Just kill the health bill, please!

[MaggieMae]

No. Not while Im paying huge bills and copays. No way.

One couldn't possibly be this blind and/or stupid. This bill does nothing at all to trim costs, and in fact most of its provisions don't even kick in until 2014.

Idiot stick.

As it currently stands, there ARE a few provisions that would have immediate effect:

Barring lifetime limits on coverage.

Allowing young people up to age 26 to remain on their parents' policies.

Some temporary aid for the uninsured to provide coverage for people who have trouble getting coverage with preexisting conditions.

Expansion of community health centers, where consumers could go for care.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's become obvious that the conservatives have won the battle

Lost on you apparently is the fact that the Dems could have passed health care reform quite easily, had they only crafted a bill that was palatable to 100% of its own legislators.

GOP votes and support weren't needed, a reasonable bill, was.

Oh please...Republicans had their soldiers all lined up even before Obama took office knowing health care was his #1 priority. It was ALWAYS going to be an uphill battle. The mistake, actually, was recognizing that and attempting to craft a bill that was going to be cost effective to at least lower the din of the Republicans who would automatically dismiss any such bill. As for the congressional Democrats, the party has never been one made up of 100% party-first idealogues, so some disagreement on how the bill was structured was inevitable.

 

[MaggieMae]

It would be nice if the people could vote on bills of this magnitude.

It would eliminate alot of the back and forth, and our politicians on all sides would be forced to do the right things.

But, it's just wishful thinking on my part.

Heck, I'd be happy with a string around his balls (slip knot), so I could get his undivided attention with a strong yank. Any letter on healthcare to this bozo gets a, thanks for your support reply. Support this, yank.

Yeah, we got a lot of personal responses from ex-presidents too. Wishful thinking on your part? Naive is more like it.

 

[WillowTree]

Republican soldiers!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No. Not while Im paying huge bills and copays. No way.

One couldn't possibly be this blind and/or stupid. This bill does nothing at all to trim costs, and in fact most of its provisions don't even kick in until 2014.

Idiot stick.

As it currently stands, there ARE a few provisions that would have immediate effect:

Barring lifetime limits on coverage.

Allowing young people up to age 26 to remain on their parents' policies.

Some temporary aid for the uninsured to provide coverage for people who have trouble getting coverage with preexisting conditions.

Expansion of community health centers, where consumers could go for care.

Uh-huh. But as I said, and apparently you didn't or can't read:

Most of it though, waits four or more years, while costs continue to skyrocket, taxes increase, penalties for no coverage levied.

Sounds like a GOOD deal, huh?

Sure you really want to kill it?

 

[boedicca]

The deferral of benefits is a cynical ploy to game the CBO score. 10 years of taxes and 6 years of costs. After that, the real bleeding out occurs.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's become obvious that the conservatives have won the battle

Lost on you apparently is the fact that the Dems could have passed health care reform quite easily, had they only crafted a bill that was palatable to 100% of its own legislators.

GOP votes and support weren't needed, a reasonable bill, was.

Oh please...Republicans had their soldiers all lined up even before Obama took office knowing health care was his #1 priority.

Fact or not, what does it have to do with the FACT they could have easily passed a HC bill without any GOP support or votes at all?

Read slow: The Democrats had a SUPER MAJORITY that was bulletproof. They didn't need ANY GOP support or votes whatsoever.

But they OVER REACHED and made this mess UNPALATABLE to a good number of their OWN caucus.

Just like it's UNPALATABLE to YOU right now!

 

[boedicca]

If it's so great, they would have published it for everyone to read by now.

 

[Immanuel]

I agree... kill it and start over.

As someone said earlier, the problem is that the Dems tried to please everyone and in so doing, they pleased no one.

Something has to be done about the impending disaster that is our health insurance industry. But the gigantic step towards a National Health Care System that this bill was is not the answer. Make no mistake about it, this bill was an attempt to create a social security type health care system. A system that would have left those of us who were not independently wealthy at the mercy of bureaucrats in Washington as to what kind of medical procedures we were entitled to receive.

As one who thinks that the Social Security system was a good idea at the start that needs to be revamped today, I am worried about the effects upon our health care if this bill were to pass.

Politicians don't have our interests at heart here. For whatever reasons, they want a National Health Care System governed by Washington. Thinking back to when they found the means to throw Social Security Tax dollars into the general fund, one has to wonder why they didn't figure this out earlier. They want to control our health care dollars. What is the figure I have heard? The health care industry is 1/6 of our GDP? Hmm, will those tax dollars eventually end up in the general fund as well?

Kill the bill and start over. I don't trust the politicians in Washington with my retirement funds and I sure don't trust them with my health care!

Immie

 

[Midnight Marauder]

As someone said earlier, the problem is that the Dems tried to please everyone

Who said that? No one that I saw.

Because it's wrong. They did NOT try to please everyone.

 

[boedicca]

The bill was designed to pay off House and Senate members to vote for it. This is an insular effort being done without any concern for what the public wants.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

People forget Congress tried to pass health care reform back in 2003, when House minority leader Nancy Pelosi infamously said, "Why should we put a plan out? Our plan is to stop HIM (Bush)."

That's back when it was okay to be the party of no, not put forth an alternative plan, and be obstructionist.

 

[Intense]

Main Entry: coup d'état
Variant(s): or coup d'etat \ˌkü-(&#716dā-ˈtä, ˈkü-(&#716dā-ˌ, -də-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural coups d'état or coups d'etat \-ˈtä(z), -ˌtä(z)\
Etymology: French, literally, stroke of state
Date: 1646
: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

Coup d'etat - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[MaggieMae]

It looks like Dick Armey is correct. According to the AARP, in order to opt out of Medicare Part A, a senior citizen must give up Social Security benefits. Armey is quoted in the article.

