ObamaCare

[ghettopalmetto]

OBAMACARE ROUND II

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35520064...th_care_reform

Translation:
Buy insurance if you have a job, if you don't, you will be fined and subsequently jailed if you don't pay said fine.

Oooh! Scary! Kind of like what happens when you don't pay your insurance premiums for Social Security and Medicare, right?

[Papasito]

If given a choice between paying $1000++ a month for medical insurance or paying my mortgage / putting food on the table, I'll pass on the insurance.
With this legislation, I won't have a choice.
Niether will you

[ghettopalmetto]

If given a choice between paying $1000++ a month for medical insurance or paying my mortgage / putting food on the table, I'll pass on the insurance.

Welcome to the status quo. You have perfectly illustrated why people who aren't desperately and deathly sick are dropping their health insurance, leaving only the very ill [[and often unable to work) to foot the bill for skyrocketing premiums. Best health care system in the world, right?

With this legislation, I won't have a choice.
Niether will you

You must be some sort of psychic, considering not even Congress has fleshed out the details as to how much you would be required to pay per month.

[johnsmith]

You have perfectly illustrated why people who aren't desperately and deathly sick are dropping their health insurance, leaving only the very ill [[and often unable to work) to foot the bill for skyrocketing premiums.

How does one person's illness become another person's problem or financial burden? Where does this entitlement mentality come from?

The young and or healthy people are very smart to not pay for something that has no value to them.

[ghettopalmetto]

How does one person's illness become another person's problem or financial burden? Where does this entitlement mentality come from?

When that person is your co-worker, or employee, or customer, or family member, you're GOD DAMNED RIGHT it's everyone else's problem.

[Hermod]

Also because the President cannot write legislation...

.

The president [[and his staff) can "write" legislation and send the proposed bill over to Congress and have a friendly congressman propose the bill [[yeah, a committee is going to mark it up or destroy it) and see if Congress will pass it. The president can do more than just say "I want a health care bill", he can flesh out his proposals in as much detail as he desires.

[johnsmith]

When that person is your co-worker, or employee, or customer, or family member, you're GOD DAMNED RIGHT it's everyone else's problem.

Capital letters and swear words don't help make a point. You pretty much said nothing there. Family members or close friends might care, and can help out if they wish though. But it's not anyone else's problem but the one who is sick.

[ghettopalmetto]

Capital letters and swear words don't help make a point. You pretty much said nothing there. Family members or close friends might care, and can help out if they wish though. But it's not anyone else's problem but the one who is sick.

No, it's most definitely your problem. I don't think it's a coincidence that the rednecks who promote social and economic isolation tend to be those in the least educated, most economically miserable areas with the lowest job prospects.

If you were to live on an island by yourself, how prosperous would you be?

Every dollar a customer of mine has to spend on health insurance is one less dollar he spends at my business.

Every day an employee is out sick because he can't receive adequate medical care is one less day he works for me.

Every person who cannot work due to chronic illness is one less person shouldering the burden of our society.

Canada has it figured out. Europe has it figured out. Japan has it figured out. Somehow, we all think we can be prosperous by hoarding pennies instead of investing in mutual prosperity.

So let me ask you, johnsmith: Where does YOUR entitlement mentality come from?

[Papasito]

You must be some sort of psychic, considering not even Congress has fleshed out the details as to how much you would be required to pay per month.

There have been some numbers floating around about cost estimates we'd have to pay when the last Health Care push was going through, I imagine the cost estimates haven't changed much from the last bill to the current one.

My employer offers a family plan right now with a $500.00 deductible per person for approx $485.00 per week. That's per week. If you are lucky enough to make $1000 per week, that's nearly half your check. Our "Health Care" here is right in line with the other similar businesses in the area. No one can afford that, let's get real here.

I think I just came down with an ear infection. If the local Doctor charges me $250 to look in my ear and give me a perscription, I'm already ahead of the game for the week. Health Insurance is simply not affordable. This bill will force me to pay for it. Even if it's discounted, we won't know what we will be mandated to pay until after the bill is passed.
Then it will be whatever they tell us, and it will be law.

[ghettopalmetto]

My employer offers a family plan right now with a $500.00 deductible per person for approx $485.00 per week. That's per week. If you are lucky enough to make $1000 per week, that's nearly half your check. Our "Health Care" here is right in line with the other similar businesses in the area. No one can afford that, let's get real here.

I think I just came down with an ear infection. If the local Doctor charges me $250 to look in my ear and give me a perscription, I'm already ahead of the game for the week. Health Insurance is simply not affordable. This bill will force me to pay for it. Even if it's discounted, we won't know what we will be mandated to pay until after the bill is passed.
Then it will be whatever they tell us, and it will be law.

It sounds like you don't get to see a doctor very much then, huh? So maybe you can wait for the details of the plan before you pass judgment on it.

