WOW! “SHOW ME STATE” SHOWS OBAMACARE THE DOOR Prop C Passes By Over 70%

[saveliberty]

Personally, I don't think many would disagree with the notion that healthcare costs are too high and that bringing the high cost of health insurance down so that people can afford it is a a bad thing. However what a vote in MO. at least in my opinion represents is people not willing to trade the choice to do so, for the lower cost. It would seem to me that had our Govt. had the good sense to sit down and craft legisliation that would benefit everyone in a common sense manner then people for example with pre-existing condition would not be caught up in this mess. Frankly, I see this as a rejection of the forced purchase of a good or service on the part of the Federal Govt. and rightly so on the part of the citizens of Mo. Had this healthcare legislation not been used as a legislative win for the President and more of a win for the American people we would not be at the point where 70% of the citizens of one state and a whole host of other states are now calling it into question.

Navy, you seem like a reasonable conservative. But, the amount of disinformation and misinformation about the health care/health insurance issue is sickening.

Please take a little time and listen to this interview with a 20 year insurance company insider...

It will clear up most of the lies that have been perpetrated by politicians and corporate funded propaganda designed to derail heath care reform...

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

Delete profits insert tax dollars, deficit spending or rationed care. Same result.

 

[007]

The healthcare bill isn't my problem, it's all the little goodies that they tacked onto this bill.

Like businesses having to 1099 everyone they buy something from, as in 1099ing Cosco if you buy stuff for your company there or staples or restaurants or anywhere you spend money for your company. What does that have to do with healthcare?

Health-Care Bill Surprise: 1099 Nightmare - BusinessWeek

With all due respect Misty, yes, it is the health care bill that's the problem. One, they wrote it behind closed doors excluding all republicans. Two, they didn't read it. Three, they voted for it against the will of the majority of Americans ramming it down their throats. Four, it's mandate to force Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. That's a huge problem. The 1099 for any purchase over $600 by a company is just a tiny detail in a much bigger problem.

 

[topspin]

Zander you chickenshit, you backed down from the bet.
Your some old grand Paw buying bonds. cash one in and bet me.

 

[Bfgrn]

Personally, I don't think many would disagree with the notion that healthcare costs are too high and that bringing the high cost of health insurance down so that people can afford it is a a bad thing. However what a vote in MO. at least in my opinion represents is people not willing to trade the choice to do so, for the lower cost. It would seem to me that had our Govt. had the good sense to sit down and craft legisliation that would benefit everyone in a common sense manner then people for example with pre-existing condition would not be caught up in this mess. Frankly, I see this as a rejection of the forced purchase of a good or service on the part of the Federal Govt. and rightly so on the part of the citizens of Mo. Had this healthcare legislation not been used as a legislative win for the President and more of a win for the American people we would not be at the point where 70% of the citizens of one state and a whole host of other states are now calling it into question.

Navy, you seem like a reasonable conservative. But, the amount of disinformation and misinformation about the health care/health insurance issue is sickening.

Please take a little time and listen to this interview with a 20 year insurance company insider...

It will clear up most of the lies that have been perpetrated by politicians and corporate funded propaganda designed to derail heath care reform...

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

Delete profits insert tax dollars, deficit spending or rationed care. Same result.

OK Einstein, explain 'medical loss ratio' and how Wall Street investors have taken over health insurance practices and force insurance corporations to DENY coverage or be severely punished.

 

[Navy1960]

Personally, I don't think many would disagree with the notion that healthcare costs are too high and that bringing the high cost of health insurance down so that people can afford it is a a bad thing. However what a vote in MO. at least in my opinion represents is people not willing to trade the choice to do so, for the lower cost. It would seem to me that had our Govt. had the good sense to sit down and craft legisliation that would benefit everyone in a common sense manner then people for example with pre-existing condition would not be caught up in this mess. Frankly, I see this as a rejection of the forced purchase of a good or service on the part of the Federal Govt. and rightly so on the part of the citizens of Mo. Had this healthcare legislation not been used as a legislative win for the President and more of a win for the American people we would not be at the point where 70% of the citizens of one state and a whole host of other states are now calling it into question.

