View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 20th, 2014, 7:37 am



Reply to topic  [ 299 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 20  Next
 Universal Health Care 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post 
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
This is just a mess...


I agree. IMO they're trying to do too much at once.


Totally agree...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


October 29th, 2009, 2:49 pm
Profile
Post 
TheRealWags wrote:
Um, yay?

ABC News wrote:
House Democrats Unveil $894B Health Care Bill
Cost of the Bill is Below The Threshold Set by President Obama, Would Cover 36 Million More Americans

By HUMA KHAN and JONATHAN KARL
Oct. 29, 2009

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., today unveiled the House Democrats' broad new $894 billion health care bill, saying it will provide "universal quality affordable health care for all Americans."

President Obama praised the bill, saying it would benefit small businesses and that those ones that participate in a government-run health care plan could save a quarter on their premiums by 2016.

"As I've said throughout this process, a public option that competes with private insurers is the best way to ensure choice and competition that are so badly needed in today's market. And the House bill clearly meets two of the fundamental criteria I have set out: it is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term," the president said in a written statement.

The cost of the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" falls under Obama's $900 billion threshold and is considerably lower than the initial estimate of $1 trillion.

One Congressional aide said the final bill could go for a vote by next week but others cautioned that Democrats may not move on it until they have assured there will be ample votes to pass the legislation on the House floor. The bill still has a long way to go before it makes it way to Obama's desk. The House legislation would have to merged with Senate legislation and key differences remain, especially on the type of public option plan that should be included.

This is a "historic moment for our nation and our families," said Pelosi, speaking on the steps at the West Front of the Capitol building. "The drive for health care reform is moving forward."

Congress is "on the cusp of delivering on the promise of making affordable, quality health insurance available to every American -- and laying the foundation for a brighter future for generations to come," she added.

The legislation would insure 36 million more Americans in the next 10 years, covering 96 percent of all Americans, Pelosi said. That is more than the Senate bill currently being negotiated, which would cover an estimated 29 million additional people.

The speaker also said the bill would not add a dime to the deficit, an important factor considering Obama has said he will not a sign any legislation which does so.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would cut the deficit by about $30 million in the first 10 years.

"What a day for Americans and what a day for our people," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said. "Today we are one step further on one long, hard road."

The proposed legislation would also expand Medicaid coverage and provide more support to low-income citizens.

Republicans, as expected, assailed the Pelosi bill, saying its 1,990 pages don't reflect any change.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, billed it as a "government takeover of the health care system."

The Democrats' legislation has "over 50 new mandates, bureaucracies, tax hikes, commissions -- All of this is going to require tens of thousands of new federal employees, which is fairly designed for a government takeover of our health care system," Boehner, with a printout of the entire bill in front of him, told reporters. "How are we going to fix out health care system with 1,990 pages of bureaucracy?"

Inching Closer to Health Care Legislation

As House Democratic leaders unveiled the bill, their Senate counterparts await estimates from CBO on the finalized bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said earlier this week the Senate legislation will include a public option plan, but he did not divulge any more details.

The House Democrats' bill does include a public option, but it is not the Medicare-like public option that Pelosi wanted. The government-run insurance company created by the proposed bill would negotiate payment rates with health care providers just like private insurance companies. Pelosi simply could not get the votes to pass the "robust" version she preferred.

White House officials said today they have yet to evaluate the legislation, and defended the public option as a plan that would drive down costs, not increase them.

"You've seen people say that this is going to drive policies up in price. I don't think that -- I think whenever you're adding more choices through greater competition into the health care system, you're driving down costs," White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. "That's what the president wants to see. That's a big aim in health care reform, and I think that's what we're working toward."

The House Democrats' also creates a health insurance exchange whereby those who do not get insured through their employers can shop for coverage.

The House bill would require nearly all Americans to sign up for health coverage by 2013, either through their employer, a government program or the new exchange

There is also an individual mandate requiring all Americans to have health insurance, although the penalties for non-compliance are lower than penalties in the Senate bill, which imposes a maximum fine of $1,500 for families who forgo insurance.

The House bill also includes an employer mandate. Companies who don't offer health insurance will be slapped with a fine, but small businesses are exempt.

The bill will be paid for, in part, with a 5.4 percent surtax imposed on those with incomes over $500,000 for individuals, $1 million for families. This tax increase is likely to be a key point of contention between Democrats, as the Senate version doesn't include this tax.

The House bill contains a long list of insurance reforms, including banning denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, mandating wellness and prevention coverage, capping out of pocket expenses and prohibiting caps on benefits.

As Pelosi spoke, demonstrators tried to interrupt her remarks, but they were moved quickly by the police.

