always leading to dictatorship. The jury is still out with respect to some of the socialist systems-I hardly think of Norway as a dictatorship.


No. There are socialist countries that nonetheless have competitive markets. Socialist does not mean command economy. Denmark is a socialist country, for example. China is as well.

China is still pretty weak right now, but it's getting stronger but it's also a weird state. Cities are basically more capitalists, rural areas are pretty much communist.


Nonresponsive, Nick.


You really think that it is a tenet of both Socialism and Communism that there's no such thing as raises or promotions?

Those 2 are everyone sharing the wealth and the rich should be poorer so they don't want people to get better or rich.

No. That's almost completely incorrect. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that common ownership of the means of production will lead to gains in overall societal welfare, which by definition means people will get better and more wealthy.


Kind of a large simplification, but for the most part I agree with that last. Is that a failure of humans or a failure of the system? Regardless, I don't think Communism as a philosophy works for humans, no matter how philosophically attractive it might be for some.

Communism if you just read the message it's pretty idealistic. Everyone supposedly owns everything and everyone does everything democratically. But what happens is that it's government that owns everything and a leader/dictator tells you what to do.

I don't disagree with that.

[ndpruitt03]

Can you itemize the lies? I lost track.

Lies is probably a strong word although sometimes right. Remember he said he would have controlled spending and everything would be out in the open on CSPAN and he would get rid of Earmarks and these big bills. The reason why the stimulus, healthcare, and cap and trade failed is because they were such big bills. And he was about crossing the aisle in his campaign when he basically threw the republican party out from day one in his administration. Also him and all the democrats talked about how bad the deficit and the spending was they've tripled that spending in one year.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Marxist views were on capitalism were a little wrong because his communism tried to get rid of government control but in use communism and socialism for that matter have always ended up with dictatorships. And usually evil ones

Always statements are dangerous and will usually lose an argument. Not every socialist system in the world has a dictator, much less an evil one...just the ones you are thinking about.

[ndpruitt03]

Always statements are dangerous and will usually lose an argument. Not every socialist system in the world has a dictator, much less an evil one...just the ones you are thinking about.

Name a socialist country that's a world power without a dictator?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Viet Nam, Laos, Egypt, India, Portugal, Sri Lanka, & Canada (sorta) to start.

And according to the SO, the United States! lol

[Crucifax Autumn]

And here's a nifty list of countries with socialist parties, and which ones are currently led by that party.

[Curly Bill]

Crux, when did you take a nasty turn to the left? I thought you were some sort of middle road type.

[Collier11]

Fire Brent Venables and Kevin Wilson!!!!

FIXED :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

I am. I'm just working to get some actual ideas out there besides "I hate it and it can't pass 'cause it sucks and stuff" and "I love it and it has to pass or everyone and their dog will die!"

I'm frustrated by the lack of alternate ideas and solutions is all and I also think that it's a huge job and has to be done completely or in baby steps, not something in between.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I also just like to hear actual facts rather than generilizations when it comes to socialism. Every country isn't China and even the evil ones like Cuba do have positive sides like 100% employment and 0% homelessness. Of course, that's probably easy when you toss everyone in jail, but that's precisely my point...Tell the whole story and not just dumb generalizations and "broad strokes" and DAMN SURE use the correct terminology, like Froze has been arguing. If you want a conservative ideal to be supported by the middle, it's a good idea to speak truth and facts, If you want a liberal ideal to be supported by the middle, it's a good idea to speak truth and facts. Too many on both sides speak in hysterical and false rants and stupidity for any thinking person to find common ground with any of them.

[Curly Bill]

My solution is for the government to mind it's own damn business and stay outta my wallet!

There! How's that for a fact? :D

[Curly Bill]

Oh, and Crux, one more thing...


...I got your facts right here!

[SCOUT]

My proposal would be three pronged and could be implemented in a couple of years. It is obviously a little less detailed that the house bill ;) but I have a few general ideas.

The first change has been brought up too many times to count so I won't go into detail. Allow interstate competition.

The second change is the expansion and encouragement of high deductible health care plans and the accompanying health savings accounts. This will put the purchasing power in the hands of the consumer and where it will actually carry some weight. People will be spending more out of their own pocket (or savings account) and will actually shop prices for the health care needs. I know of two PCP's who charge $75 and $125 for an general office visit. Do you know how much your Dr. actually charges? In addition to the competitive pricing advantage, paying out of pocket (insurance premiums are out of pocket too, but for some reason people don't see it that way) will give people a reason for pause before rushing to the emergency room for their headache. There is more, but you get the point.

Third, implement a very high level major medical policy that will have government involvement only in extreme cases. For example, a claim would not be eligible for this coverage unless the out of pocket expense exceeds $250,000. I just pulled that number out of the air, btw. This policy would have a restriction saying that a change in the coverage amount could not exceed inflation/deflation +or- 3%. My thought there is that a government program has a tendency to balloon despite the best intentions.

Anyway, people would be covered for when they are REALLY sick, consumers would control their spending and their costs and premiums for insurance would be lower (high deductible plans are demonstrably less than other plans)

My two cents

[Curly Bill]

Hey C11, firing KW and BV would make me almost as happy as Scott Brown winning Teddy's old senate seat. ;) ;) :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

My proposal would be three pronged and could be implemented in a couple of years. It is obviously a little less detailed that the house bill ;) but I have a few general ideas.

