OK RWers, Lets Say They Scrap The Bill, Start Over If You Will...

[The Rabbi]

1) Eliminate deductibility of health insurance premiums for companies
2) Lower taxes across the board
3) Eliminate restrictions on buying insurance across state lines
4) Reform the tort system to eliminate "jackpot justice"
5) Encourage charitable medical care by making providers exempt from malpractice suits
6) Allow all kinds of organizations, church groups, the NRA etc to offer insurance.


Do those things and there will be no need for a lot of the other legislation. Pre-existing conditions could be covered although rates might be very high. Sorry. Life is unfair. But more unfair would be punishing people who stay healthy by making them subsidize people who don't give a dam.

 

[Ragnar]

Stup





BULLSHIT!!!!! I have coverage through my wifes employer and our premiums have gone up 50% over two years and DEDUCTABLES have increased while coverage limits have DECREASED so NO I am NOT "happy" with my coverage and i doubt that those who are facing a 39% increase are "happy" with their coverage either.


I think when you start seeing people DYING in the streets and DISEASE spreading unchecked you will see the value of UNIVERSAL health care.

Poll Finds Large Majority Of Americans Happy with Their Health Insurance - The Gaggle Blog - Newsweek.com

"According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and 82% of people on Medicare or Medicaid say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good. Similarly, 75% of those with private plans and 74% on government-run plans rate their insurance plan as excellent or good."



Stupid Shit. Now sit down and suck on your pacifier.

So really, you're just referring to 80something percent of the INSURED American populace.

Not no BS that 80% of the American Populace is happily insured.

BIG difference, yet the RWers and pundits conflate the two and spread that as gospel.

Real shifty.

It's popular knowledge that Obama claims 30 million are uninsured. It's also well known that there are around 300 million Americans.

That means around 90% have coverage with the vast majority being perfectly happy with it. Of coarse that's only true if Obama is right and he's pretty shifty, lol.

 

[Rambunctious]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

All I can say is I'm self employed and nothing gets my prices down like good old fashion competition. Nothing gets my prices up like higher taxes and regulation.

 

[WillowTree]

Which Bill?

That's a good question.

I hear folks on your side repeating, screaming and shouting time and time again..."Scrap the bill! Scrap the bill! Start over!"

I guess that's the bill I'm talking about.

*shrugs*

scrap any bill that takes bribe money to pass. John McCain asked a good question this morning. Do you have an answer for him. What makes Florida seniors more special than the seniors in the other 49 states. Or in obama's world the other 56?

 

[WillowTree]

Their IS a social GOOD that comes from a healthy populace. I don't have any children so I could complain about paying property taxes for public education but guess what, I DON'T because I recognize that an EDUCATED populace has a certain inherant VALUE, a certain social GOOD that justifies MY paying taxes.

social good from a healthy populace, this from the same DUMBheads who want to legalize drugs. then you'll want WE the People to treat you damn drug addictions and make your azz healthy again right?

 

[Avatar4321]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The same thing we've been saying for the last few years and been completely ignored or blocked on.

The fact that you still dont know what we are advocating after all this time demosntrates your inability to actually pay attention to anything contrary to your worldview. You've already decided that we have no plan, therefore, it doesnt matter what you hear, you will never acknowledge it.

 

[Article 15]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The same thing we've been saying for the last few years and been completely ignored or blocked on.

The fact that you still dont know what we are advocating after all this time demosntrates your inability to actually pay attention to anything contrary to your worldview. You've already decided that we have no plan, therefore, it doesnt matter what you hear, you will never acknowledge it.

You want tort reform?

You want to allow insurance companies to operate across state lines?

Those are the two I hear brought up the most.

What else do ya got?

 

[KissMy]

The insurance industry has a special statutory exemption from the antitrust laws in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. Congress needs to pass S.1681 – Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 This Act repeals the insurance industry exemption for the most egregious forms of antitrust violations – price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. Insurers should be subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else.

We need increased competition across State lines to prevent the the excessive profits in the insurance industry & drive down medical cost. We need to limit malpractice lawsuits. These things can happen right now when the unemployed need it & like Obamacare they wont get for another 5 years.

We need to increase the supply side. This means encourage more students to enroll into medical school instead of allowing the AMA trade union to restrict enrollment to keep doctors fees & medical cost high for their members.

Congressional Budget Office Says Preventive Care Will Raise Medical Cost, Not Cut Costs.

The Obamacare bill H.R.3200 says the public option is not optional. Once your enrolled you can’t leave. This will cause private insurance pools to shrink until that company goes out of business forcing everyone onto the option-less government plan. I would at least like the option to provide my own health care.
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first
15 effective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.