ABC News' Dean Norland contributed to this report.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/hou ... 527&page=2


I wonder if they'll make it publiccaly available for review before the final vote? (probably not...:rolleyes:)

What I would like to know is if this is such a HUGE, important issue for ALL Americans, they why don't they put it to a PUBLIC vote? We already have a designated "Election" day every year, why not use it?


The proposed bill is over 1,500 pages. That's just ridiculous. No one would be able to read it in the proposed 72 hours anyhow... In any event, why make such a drastic, sweeping change in the first place? Why not attack our known health care faults first? Why not get tort reform taken care of? Why not remove boundaries for health insurance programs to allow companies to compete across state lines?


The proposed changes aren't set to take place until 2013 (how convenient, right AFTER the next Pres. Election... if that isn't shady, I don't know what is), so why not make these changes and make them applicable NOW. Why not either 1) open the vote to the public, or 2) try this out on a four state test group (one or two would be too small to get the cross state "benefits")? Why make this drastic, sweeping change that seemingly the majority of people do not even want? Its a good thing we live in a democracy :roll: ... This has to be one of the worst periods in US domestic policy in our entire history...


October 29th, 2009, 4:52 pm
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post 
Because what is going on, that seems so apparent but is obviously escaping the masses is this.

1. The United States can not be taken militarily. The citizenry would wipe out any military that tried it, not to mention our own military.

2. We could not be taken out financially until the latter half of GWB, and now with President Obama in office, he's selling us out quicker than what I thought Hillary would have.

So since we could not be taken by force, we are being forced through the "mandate" of socialist politics, by being bankrupted. The iou's are going out to spend our way out of debt, (I bet Dave Ramsey is having a coronary) and that is a poor business practice at best.

We are being sold a lie, and it's being perpetuated as truth, that we needed to do something about healthcare. Afterall, our own media wouldn't pump us full of propaganda, that's Pravda and Russian news medias that do that.

What needs to happen is stop enabling people in America. You want a check, great earn it, how much trash could be picked up off the highways in Detroit? How much graffiti could be covered on a daily basis in Detroit? It doesn't need to be $20.00/hr. job or better, but at least you have some dignity in working for what you're getting. I've seen far too many people with 0 education think that they are OWED a substantial paying job. You are owed anything in this country, you are only limited by your own desire to pursue.

We've become fat, lazy, overpaid in many aspects. I said it before the election, and I'll say it again.

We got the President that we DESERVED! Now we just have to hope that we can pink slip these incompitents in Washington, who've demonstrated a track record of lying to the American public.

1. Most ethical Congress?
2. More transparent?
3. We'll lead by example?
4. We'll demonstrate through bi-partisan leadership?

With as much c rap as their talking it's a wonder their teeth aren't brown.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


Last edited by WarEr4Christ on October 30th, 2009, 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.



October 29th, 2009, 11:24 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3136
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post 
DevilDoc wrote:
2. We could not be taken out financially until the latter half of GWB, and now with Uncle Tom in office, he's selling us out quicker than what I thought Hillary would have.

Not commenting on anything else in your post. Seriously man, calling Obama an Uncle Tom is a bit ridiculous, no? Why inject race into it? None of your points had anything to do with race, and by injecting this into your statement up front you killed your argument. It makes you sound like a racist. I'm not saying you are a racist. I'm saying it makes it seem that way. Gotta think about what you're saying before you post it.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


October 30th, 2009, 8:25 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post 
I've struck my reply from the thread, and my apologies, I should have done better research.

My implications were that he, along with Congressional leaders have sold out the U.S. part and parcel. Since we were not going to submit to the U.N. authority on our own accord (till now) we will be driven there by our leadership. That was my point, not race related AT ALL.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


Last edited by WarEr4Christ on October 30th, 2009, 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.



October 30th, 2009, 9:45 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2688
Post 
Quote:
This is not a race issue, and I was not going for race when I mentioned it. Thank you for bringing up this point because it allows me to state why I wrote it.

According to literature, and research that I have been able to find, an Uncle Tom is a sell out. Someone who would sell out his own PEOPLE, for the benefit of self.

Sadly, the context is taken from the Civil War when some former slaves, or current slaves would "sell out" those who had escaped or were ready to escape in order to get benefit for themselves.

Thus the relation between then and now, nothing to do with race as you might presume, and everything to do with a leadership that is selling out this country part and parcel, so that we will be FORCED to submit to U.N. authority. Because they will hold the notes to our over spent bank accounts.


I'm sorry, but your research is wrong.

The term "Uncle Tom" does not mean sell out.

There was a book, written in the 1850s, called "Uncle Tom's Cabin". In it, the main character is an enslaved black man named Uncle Tom. What's notable about the character is that he is peacefully subservient to his white masters.