Navy, you seem like a reasonable conservative. But, the amount of disinformation and misinformation about the health care/health insurance issue is sickening.

Please take a little time and listen to this interview with a 20 year insurance company insider...

It will clear up most of the lies that have been perpetrated by politicians and corporate funded propaganda designed to derail heath care reform...

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

I've actually seen this interview and can tell you BF I do not disagree at all there is a need for health insurance reform , further I also believe that those with pre-existing conditions, or those that are suffering should have the ability to purchase insurance and stay on the policies they have paid for if they wish. All of the things I mentioned though are well within the rights of congress to regulate for those businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Where I tend to seperate from the the current edition of the bill is rather than actually address the issues that need to be addressed it appears to reward those very same insurance companies by forciing Americans to purcahse policies from them in order to spread the risk around. I've long been of the opinion that young people especially would be more interested in a form of insurance that is cheap and much like life insurnance on a catastrophic basis rather than all out care, and am also of the opinion that current approach of a penality based system will fail because there is no way in terms of money to enforce such a law on the literally millions who won't participate and what you will end up accomplishing is a system that has more patients with less choices with higher costs. Think for a moment if you will, if a young person , couple had the choice let's say of purchasing a catastrophic healthcare policy for 10 dollars a month from a payroll deduction then that would spread the risk around. combine that with regulating the commerce end of the insurance part of the business, i.e. policy costs and regualtions on things such as those with pre-existing conditions etc., interstate purcahsing of policies, then perhaps you start down the road of real reform and bringing down the actual costs of health insurance. Basically I have always thought that everyone should have access to good healthcare at a reasonable cost and as a society we should take care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I'm confident that if given the chance and a combination of good ideas from everyone to craft such a bill , then you have real healthcare reform. I don't think reform though reflects the wishes of just one side or the other or one interest group or the other and traditionally Americans don't like to be told what to do, and in this case this bill like it or not has that stigma attached to it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Personally, I don't think many would disagree with the notion that healthcare costs are too high and that bringing the high cost of health insurance down so that people can afford it is a a bad thing. However what a vote in MO. at least in my opinion represents is people not willing to trade the choice to do so, for the lower cost. It would seem to me that had our Govt. had the good sense to sit down and craft legisliation that would benefit everyone in a common sense manner then people for example with pre-existing condition would not be caught up in this mess. Frankly, I see this as a rejection of the forced purchase of a good or service on the part of the Federal Govt. and rightly so on the part of the citizens of Mo. Had this healthcare legislation not been used as a legislative win for the President and more of a win for the American people we would not be at the point where 70% of the citizens of one state and a whole host of other states are now calling it into question.

Navy, you seem like a reasonable conservative. But, the amount of disinformation and misinformation about the health care/health insurance issue is sickening.

Please take a little time and listen to this interview with a 20 year insurance company insider...

It will clear up most of the lies that have been perpetrated by politicians and corporate funded propaganda designed to derail heath care reform...

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

Bill Moyers???

I wonder how that turns out:

Bill Moyers (born June 5, 1934) is an American journalist and public commentator. He served as White House Press Secretary in the United States President Lyndon B. Johnson Administration from 1965 to 1967.

An LBJ retread. Not that HE has any agenda or anything.

 

[haileydavey]

While that is a big number, Missouri is conservative state. It is not sending a message to Obama other than they are still against the health care bill.

I beg to differ. Yes it is, and when this hits the Supreme Court and the must buy health insurance mandate is struck down as unconstitutional, it won't only be a message, it will be a huge defeat for the junior hitlers that crafted the disastrous bill, but a huge victory for conservatives and America.

I am sure that Obama as well as the other Democrats are not going to look at this as anything other than the right protesting.

I'm not sure of that at all. Democrats know what they've done, and now they know they're paying the price. They pushed their agenda down the throats of Americans, now Americans are pushing back, and the dems know damn well what it is, and it isn't just "protesting." It's a political battle. A battle that will be won by one side or the other.