Personally, I don't think that's right. I'll admit that I'm lucky. My employer takes $1 a month out of my paycheck, pre-tax, for health insurance. If I want to see a doctor, I pay 10 bucks. There's no reason why someone like you should be held hostage for hundreds or thousands of dollars because you decide to get sick or injured. God forbid should you develop a chronic illness or physical disability.

[firstandten]

It's time to stop the crazyness and get this thing done. I'm linking this editorial from the NYT because its one of the most consise articles I've seen on the subject. I'm posting it because I think it should be required reading on a issue that people have politically just taken it over the top

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html


As the fierce debate on President Obama’s plan for health care reform comes to a head, Americans should be thinking carefully about what happens if Congress fails to enact legislation.






Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?
Here are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive reform or continue with what we have:

HOW REFORM WOULD WORK: Let’s be clear, the changes Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are proposing are significant. But, despite what the critics charge, this is not a government takeover. And the program is not only fully paid for, it should actually reduce the deficit over the next two decades.
Under the new system, all people would be required to have health insurance or pay a penalty. If you are poor or middle class you would also get significant help through Medicaid coverage or tax credits to pay the premiums.
The legislation would create exchanges on which small businesses and people who buy their own coverage directly from insurers could choose from an array of private plans that would compete for their business. It would also require insurance companies to accept all applicants, even those with a pre-existing condition. And it would make a start at reforming the medical care system to improve quality and lower costs.

46 MILLION AND RISING: If nothing is done, the number of uninsured people — 46 million in 2008 — is sure to spike upward as rising medical costs and soaring premiums make policies less affordable and employers continue to drop coverage to save money.
The Congressional Budget Office projects 54 million uninsured people in 2019; the actuary for the federal government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects 57 million.
It should be no surprise that people without insurance often postpone needed care, and many get much sicker as a result. That is morally unsustainable. It is also fiscally unsustainable for safety net hospitals — which foist much of the cost on the American taxpayer when the uninsured end up in the emergency room. As the number of uninsured rises, that bill will rise.
The Senate’s reform bill would reduce the number of uninsured by an estimated 31 million in 2019. The Republicans’ paltry proposals would cut the number by only three million.

BUT I HAVE INSURANCE: While most Americans have insurance, many pay exorbitant rates because they have no bargaining power with insurers.
That includes many of the tens of millions who buy their own insurance — the unemployed, the self-employed, and those whose employers do not offer insurance. The recently announced plan by Anthem Blue Cross in California to raise annual premiums by 35 to 39 percent for nearly a quarter of its individual subscribers is a chilling harbinger of what is to come if reform fails.
There are another 48 million people who work in relatively small firms that often cannot get the better rates of large-group coverage. All of these groups should be able to get a better deal if they can buy their insurance through new, competitive exchanges.
If current trends continue, the number of underinsured Americans — those who have coverage too skimpy to pay substantial medical bills or protect them from high out-of-pocket spending — will also rise from an estimated 25 million in 2007 to 35 million in 2011, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a respected research organization.
That will increase the risk that this group will forgo needed care and will expose many more of them to potential bankruptcy if they cannot pay huge medical bills. Some 72 million adults currently have medical debt or problems paying their bills even though most of them have insurance. Reform would help them by setting minimum standards of coverage and providing subsidies to tens of millions of low- and middle-income people to help pay their premiums.

BUT I LIKE MY INSURANCE: Most Americans get their insurance through large companies, with large group bargaining power. While they complain about premiums and paperwork, most seem satisfied with their coverage.

[firstandten]

Part two

For them the real fear is what happens if they lose their jobs or decide to change jobs. Will they be shut out of coverage because of a pre-existing condition or forced to pay high rates to buy their own insurance? For this group, the real advantage of reform is security. If they get laid off, decide to be self-employed or switch to a smaller employer that offers no insurance, they will still be guaranteed coverage — even if they are a cancer survivor or have heart trouble or any other pre-existing condition. And they will be able to buy insurance on the exchanges.

I’M JUST WORRIED ABOUT COSTS: You should be. The cost of medical care is rising far faster than wages or inflation. And despite all of the talk about reform “bending the curve,� no one is yet sure how to do that.
Many reforms that people instinctively believe should cut costs — computerization of medical records, paying doctors for quality not quantity of services, and prevention programs to promote healthy living and head off costly illnesses — cannot yet be shown to lower costs.
Pending reform legislation, specifically the Senate bill, would launch an array of pilot projects to test reforms in delivering and paying for care. It would also create a special board to accelerate the adoption of anything that seemed to work. That seems a reasonable way to go and a lot better than standing by as costs continue to spiral out of control. The Republicans’ proposals — including their call to cap malpractice awards — would make only a small dent in the problem.