Thus, the term "Uncle Tom" is a reference to this character, and the implication that whomever is being referred to by the term is unnecessarily subservient to white people.

So, unless you're implying that Obama "sold out" other black people and is subservient to the white politicians, its not the proper term to use.


October 30th, 2009, 10:23 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: March 6th, 2006, 1:29 am
Posts: 2490
Location: The Terrordome
Post 
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The proposed bill is over 1,500 pages. That's just ridiculous.


I suppose you prefer the 3 page bail out bill Paulson submitted.

_________________
"If you worry about what the fans say, you’re going to be sitting with them."
-Jim Schwartz


November 5th, 2009, 3:14 pm
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12130
Post 
lightning_in_a_bottle wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The proposed bill is over 1,500 pages. That's just ridiculous.


I suppose you prefer the 3 page bail out bill Paulson submitted.


Do you have anything constructive to add or are you just going to nitpick individual sentences and phrases? :rolleyes:


November 5th, 2009, 4:19 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: March 6th, 2006, 1:29 am
Posts: 2490
Location: The Terrordome
Post 
TheRealWags wrote:
lightning_in_a_bottle wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The proposed bill is over 1,500 pages. That's just ridiculous.


I suppose you prefer the 3 page bail out bill Paulson submitted.


Do you have anything constructive to add or are you just going to nitpick individual sentences and phrases? :rolleyes:


Yes, I think everybody in the richest country in the world should have affordable health care. I think if for some reason you cannot get it through your employer, a public option should be made available to you. I think it should be illegal to discriminate based on preexisting conditions and illegal to go back and revoke the coverage of people after they get sick.

Oh and to get that into a bill that covers all the relevant bases is going to take hundreds if not thousands of pages. Our lawyer/law student friend wjb should know that.

_________________
"If you worry about what the fans say, you’re going to be sitting with them."
-Jim Schwartz


November 5th, 2009, 6:00 pm
Profile WWW
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2793
Post 
lightning_in_a_bottle wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
lightning_in_a_bottle wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The proposed bill is over 1,500 pages. That's just ridiculous.


I suppose you prefer the 3 page bail out bill Paulson submitted.


Do you have anything constructive to add or are you just going to nitpick individual sentences and phrases? :rolleyes:


Yes, I think everybody in the richest country in the world should have affordable health care. I think if for some reason you cannot get it through your employer, a public option should be made available to you. I think it should be illegal to discriminate based on preexisting conditions and illegal to go back and revoke the coverage of people after they get sick.

Oh and to get that into a bill that covers all the relevant bases is going to take hundreds if not thousands of pages. Our lawyer/law student friend wjb should know that.


The richest country, where 2% represent 98% of the wealth...

Insurance works by hoping you don't need it. If everyone that had insurance always got sick, costs would skyrocket. So by having pre-existing conditions mandated, you're pushing costs up, not decreasing them. Its impossible.

What they need to do is have high risk plans available, just like they have high risk plans for car insurance. If you know you had issues and refused to get insurance prior, then you'll have to pay more in premiums to get covered. If you can't afford it, or don't make enough, you're already covered under charity care at every hospital.

You know where the costs and problems arise with healthcare? Lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits have driven up the costs of malpractice insurance. Which drives up the cost of care, which drives up the cost of insurance. And who maintains his profit level and gains more as costs go up? Lawyers. So getting a public option written by the very people who directly gain the most by having both current insurance and a public option available, is the surefire way to disaster.

Any healthcare plan without Tort Reform is just a joke. Because until you regulate those frivolous lawsuits, malpractice insurance premiums will continue to rise, more doctors will have to stop practicing because they can't afford to practice, and then the 30million you just added to the public option will have to wait longer for fewer doctors.

See the problem now?


November 6th, 2009, 2:33 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2688
Post 
Quote:
You know where the costs and problems arise with healthcare? Lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits have driven up the costs of malpractice insurance. Which drives up the cost of care, which drives up the cost of insurance. And who maintains his profit level and gains more as costs go up? Lawyers. So getting a public option written by the very people who directly gain the most by having both current insurance and a public option available, is the surefire way to disaster.

Any healthcare plan without Tort Reform is just a joke. Because until you regulate those frivolous lawsuits, malpractice insurance premiums will continue to rise, more doctors will have to stop practicing because they can't afford to practice, and then the 30million you just added to the public option will have to wait longer for fewer doctors.


Sorry, this is actually a myth.

Tort reform will not reduce health care costs. Studies have shown that it has virtually no effect. Just look on google.


November 6th, 2009, 4:46 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12130
Post 
njroar wrote:
Insurance works by hoping you don't need it. If everyone that had insurance always got sick, costs would skyrocket. So by having pre-existing conditions mandated, you're pushing costs up, not decreasing them. Its impossible.