They will not look at the presidential election results where Obama on lost the state by only .1 % of the vote. If a liberal state votes a majority against it then maybe it will be looked at as America opposing the law.

So if a state isn't a liberal state, it's not America? What kind of bull shit is that?

You picked apart my thread and did not get one piece of the meaning. If Texas, Oklahoma or any other conservative state had a vote and it had a similar result the left and Obama would just blow it off as the right does not know what they are talking about. They do not take the Tea Partiers serious in much the same way.

This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court to be settled. I really do not know what will happen. They way I interpret the Constitution this bill will fail but I do not have a vote. I find it hard to believe you can force everyone to pay for something such as health care insurance. Where will it end if this gets through?

 

[Greenbeard]

It had nothing to do with healthcare and EVERYTHING to do with rationing and wealth distribution.

Can you elaborate?

It had little if anything to do with health insurance reform as they will be the ones who will benefit most from this the bill. I'm sure many companies would love to have a law that mandated people purchase from them.

Let's review some of the principle insurance reforms in the law. Insurance companies can no longer:

• Put lifetime or annual limits on coverage
• Rescind coverage
• Kick dependents off insurance policies when they graduate from college
• Charge people differently for the same policy based on things like gender or medical history

Insurance companies must:

• Cover preventive services
• Post medical loss ratios of 80% in the individual market and 85% in the group market--if they don't, they're required to send out rebates to their customers
• Publicly disclose and justify all rate increases--increases deemed to be excessive will result in expulsion from the Exchange
• Obey guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewal rules
• Cover pre-existing conditions
• Offer plans that at least meet essential benefits requirements and meet a minimum actuarial value
• Post all prices and plan details on a central website, side-by-side with every other plan in the state exchange

They get the mandate so previously uninsurable people can get coverage.

One other thing though, I don't think you would find many who would disagree that regulating the denial of anyone based on a pre-existing condition is a bad thing, however that could have been done IMO with a single bill with wide support from both parties and from the American people.

This is inconsistent. If you want to end pre-existing condition exclusions, you need either a mandate to buy private insurance or a publicly financed (from everyone) system that grants access to all. You could go either way but if you want to retain a choice of different private insurers (instead of simply having a public payer), you'll need to do the former. Which is what was done.

 

[Tech_Esq]

While that is a big number, Missouri is conservative state. It is not sending a message to Obama other than they are still against the health care bill.

I beg to differ. Yes it is, and when this hits the Supreme Court and the must buy health insurance mandate is struck down as unconstitutional, it won't only be a message, it will be a huge defeat for the junior hitlers that crafted the disastrous bill, but a huge victory for conservatives and America.


I'm not sure of that at all. Democrats know what they've done, and now they know they're paying the price. They pushed their agenda down the throats of Americans, now Americans are pushing back, and the dems know damn well what it is, and it isn't just "protesting." It's a political battle. A battle that will be won by one side or the other.

They will not look at the presidential election results where Obama on lost the state by only .1 % of the vote. If a liberal state votes a majority against it then maybe it will be looked at as America opposing the law.

So if a state isn't a liberal state, it's not America? What kind of bull shit is that?

You picked apart my thread and did not get one piece of the meaning. If Texas, Oklahoma or any other conservative state had a vote and it had a similar result the left and Obama would just blow it off as the right does not know what they are talking about. They do not take the Tea Partiers serious in much the same way.

This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court to be settled. I really do not know what will happen. They way I interpret the Constitution this bill will fail but I do not have a vote. I find it hard to believe you can force everyone to pay for something such as health care insurance. Where will it end if this gets through?

Just think, if this works for health care, the GOP might some day think that everyone should be forced to own a gun and force everyone in America to buy a "qualified' type of gun. No reason why they couldn't if the heath care law is good law.

 

[Zander]

People can attempt to defend ObamaCare until they are blue in the face - the voters in Missouri overwhelmingly have rejected it. Next, the voters in this country are going to overwhelmingly reject the idiots who legislated this boondoggle in November 2010. Then in Nov 2012 they'll reject the incompetent ideologue Obama. This was a MAJOR miscalculation on behalf of the Democrats.....