WHAT ABOUT THE DEFICIT?: Republican critics of health care reform have done an especially good job of frightening Americans with their talk of bankrupting the Treasury. The truth of the matter is that the pending reform legislation has been designed to generate enough revenue and savings to more than offset the substantial cost of expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to the middle class.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate bill would reduce deficits over the first 10 years by $132 billion and even more in the second decade.
What critics certainly do not talk about is what happens to the deficit if Medicare costs continue their relentless rise. That is something that should keep Americans up at night.
The pending reforms would cut the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary in half — from 4 percent a year to 2 percent — by demanding productivity savings from Medicare providers and cutting unjustified subsidies to the private plans in Medicare.
There is some skepticism that Congress will stick to its guns if health care providers say they cannot survive on the reduced rations. But Congress has stood by most previous Medicare cuts [[physicians excepted) and should have its spine stiffened by new pay-go rules requiring that any Medicare increases be offset by other savings or taxes.
If reform is defeated, it seems likely that most of the proposed experiments designed to cut costs — first within Medicare and then throughout the rest of the health care system — will die as well. The legislation needs to be passed to establish a structure to force continuing improvement over the years. That is the best chance of restraining soaring medical costs that threaten the solvency of families, businesses and the federal government.


Any change as big as this is bound to cause anxiety. Republicans have happily fanned those fears with talk of “dangerous experiments� on the “best health care system in the world.� The fact is that the health care system is broken for far too many Americans. And the country cannot afford the status quo.

[Papasito]

The Republicans had plenty of oppotunity to address Health Care when they were in power during Bush I and Bush II and did not. They saw the writing on the wall and did not act, now the Democrats are acting, and the Republicans are whining as if they are being blindsided. They should have acted when they had the chance, instead they didn't, and now the legislation is on someone else's terms. They dropped the ball.

I saw the Obama "Town Hall", if you can call it that. Every town hall he has is packed full of supporters and no critics. People are hand picked, especially those who stand behind him while the camera is rolling. Anyway, I'm getting off point..

He made the case that person X person Y and person Z were having so much hardship because of Health Care, and they need it NOW. This is B.S. His plan would not kick in benefits for 4 years after it is signed into law. If Obama really cared about persons Z Y & Z, then the benefits under this plan would be as immediate as he implies that America desperately needs them. This is purely a power and political grab, a manifistation of the left's dream for Government control of the Health Care industry, and fulfillment of agenda.

If it was really about persons X Y and Z and it was a crisis, why wait 4 years for benefits to kick in? Those very pawns he used as examples will still have no good coverage after his bill is passed.

[oldredfordette]

Are you saying that every person in the Town Hall is handpicked to be supporters, Bush-style?

[Papasito]

Please. Do you really think they would let in a mix of Tea Leaves into the crowd? The last thing he would want is people jeering and booing during his talking points. There has been much documentation on how his Town Hall audiences have been selected in the past. Bush probably did do it, I haven't really looked into it, but I'm sure he did. When we got Obama after Bush weren't we supposed to expect change? Anyway, what's the point of a "Town Hall" when it's not a real sample of the general public? Criticism and debate is what fuels a strong Democratic Republic, but you'd never know that from watching our leaders. Sure, Orf, I'll point the finger at Bush for doing it, too. But two wrongs dont make a right.

^
This Town Hall attendance talk does steer the thread away from ObamaCare

[Detroitej72]

What all the cons fail to grasp is that many European countries have excellent single payer health care. My future in-laws who are from Germany can't understand why Americans are terrified of a system like that. They have informed me that many rich Americans travel there for various treatments, and, contrary to what Sara Palin says, there are no "death panels" deciding who lives and who dies.

Meanwhile here, cons keep screaming the propaganda and lies about how terrible any single payer system would be. Many of the talking heads are paid off by big insurance, but many of the ditto heads just parrot what the right wing media indoctrinates them to believe.

[oldredfordette]

So you don't know if it's true that people are checked for loyalty before entering an Obama Town Hall meeting. You just kind of made it up.

Just checking. The room could be filled with TeaBaggers for all you know.

[firstandten]

Papasito your arguments would carry more weight if you gave examples, first of all the statement you made that There has been much documentation on how his Town Hall audiences have been selected in the past without any examples or documentation is an irresponsible statement. I know for a fact that when Obama had his town hall in Vegas a few weeks ago the day before the town hall people lined up in the morning to get tickets that afternoon. This was a random crowd. Anyone could stand in line to get tickets to see the president The teabaggers had there protest across the street from the high school. They could have stood in line and got tickets but they didn't want to. Did Bush in his town hall meetings [[the few that he had) ever say I want someone to ask me a question that disagrees with me, Obama has. So yes, there is a certain amount of screening that goes on with town halls, but to equate Bush with Obama and trying to make a case that both went to extremes to hand pick supporters without any concrete info is irresponsible.