Like the AMA, SEIU is largely a medical trade union who wrote Obamacare H.R.3200. Obama is the SEIU union boss negotiating their pay contract with the US citizens. These unions will pay lower premiums & get more benefits than the average citizen under Obamacare. “SEIU’s Agenda is My Agenda!!!” said Obama “Together we had fought to raise wages for home care workers in Illinois.” SEIU Employees are getting a Big Raise with Obamacare.

The biggest problem is Obamacare will tax you for 4 years while you get no coverage. You will still be paying for your own health care at the same time. This means your cost will double. Do you trust there will be money left for your care in 5 years, because there is a huge out of control deficit that will swallow that money up & when that 5th year comes around after the Presidential election has happened, he will say we just can’t afford this unless we raise taxes. DON’T BE A SUCKER!!! You saw what happened to the Social Security Surplus didn’t you.

 

[Cuyo]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The Republicans have submitted two bills for approval. Do you know what happened to them? They weren't even looked at. They were dismissed. Maybe if the Democrats had tried to include both sides in all of this discussion before today we'd be a lot closer to a solution.

Rick

The Repubic bills were a joke! You kidding me? They bring nothing to the table. They insure only an additional 3 million (vs. 30 million in current proposal) and cost money (The current proposal will reduce deficit).

Let's all identify the elephant in the room here - The republicans do not want any reform! The current system works just great for them!

 

[hboats]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The same thing we've been saying for the last few years and been completely ignored or blocked on.

The fact that you still dont know what we are advocating after all this time demosntrates your inability to actually pay attention to anything contrary to your worldview. You've already decided that we have no plan, therefore, it doesnt matter what you hear, you will never acknowledge it.

You want tort reform?

You want to allow insurance companies to operate across state lines?

Those are the two I hear brought up the most.

What else do ya got?

Don't you understand that if those two things alone were done the cost of medical bills, thus the cost of insurance, would go way down? Tort reform is a HUGE step to get this health care reform done, but you won't hear a Democrat get behind it. Why is that?

Rick

 

[Zoom-boing]

The same thing we've been saying for the last few years and been completely ignored or blocked on.

The fact that you still dont know what we are advocating after all this time demosntrates your inability to actually pay attention to anything contrary to your worldview. You've already decided that we have no plan, therefore, it doesnt matter what you hear, you will never acknowledge it.

You want tort reform?

You want to allow insurance companies to operate across state lines?

Those are the two I hear brought up the most.

What else do ya got?

Don't you understand that if those two things alone were done the cost of medical bills, thus the cost of insurance, would go way down? Tort reform is a HUGE step to get this health care reform done, but you won't hear a Democrat get behind it. Why is that?

Rick

Pretty simple. Cause uncle can't get his hands on 1/6 of the economy this way.

 

[hboats]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The Republicans have submitted two bills for approval. Do you know what happened to them? They weren't even looked at. They were dismissed. Maybe if the Democrats had tried to include both sides in all of this discussion before today we'd be a lot closer to a solution.

Rick

The Repubic bills were a joke! You kidding me? They bring nothing to the table. They insure only an additional 3 million (vs. 30 million in current proposal) and cost money (The current proposal will reduce deficit).

Let's all identify the elephant in the room here - The republicans do not want any reform! The current system works just great for them!

Please, please, please show me how the current proposal will reduce the deficit. You can't because it just isn't true. Show me where in the current proposal from the Democrats it shows that they can possibly pass this bill and yet reduce the deficit. I'd really like to see some proof of that. The Republican's bills have been good bills. Did you look at any of them? Did Congress, or the House? No, they just dismissed them because they deal with Tort reform and the Democrats can't have Tort reform because it would take away the silly lawsuits that their lawyer friends like to bring to courts.

Rick

 

[Cuyo]

The Republicans have submitted two bills for approval. Do you know what happened to them? They weren't even looked at. They were dismissed. Maybe if the Democrats had tried to include both sides in all of this discussion before today we'd be a lot closer to a solution.

Rick

The Repubic bills were a joke! You kidding me? They bring nothing to the table. They insure only an additional 3 million (vs. 30 million in current proposal) and cost money (The current proposal will reduce deficit).

Let's all identify the elephant in the room here - The republicans do not want any reform! The current system works just great for them!

Please, please, please show me how the current proposal will reduce the deficit. You can't because it just isn't true. Show me where in the current proposal from the Democrats it shows that they can possibly pass this bill and yet reduce the deficit. I'd really like to see some proof of that. The Republican's bills have been good bills. Did you look at any of them? Did Congress, or the House? No, they just dismissed them because they deal with Tort reform and the Democrats can't have Tort reform because it would take away the silly lawsuits that their lawyer friends like to bring to courts.