Brian Hall never wanted to rely on the government for his medical coverage, because he had seen how Medicare restrictions limited his mother’s health care.

But shortly before he turned 65 in January, the retired federal computer specialist realized he had little choice but to enroll in Medicare Part A, the federal government’s hospitalization insurance for the aged and disabled.

That’s because Social Security rules require its beneficiaries to accept Part A at age 65—or give up their Social Security benefits. The rules also require the repayment of all Social Security retirement benefits already collected, if Part A coverage is refused.

“I was astonished to find these rules exist,” Hall said. “It seems un-American to force people to take a benefit they don’t want.”

Hall, who lives on a small farm in Catlett, Va., accepted the coverage he never wanted. And he did something else he never thought he would do: He filed a lawsuit that’s gaining traction in federal court.

If his suit challenging the Social Security rules is successful, it could create new options for older people who want a private policy, not Medicare’s free Part A coverage, as their primary hospitalization insurance. It also could raise costs for younger people in the group medical policies that these seniors join as the plans pay out more to cover the older beneficiaries’ health care costs.

Hall said he accepted Medicare because he couldn’t afford to repay the Social Security benefits he has collected since age 62, and he also needs his future benefits. But by accepting Medicare he could no longer contribute to a tax-free health savings account—because a law prohibits having both—which he said would cost him about $20,000 over 10 years in lost tax benefits and interest. Also, he said, his group plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program scaled back his coverage because Medicare is now his primary provider.

Other federal retirees, including former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, found themselves facing the same choice and joined Hall’s lawsuit.

“I was stunned to [learn] I had no choice but to sign up for Medicare,” said Armey, a Texas Republican. “I had spent my entire life thinking I wouldn’t do so. … Then I learned—to my absolute amazement—that if I didn’t sign up for Medicare, I would lose my Social Security.”...

Lawsuit Seeks to Unlink Social Security and Medicare - AARP Bulletin Today


And here's a website for the lawsuit (Dick Armey is one of the plaintiffs):

Medicare Lawsuit - Brian Hall v. Kathleen Sebelius

While there are instances where people have opted out of Social Security, there has never been a situation where a person who opts out of Medicare Part A has lost Social Security benefits, so once more, Armey's charge is not true.

The only part that's true is that there is no law that "forces" anyone to pull out that little blue card and charge medical expenses to Medicare. You can pay for your health care with any little card you so desire. So I still fail to see what the big deal is. "Suing the government" appears to be based on a political stance that would be better solved by a legal determination of the Social Security/Medicare provisions covering this specific issue, which is a CONGRESSIONAL job, not one that the courts should get involved with. Where are the "damages" justifying a lawsuit?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

there has never been a situation where a person who opts out of Medicare Part A has lost Social Security benefits

Link?

 

[MaggieMae]

​

I think it's dead.. the only thing more dead are those who vote for it. Assuming they do the legal thing and actually vote...

I don't get why these folks are doing it... a solid majority of the American people DON'T want it... it is suicide. I guess hard core Marxism takes the day.

A cpommon lie. Link, or you are a liar as well.

It's true. According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, it's evenly split. There are some rather fascinating questions in this poll.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbcpoll03162010.pdf

 

[boedicca]

While there are instances where people have opted out of Social Security, there has never been a situation where a person who opts out of Medicare Part A has lost Social Security benefits, so once more, Armey's charge is not true.

The only part that's true is that there is no law that "forces" anyone to pull out that little blue card and charge medical expenses to Medicare. You can pay for your health care with any little card you so desire. So I still fail to see what the big deal is. "Suing the government" appears to be based on a political stance that would be better solved by a legal determination of the Social Security/Medicare provisions covering this specific issue, which is a CONGRESSIONAL job, not one that the courts should get involved with. Where are the "damages" justifying a lawsuit?

How do you know this? The implication of your claim is that you think Hall is lying and the AARP is cooperating in that lie. Given the ideological bent of the AARP, that would be very surprising. It also makes little sense that lawyers, who are notoriously fee driven, would take a suit based upon a complete fabrication.

What are the damages? Medicare Part A is the default insurance of a senior. More and more doctors are opting out of Medicare; in some areas supply is very constrained. I also recall a Mayo Clinic facility in AZ saying recently that it was ceasing care for Medicare patients.

The damages are the individual not having any choice in his care, which could be life threatening. Why should a person be prevented from securing private insurance via a threat of reduced SS benefits? This is Statist Thuggishness in the extreme.

Given the huge looming deficits for Medicare, people of means opting out would be in the public interest, which makes this even more of a case of subordinating the interests of the public to the interests of the Big Government bureaucracy.

 

[Misty]

I would have believed the democrats had my best interest at heart, yep, except for the fact that they voted down the amendment that said they should put themselves under the same health care reform bill they passed for us. Yup iffen it ain't good enough for them then I don't want it.

That's also not true.

Congress Exempt from Health Bill? | FactCheck.org

The provision comes from an amendment by republican chuck grassley. So congress was exempt but since people wouldn't go for it now they are included

 

[boedicca]

Uh. They haven't published the bill. We have no idea what is actually in the current version. There are No Facts To Check.

 

[Immanuel]

As someone said earlier, the problem is that the Dems tried to please everyone

Who said that? No one that I saw.

Because it's wrong. They did NOT try to please everyone.

I went back to find the post. I failed, my apologies. I might have been paraphrasing Xeno's first post (#14) but, I thought that someone had said something similar to that. It WAS a paraphrase, not an exact quote or I would have quoted them.

And no, the Dems did not try to please everyone... they only wanted us to think they were trying to please everyone. But, then, neither did they please no one as the rest of my statement went on. They would have been quite pleased to have control of 1/6th of the economy.

Immie