[barnesfoto]

Why bother with citing sources when you are getting paid to post?


Why is government health care bad for America but good enough for the Palin Family?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shanny..._b_470297.html

Not to mention Dick Armey, one of the generals in the fight against big government health care

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212915

[Papasito]

My future in-laws who are from Germany can't understand why Americans are terrified of a system like that

. Because under this system I am mandated to pay for health insurance,
and I can not afford to pay my bills if I am required by law to pay for health insurance, too. There is only "talk" of reducing health insurance costs. There is no guarantee. The only guarantee is that I will have to buy it.

So you don't know if it's true that people are checked for loyalty before entering an Obama Town Hall meeting. You just kind of made it up.

Papasito your arguments would carry more weight if you gave examples, first of all the statement you made that There has been much documentation on how his Town Hall audiences have been selected in the past without any examples or documentation is an irresponsible statement.

Sorry, I am at work with limited internet access, so I can't surf around and copy/paste webpages to support my claims. I only spoke of these instances because I have seen and read examples. And if you had the time to kill, with using simple tools like Google.com you can find plenty of pages to support my accusations.

Just checking. The room could be filled with TeaBaggers for all you know.

Highly unlikely, since the crowd was cheering and swooning after his every talking point.

[Jimaz]

There are some sobering statistics in OECD Health Data 2009 - How Does the United States Compare.

Total health spending accounted for 16.0% of GDP in the

United States in 2007, by far the highest share in the OECD....

The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of 7,290 USD [[adjusted for purchasing power parity), almost two-and-a-half times greater than the OECD average of 2,964 USD in 2007....

I think that there is a guarantee that that situation will continue if nothing is done.

[firstandten]

. Because under this system I am mandated to pay for health insurance,
and I can not afford to pay my bills if I am required by law to pay for health insurance, too. There is only "talk" of reducing health insurance costs. There is no guarantee. The only guarantee is that I will have to buy it.

So pick your poison, I nor most american's don't want to suffer because you don't want to get health insurance. Not if but, when you get sick and go to ER should we have to pay the price because you don't want to purchase health insurance.

There's more than just talk about helping people pay for health insurance. Granted it will require a sacrifice, but because folks such as yourself want to keep the for-profit health insurers in business and are so scared of a public option this is the result.

Sorry, I am at work with limited internet access, so I can't surf around and copy/paste webpages to support my claims. I only spoke of these instances because I have seen and read examples. And if you had the time to kill, with using simple tools like Google.com you can find plenty of pages to support my accusations.

I use Google all the time but thats not the point. I understand about having limited internet access, but when you say something that's really questionable its not incumbent upon me to prove your point. You should either be more careful with your statements or wait until you can research it more thoroughly.

[ghettopalmetto]

Papasito obviously missed the part where people of lower incomes would receive subsidies to purchase their health insurance. You know, not unlike how financial aid works in our system of higher education.

It's really none of my business, but there are differences in "bills". It's one thing to have a mortgage, transportation costs, expenses for food and clothing, and educational and occupational costs. It's quite another to have "bills" because you bought a whole bunch of stuff you couldn't afford anyway.

I think that's where a lot of this outrage arises, not necessarily from Papasito. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people who oppose health care are scared they'd have to buy health insurance instead of big screen televisions and new rims for their car.

[Papasito]

Are you saying that every person in the Town Hall is handpicked to be supporters, Bush-style?

So you don't know if it's true that people are checked for loyalty before entering an Obama Town Hall meeting. You just kind of made it up.

Sorry, Orf, I didn't see any Links to back up your "Bush-style" claims either. I guess copy/pasting websites to back up claims only works if you're anti-Forced health Insurance

[Papasito]

It's quite another to have "bills" because you bought a whole bunch of stuff you couldn't afford anyway.

I am in a position MILLIONS of Americans are in. You see, I have this thing called "Child Support", which means a huge chunk of my income is spent before I even make it. I make a decent wage, and I don't have massive debt, but you see, I have financial obligations that take priority over my own health care.
Please don't get dirty with personal attacks over divorce and parenting and whatnot. I am a good father and spend a lot of time with my kids. The issue here is not about my personal life, though when you give a personal example, people who have a different viewpoint usually skip the issue at hand and go straight to personal attacks.

My point is that you can make a decent wage, not be overblown with debt, and simply not have the money in the budget to buy Health Insurance. It is very expensive. And people like me won't qualify for subsidies because we make a decent wage. We just simply don't have the room to budget $1000++ a month to Health Insurance when you are supporting two households on only enough income to pay for one. The money has to be carved out of somewhere, and for me, it's me taking a gamble and not buying health insurance so I can provide for my kids.