Rick

...Whoops, wrong link! Stand by for that....

...No my bad, it actually wan't the wrong link, I misread the header! So once again...

"According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387
(Paragraph 3)

You should read this whole thing, based on your distaste for the bill I don't think you really know what it does.
Contrary to what you said, many republican proposals have been included in the legislation, and Barry and the dems have said repeatedly they'd look at tort reform. But they're not gonna look at shit until they get some concessions themselves. What's the point of discussing when the Republicans have indicated they will all vote no, no matter what?

Tort reform would reduce premiums by a fraction of a percent. Do I have to link you up to the CBO estimates on that as well?

 

[uscitizen]

The same thing we've been saying for the last few years and been completely ignored or blocked on.

The fact that you still dont know what we are advocating after all this time demosntrates your inability to actually pay attention to anything contrary to your worldview. You've already decided that we have no plan, therefore, it doesnt matter what you hear, you will never acknowledge it.

You want tort reform?

You want to allow insurance companies to operate across state lines?

Those are the two I hear brought up the most.

What else do ya got?

Don't you understand that if those two things alone were done the cost of medical bills, thus the cost of insurance, would go way down? Tort reform is a HUGE step to get this health care reform done, but you won't hear a Democrat get behind it. Why is that?

Rick

Because the reality of it is that all malparcatice, etc awards and costs is a single digit percentage of the health care costs.

And any savings would just be pocketed by the health care industry.

 

[The Rabbi]

You want tort reform?

You want to allow insurance companies to operate across state lines?

Those are the two I hear brought up the most.

What else do ya got?

Don't you understand that if those two things alone were done the cost of medical bills, thus the cost of insurance, would go way down? Tort reform is a HUGE step to get this health care reform done, but you won't hear a Democrat get behind it. Why is that?

Rick

Because the reality of it is that all malparcatice, etc awards and costs is a single digit percentage of the health care costs.

And any savings would just be pocketed by the health care industry.

Wow, two sentences and two fallacies. A record!
First, even if actual awards represent a small percentage, the threat of malpractice suits drives a lot of costs. No doctor ever got sued for ordering too many tests. And believe me, they think this way. The threat of suit pushes doctors to practice "defensive medicine" driving up costs.
Second, what do you mean "pocketed"?? Health care is a competitive business. The money doesnt just disappear into a dark hole. It is used to lower premiums in insurance companies, lower costs in care providers, pay out more to share holders, or anything else

 

[hboats]

The Repubic bills were a joke! You kidding me? They bring nothing to the table. They insure only an additional 3 million (vs. 30 million in current proposal) and cost money (The current proposal will reduce deficit).

Let's all identify the elephant in the room here - The republicans do not want any reform! The current system works just great for them!

Please, please, please show me how the current proposal will reduce the deficit. You can't because it just isn't true. Show me where in the current proposal from the Democrats it shows that they can possibly pass this bill and yet reduce the deficit. I'd really like to see some proof of that. The Republican's bills have been good bills. Did you look at any of them? Did Congress, or the House? No, they just dismissed them because they deal with Tort reform and the Democrats can't have Tort reform because it would take away the silly lawsuits that their lawyer friends like to bring to courts.

Rick

...Whoops, wrong link! Stand by for that....

...No my bad, it actually wan't the wrong link, I misread the header! So once again...

"According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

Director’s Blog Blog Archive Preliminary Analysis of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman?s Mark As Amended
(Paragraph 3)

You should read this whole thing, based on your distaste for the bill I don't think you really know what it does.
Contrary to what you said, many republican proposals have been included in the legislation, and Barry and the dems have said repeatedly they'd look at tort reform. But they're not gonna look at shit until they get some concessions themselves. What's the point of discussing when the Republicans have indicated they will all vote no, no matter what?

Tort reform would reduce premiums by a fraction of a percent. Do I have to link you up to the CBO estimates on that as well?

Please read the rest of the paragraph from which you took the above quote. First of all, taxes will go up, not just for the insurer, but for everyone. And I love this little quote "$110 billion in net savings from other sources." So, we're going to realize net savings of $110 billion from "other sources." I wonder what these "other sources" might be. The fact of the matter is, they're talking about financing the first SIX years of this bill with TEN years of tax increases. Does that sound fiscally responsible to you? Does that really sound like in ten years we're going to have a reduced deficit? It's just another fancy shell game.

Sure, pick and choose which quotes you want to cherry pick from the CBO, but in truth this bill would not reduce the deficit.