 

[RDD_1210]

Personally, I don't think many would disagree with the notion that healthcare costs are too high and that bringing the high cost of health insurance down so that people can afford it is a a bad thing. However what a vote in MO. at least in my opinion represents is people not willing to trade the choice to do so, for the lower cost. It would seem to me that had our Govt. had the good sense to sit down and craft legisliation that would benefit everyone in a common sense manner then people for example with pre-existing condition would not be caught up in this mess. Frankly, I see this as a rejection of the forced purchase of a good or service on the part of the Federal Govt. and rightly so on the part of the citizens of Mo. Had this healthcare legislation not been used as a legislative win for the President and more of a win for the American people we would not be at the point where 70% of the citizens of one state and a whole host of other states are now calling it into question.

It had nothing to do with healthcare and EVERYTHING to do with rationing

Please post which page of the document states this.

 

[haileydavey]

I beg to differ. Yes it is, and when this hits the Supreme Court and the must buy health insurance mandate is struck down as unconstitutional, it won't only be a message, it will be a huge defeat for the junior hitlers that crafted the disastrous bill, but a huge victory for conservatives and America.


I'm not sure of that at all. Democrats know what they've done, and now they know they're paying the price. They pushed their agenda down the throats of Americans, now Americans are pushing back, and the dems know damn well what it is, and it isn't just "protesting." It's a political battle. A battle that will be won by one side or the other.


So if a state isn't a liberal state, it's not America? What kind of bull shit is that?

You picked apart my thread and did not get one piece of the meaning. If Texas, Oklahoma or any other conservative state had a vote and it had a similar result the left and Obama would just blow it off as the right does not know what they are talking about. They do not take the Tea Partiers serious in much the same way.

This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court to be settled. I really do not know what will happen. They way I interpret the Constitution this bill will fail but I do not have a vote. I find it hard to believe you can force everyone to pay for something such as health care insurance. Where will it end if this gets through?

Just think, if this works for health care, the GOP might some day think that everyone should be forced to own a gun and force everyone in America to buy a "qualified' type of gun. No reason why they couldn't if the heath care law is good law.

That is funny because I was watching Jimmy Kimmel a couple a nights ago and they had a candidate for Governor of Tennessee on. One of his ideas was that everyone should have a gun. He even said there would be a $10 fine for not carrying one.

 

[Navy1960]

It had nothing to do with healthcare and EVERYTHING to do with rationing and wealth distribution.

Can you elaborate?

It had little if anything to do with health insurance reform as they will be the ones who will benefit most from this the bill. I'm sure many companies would love to have a law that mandated people purchase from them.

Let's review some of the principle insurance reforms in the law. Insurance companies can no longer:

• Put lifetime or annual limits on coverage
• Rescind coverage
• Kick dependents off insurance policies when they graduate from college
• Charge people differently for the same policy based on things like gender or medical history

Insurance companies must:

• Cover preventive services
• Post medical loss ratios of 80% in the individual market and 85% in the group market--if they don't, they're required to send out rebates to their customers
• Publicly disclose and justify all rate increases--increases deemed to be excessive will result in expulsion from the Exchange
• Obey guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewal rules
• Cover pre-existing conditions
• Offer plans that at least meet essential benefits requirements and meet a minimum actuarial value
• Post all prices and plan details on a central website, side-by-side with every other plan in the state exchange

They get the mandate so previously uninsurable people can get coverage.

One other thing though, I don't think you would find many who would disagree that regulating the denial of anyone based on a pre-existing condition is a bad thing, however that could have been done IMO with a single bill with wide support from both parties and from the American people.

This is inconsistent. If you want to end pre-existing condition exclusions, you need either a mandate to buy private insurance or a publicly financed (from everyone) system that grants access to all. You could go either way but if you want to retain a choice of different private insurers (instead of simply having a public payer), you'll need to do the former. Which is what was done.