What they need to do is have high risk plans available, just like they have high risk plans for car insurance. If you know you had issues and refused to get insurance prior, then you'll have to pay more in premiums to get covered. If you can't afford it, or don't make enough, you're already covered under charity care at every hospital.


If I'm understanding you correctly here, you're stating that the reason insurance companies don't accept pre-existing conditions is because the person refused to obtain heath insurance until they got sick. Am I correct in this? Because I sure hope not. What about the person that had their insurance, got sick, reached their maximum benefit threshold, then the insurance company jacks up their premium so high they can't afford it and, because of their pre-existing condition, are unable to obtain insurance from anywhere else. What are they supposed to do? User "Charity Care" as you call it?


November 6th, 2009, 9:34 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: March 6th, 2006, 1:29 am
Posts: 2490
Location: The Terrordome
Post 
Blueskies wrote:
Quote:
You know where the costs and problems arise with healthcare? Lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits have driven up the costs of malpractice insurance. Which drives up the cost of care, which drives up the cost of insurance. And who maintains his profit level and gains more as costs go up? Lawyers. So getting a public option written by the very people who directly gain the most by having both current insurance and a public option available, is the surefire way to disaster.

Any healthcare plan without Tort Reform is just a joke. Because until you regulate those frivolous lawsuits, malpractice insurance premiums will continue to rise, more doctors will have to stop practicing because they can't afford to practice, and then the 30million you just added to the public option will have to wait longer for fewer doctors.


Sorry, this is actually a myth.

Tort reform will not reduce health care costs. Studies have shown that it has virtually no effect. Just look on google.


Bravo Blueskies! Finally an honest conservative on here...

_________________
"If you worry about what the fans say, you’re going to be sitting with them."
-Jim Schwartz


November 6th, 2009, 10:52 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post 
If the abortion crap is in there, I might stop paying taxes...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


November 6th, 2009, 11:14 am
Profile
Post 
lightning_in_a_bottle wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
lightning_in_a_bottle wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The proposed bill is over 1,500 pages. That's just ridiculous.


I suppose you prefer the 3 page bail out bill Paulson submitted.


Do you have anything constructive to add or are you just going to nitpick individual sentences and phrases? :rolleyes:


Yes, I think everybody in the richest country in the world should have affordable health care. I think if for some reason you cannot get it through your employer, a public option should be made available to you. I think it should be illegal to discriminate based on preexisting conditions and illegal to go back and revoke the coverage of people after they get sick.

Oh and to get that into a bill that covers all the relevant bases is going to take hundreds if not thousands of pages. Our lawyer/law student friend wjb should know that.


You could add a constructive informative post to the discussion (eh... n/m... scratch that... maybe YOU can't)...

1500 pages is ridiculous (and it grew to over 2000). "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler..." I don't know how many actual pieces of legislation you've read front to back, but most of them are ridiculous, overly complex, and impossible to understand. I don't mean impossible to understand to me... I mean that they are literally impossible to understand and need to be "interpreted"... How do you cast an educated vote on a bill when you don't even know what it does? How do you pass something that is going to be impredictable upon its enactment? How do you pass something that creates commetties, groups, oversights, mandates, etc. when no one knows how they will play out? Further, I don't know if you really realize how large 2000 pages is... It's about a a 2' high stack of paper. Really? That is necessary... you need 2000 pages of change right now? 2000 pages of drastic change to a very delicate, very important part of our every day lives?

You say that you think it should be made illegal to "discriminate" based on a preexising condition, but what should they do then? Constantly make bad business decisions whereby they go bankrupt taking on people that have million dollar diseases for $250 a month? That simply doesn't make sense. No system, not even a govt. system can thrive in that environment. I agree that health insurance shouldn't be denied once you have it and you get sick. IMO that's what insurance is for. You pay now while you're healthy and you pay to "insure" that when you get sick you'll have coverage. Right now that isn't the case, and I agree that there needs to be reform there.

Further, I think healthcare should be made more affordable, and I agree that it needs refrom. I would also like to see everyone get some base level of care, whereby BASIC healthcare (doctors visits, bandages, broken bones, etc.) are covered, but major illnesses are not. Call it cruel if you want to, but I do not think that the system should be bogged down by people that have put NOTHING into it AND made horrible choices (i.e. addicted to crack, heroine, alcohol, cigarettes, soverignly women, etc.). IF someone HAS contributed (i.e. paid for their insurance or had their employer pay for their insurance, it is a different scenario. Then they've earned the right to have their illnesses covered.


November 6th, 2009, 11:49 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 299 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 20  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.