Rick

 

[slackjawed]

The claim that the current bill reduces the deficit is based on cherry-picked data in a limited time-frame. This is exactly the method of bookkeeping that got enron in trouble.
Despite the support from MSNBC, the American people are waking up, and see right through this grand scheme against them.

 

[hboats]

Please, please, please show me how the current proposal will reduce the deficit. You can't because it just isn't true. Show me where in the current proposal from the Democrats it shows that they can possibly pass this bill and yet reduce the deficit. I'd really like to see some proof of that. The Republican's bills have been good bills. Did you look at any of them? Did Congress, or the House? No, they just dismissed them because they deal with Tort reform and the Democrats can't have Tort reform because it would take away the silly lawsuits that their lawyer friends like to bring to courts.

Rick

...Whoops, wrong link! Stand by for that....

...No my bad, it actually wan't the wrong link, I misread the header! So once again...

"According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

Director’s Blog Blog Archive Preliminary Analysis of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman?s Mark As Amended
(Paragraph 3)

You should read this whole thing, based on your distaste for the bill I don't think you really know what it does.
Contrary to what you said, many republican proposals have been included in the legislation, and Barry and the dems have said repeatedly they'd look at tort reform. But they're not gonna look at shit until they get some concessions themselves. What's the point of discussing when the Republicans have indicated they will all vote no, no matter what?

Tort reform would reduce premiums by a fraction of a percent. Do I have to link you up to the CBO estimates on that as well?

Please read the rest of the paragraph from which you took the above quote. First of all, taxes will go up, not just for the insurer, but for everyone. And I love this little quote "$110 billion in net savings from other sources." So, we're going to realize net savings of $110 billion from "other sources." I wonder what these "other sources" might be. The fact of the matter is, they're talking about financing the first SIX years of this bill with TEN years of tax increases. Does that sound fiscally responsible to you? Does that really sound like in ten years we're going to have a reduced deficit? It's just another fancy shell game.

Sure, pick and choose which quotes you want to cherry pick from the CBO, but in truth this bill would not reduce the deficit.

Rick

Let me guess, Cuyo, you're one of the people who actually believes that Obama gave us all a tax cut last year. Even though he might have made it so that you got a little bit more to take home in your paycheck, do you realize that it was a tax loan, not a tax cut? THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THE TAX TABLES. We all have to pay it back when we do our taxes for last year. But, Obama somehow calls this a tax cut. Tell me that's not dishonest.

Rick

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Don't you understand that if those two things alone were done the cost of medical bills, thus the cost of insurance, would go way down? Tort reform is a HUGE step to get this health care reform done, but you won't hear a Democrat get behind it. Why is that?

Rick

Because the reality of it is that all malparcatice, etc awards and costs is a single digit percentage of the health care costs.

And any savings would just be pocketed by the health care industry.

Wow, two sentences and two fallacies. A record!
First, even if actual awards represent a small percentage, the threat of malpractice suits drives a lot of costs. No doctor ever got sued for ordering too many tests. And believe me, they think this way. The threat of suit pushes doctors to practice "defensive medicine" driving up costs.
Second, what do you mean "pocketed"?? Health care is a competitive business. The money doesnt just disappear into a dark hole. It is used to lower premiums in insurance companies, lower costs in care providers, pay out more to share holders, or anything else

Used to LOWER premiums!!!??? Are you fucking kidding!!!??? You know GAWD DAMN WELL that the ins cos are NOT lowering premiums!!!


Now as far as tort reform is concerned I think we NEED tort reform but you have to ask yourself what is your right leg worth to you? What is your left breast worth to you? What is the company of your husband/wife worth to you?

 

[slackjawed]

Because the reality of it is that all malparcatice, etc awards and costs is a single digit percentage of the health care costs.

And any savings would just be pocketed by the health care industry.

Wow, two sentences and two fallacies. A record!
First, even if actual awards represent a small percentage, the threat of malpractice suits drives a lot of costs. No doctor ever got sued for ordering too many tests. And believe me, they think this way. The threat of suit pushes doctors to practice "defensive medicine" driving up costs.
Second, what do you mean "pocketed"?? Health care is a competitive business. The money doesnt just disappear into a dark hole. It is used to lower premiums in insurance companies, lower costs in care providers, pay out more to share holders, or anything else

Used to LOWER premiums!!!??? Are you fucking kidding!!!??? You know GAWD DAMN WELL that the ins cos are NOT lowering premiums!!!


Now as far as tort reform is concerned I think we NEED tort reform but you have to ask yourself what is your right leg worth to you? What is your left breast worth to you? What is the company of your husband/wife worth to you?

My left leg, or my right one, is not worth giving up freedom for. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail as well. I would rather give up both legs than to give up freedom.
Your emotional arguments are not as effective as you think, try something new.