I'm well aware of what the current healthcare bill does and does not do, but thank you for the post. However I could not disagree more with your last statement on those with pre-existing condition exclusions. You make the assumptions based on risk cost, in that the only way to offset those with pre-existing condition in the system is to somehow force those healthy individuals into the system in order to spread the risk around. That assume's a system by which you have not addressed actual costs of health insurnace but the number of insured. I tend to believe that it would take nothing for congress to pass such a mandate on health insurance companies for those with pre-existing condition regardless of the risk pool. If you actually address costs and provide a mechanism by which insurance is actually affordable then you have accomplished a better result without having to mandate the purchase of a product which is the biggest hurdle this bill has to cross over.

 

[Bfgrn]

Personally, I don't think many would disagree with the notion that healthcare costs are too high and that bringing the high cost of health insurance down so that people can afford it is a a bad thing. However what a vote in MO. at least in my opinion represents is people not willing to trade the choice to do so, for the lower cost. It would seem to me that had our Govt. had the good sense to sit down and craft legisliation that would benefit everyone in a common sense manner then people for example with pre-existing condition would not be caught up in this mess. Frankly, I see this as a rejection of the forced purchase of a good or service on the part of the Federal Govt. and rightly so on the part of the citizens of Mo. Had this healthcare legislation not been used as a legislative win for the President and more of a win for the American people we would not be at the point where 70% of the citizens of one state and a whole host of other states are now calling it into question.

Navy, you seem like a reasonable conservative. But, the amount of disinformation and misinformation about the health care/health insurance issue is sickening.

Please take a little time and listen to this interview with a 20 year insurance company insider...

It will clear up most of the lies that have been perpetrated by politicians and corporate funded propaganda designed to derail heath care reform...

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

I've actually seen this interview and can tell you BF I do not disagree at all there is a need for health insurance reform , further I also believe that those with pre-existing conditions, or those that are suffering should have the ability to purchase insurance and stay on the policies they have paid for if they wish. All of the things I mentioned though are well within the rights of congress to regulate for those businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Where I tend to seperate from the the current edition of the bill is rather than actually address the issues that need to be addressed it appears to reward those very same insurance companies by forciing Americans to purcahse policies from them in order to spread the risk around. I've long been of the opinion that young people especially would be more interested in a form of insurance that is cheap and much like life insurnance on a catastrophic basis rather than all out care, and am also of the opinion that current approach of a penality based system will fail because there is no way in terms of money to enforce such a law on the literally millions who won't participate and what you will end up accomplishing is a system that has more patients with less choices with higher costs. Think for a moment if you will, if a young person , couple had the choice let's say of purchasing a catastrophic healthcare policy for 10 dollars a month from a payroll deduction then that would spread the risk around. combine that with regulating the commerce end of the insurance part of the business, i.e. policy costs and regualtions on things such as those with pre-existing conditions etc., interstate purcahsing of policies, then perhaps you start down the road of real reform and bringing down the actual costs of health insurance. Basically I have always thought that everyone should have access to good healthcare at a reasonable cost and as a society we should take care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I'm confident that if given the chance and a combination of good ideas from everyone to craft such a bill , then you have real healthcare reform. I don't think reform though reflects the wishes of just one side or the other or one interest group or the other and traditionally Americans don't like to be told what to do, and in this case this bill like it or not has that stigma attached to it.

The problem is health care and health insurance is not a simple problem. The 'interstate' purchasing idea SOUNDS like a good idea, but it would be a catastrophe for the people. It would create a race to the bottom by insurance corporations and create slightly lower cost policies with DRASTICALLY lower coverage.

The best idea I heard was to let people under 65 BUY into Medicare. Everything is already in place and it would be the simplest way to provide everyone with health care.

What is ironic and shows just how much disinformation and misinformation is out there; the health care bill Congress passed and Republicans call a 'government takeover' and 'Obamacare' is almost identical to the Republican proposal back when Clinton was trying to pass reform.

The Democrats' 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill - Kaiser Health News

 

[Tech_Esq]

You picked apart my thread and did not get one piece of the meaning. If Texas, Oklahoma or any other conservative state had a vote and it had a similar result the left and Obama would just blow it off as the right does not know what they are talking about. They do not take the Tea Partiers serious in much the same way.