The first change has been brought up too many times to count so I won't go into detail. Allow interstate competition.

The second change is the expansion and encouragement of high deductible health care plans and the accompanying health savings accounts. This will put the purchasing power in the hands of the consumer and where it will actually carry some weight. People will be spending more out of their own pocket (or savings account) and will actually shop prices for the health care needs. I know of two PCP's who charge $75 and $125 for an general office visit. Do you know how much your Dr. actually charges? In addition to the competitive pricing advantage, paying out of pocket (insurance premiums are out of pocket too, but for some reason people don't see it that way) will give people a reason for pause before rushing to the emergency room for their headache. There is more, but you get the point.

Third, implement a very high level major medical policy that will have government involvement only in extreme cases. For example, a claim would not be eligible for this coverage unless the out of pocket expense exceeds $250,000. I just pulled that number out of the air, btw. This policy would have a restriction saying that a change in the coverage amount could not exceed inflation/deflation +or- 3%. My thought there is that a government program has a tendency to balloon despite the best intentions.

Anyway, people would be covered for when they are REALLY sick, consumers would control their spending and their costs and premiums for insurance would be lower (high deductible plans are demonstrably less than other plans)

My two cents

Well done. My only question then would be, how do we keep people with no insurance from showing up at the ER. I know you attempt to address that with the out of pocket expense, but that applies to people with AND without insurance. So Joe Shizzle shows up with a broken leg, no insurance, pays an up front deductible, and leaves the rest unpaid and eventually written off by the hospital and doctor, just like now, and that cost gets passed on in higher cost for everyone. And realistically, can you require the co-pay upfront? People without the high deductible plan couldn't exactly time their accidents and illnessed to coincide with payday.

[SCOUT]

I am sorry for going on with my previous post, but I thought of two other things I wanted to mention.

I want to add a fourth point. Allow groups to collectivize for group insurance rates. For example, a small business association should be allowed to apply for group rates, or a neighborhood association for that matter. There are many details that can make this difficult to do, but it is not impossible.

My last thought is back to the high deductible health plans. Today, a significant number of the uninsured are those who don't think they need it (think college students, and the young and invincible). With an HSA, you can keep the money you deposit in that account until you actually do need it. So a single person could theoretically get a plan with a very high deductible and very low premiums but could sock money away in their HSA until it is needed. Their premiums would still lower the premium pool since .01 is still greater than 0 and they would have their own dollars for their future medical costs.

OK, I'll stop now.

[SCOUT]

Well done. My only question then would be, how do we keep people with no insurance from showing up at the ER. I know you attempt to address that with the out of pocket expense, but that applies to people with AND without insurance. So Joe Shizzle shows up with a broken leg, no insurance, pays an up front deductible, and leaves the rest unpaid and eventually written off by the hospital and doctor, just like now, and that cost gets passed on in higher cost for everyone. And realistically, can you require the co-pay upfront? People without the high deductible plan couldn't exactly time their accidents and illnessed to coincide with payday.

I don't. My solution is in addition to what we have today. People are always going to find a way around a given system. However, skipping on your hospital bill should be reduced by the people who are willing to pay for insurance but just can't afford it. Lower premiums would reduce the pool of people just leaving and not paying their bill. For example, if a person wants to defraud a hospital, they can and as you have illustrated. However, how about the person who may be able to swing a plan at a greatly reduced cost and pay money towards their deductible instead of essentially stealing.

Also, even with high deductible plans, there is coverage once a deductible is met. That coverage is often in the 80-100% range. I mention this because skipping out on a bill to save $30,000 is one thing when there is no hope. It is something else when you are paying towards your $1,500 deductible.

As I said, I don't have an answer for fraud. My thoughts were to improve the system as much as possible while not turning the whole thing over to the Feds.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Makes good sense to me. I really like the concept of opening up group plans to different types of groups. That could be a great answer to the problem of small businesses that can't afford to offer insurance. I know at my last job when they finally offered insurance it was gonna be way too expensive to to the small number of employees, so I had to opt out.

[Collier11]

Obamas SOTU fact check

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check

[Crucifax Autumn]

Obamas SOTU fact check

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check

I agree with the writer on most of that, but this one:


OBAMA: "I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.


is stupid...It's not his fault that both sides of the aisle are terrified of doing unpopular things! lol

[SCOUT]

Wow, I really managed to kill this thread. Sorry about that.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Maybe everyone thinks you solved the healthcare issue.

[Collier11]

Im sure everyone has seen this or heard of it by now but if not, its impressive

Obama was way off on this

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

[Crucifax Autumn]

Juist curious, do you think it's ok for foreign lobbyists to pile unlimited money into a candidate's campaign?

[Collier11]

The case that Obamarama was speaking of had nothing to do with what you are talking about, that is why Alito mouthed "thats not true" That is why Obama is off base and embarrassed himself

[Crucifax Autumn]

From your link:


POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

[Collier11]

UPDATE (via Instapundit): Bradley Smith at National Review reports either the President is ignorant or …

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited …

[JLEW1818]

i would bet money that his health care is cooked

he can make adjustments, and get is passed.

[Crucifax Autumn]

How enforcable is that with so many corporation being multinational now? How many US companies are technically owned by foreign groups? And hell, even without the foreign influence why is it OK for say, banks, to heap all the money they want into a campaign?