This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court to be settled. I really do not know what will happen. They way I interpret the Constitution this bill will fail but I do not have a vote. I find it hard to believe you can force everyone to pay for something such as health care insurance. Where will it end if this gets through?

Just think, if this works for health care, the GOP might some day think that everyone should be forced to own a gun and force everyone in America to buy a "qualified' type of gun. No reason why they couldn't if the heath care law is good law.

That is funny because I was watching Jimmy Kimmel a couple a nights ago and they had a candidate for Governor of Tennessee on. One of his ideas was that everyone should have a gun. He even said there would be a $10 fine for not carrying one.

That is funny. I had no idea. Well, see what I mean, this guy gets lucky and gets elected this time. Then the Governor of Tennessee runs for President and wins. Bango....everyone has to buy a gun....and carry it, I guess.

 

[Greenbeard]

You make the assumptions based on risk cost, in that the only way to offset those with pre-existing condition in the system is to somehow force those healthy individuals into the system in order to spread the risk around.

The more important reason a mandate exists is to prevent adverse selection--letting people opt out of insurance until they need it, at which point they sign up (with no risk of exclusion) to draw benefits that other people have dutifully been paying. If anyone can get insurance whenever they please (perhaps subject to open enrollment restrictions), why bother signing up when you don't need it? When people drop out only to sign up when they become ill or unhealthy, it gets more expensive not cheaper.

That assume's a system by which you have not addressed actual costs of health insurnace but the number of insured.

The cost control sections of the law are concentrated on delivery system reform (improving the efficiency and quality of health care, not health insurance). The insurance market reforms are only part of the law. If you want to know more about those things, you can refer to:

• "The Cost Implications of Health Care Reform"
• "The Impact of Health Reform on Health System Spending"
• "Health Care Reform and Cost Control"

I'm pressed for time but there's more resources available if you want them.

 

[Navy1960]

Navy, you seem like a reasonable conservative. But, the amount of disinformation and misinformation about the health care/health insurance issue is sickening.

Please take a little time and listen to this interview with a 20 year insurance company insider...

It will clear up most of the lies that have been perpetrated by politicians and corporate funded propaganda designed to derail heath care reform...

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

I've actually seen this interview and can tell you BF I do not disagree at all there is a need for health insurance reform , further I also believe that those with pre-existing conditions, or those that are suffering should have the ability to purchase insurance and stay on the policies they have paid for if they wish. All of the things I mentioned though are well within the rights of congress to regulate for those businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Where I tend to seperate from the the current edition of the bill is rather than actually address the issues that need to be addressed it appears to reward those very same insurance companies by forciing Americans to purcahse policies from them in order to spread the risk around. I've long been of the opinion that young people especially would be more interested in a form of insurance that is cheap and much like life insurnance on a catastrophic basis rather than all out care, and am also of the opinion that current approach of a penality based system will fail because there is no way in terms of money to enforce such a law on the literally millions who won't participate and what you will end up accomplishing is a system that has more patients with less choices with higher costs. Think for a moment if you will, if a young person , couple had the choice let's say of purchasing a catastrophic healthcare policy for 10 dollars a month from a payroll deduction then that would spread the risk around. combine that with regulating the commerce end of the insurance part of the business, i.e. policy costs and regualtions on things such as those with pre-existing conditions etc., interstate purcahsing of policies, then perhaps you start down the road of real reform and bringing down the actual costs of health insurance. Basically I have always thought that everyone should have access to good healthcare at a reasonable cost and as a society we should take care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I'm confident that if given the chance and a combination of good ideas from everyone to craft such a bill , then you have real healthcare reform. I don't think reform though reflects the wishes of just one side or the other or one interest group or the other and traditionally Americans don't like to be told what to do, and in this case this bill like it or not has that stigma attached to it.

The problem is health care and health insurance is not a simple problem. The 'interstate' purchasing idea SOUNDS like a good idea, but it would be a catastrophe for the people. It would create a race to the bottom by insurance corporations and create slightly lower cost policies with DRASTICALLY lower coverage.

The best idea I heard was to let people under 65 BUY into Medicare. Everything is already in place and it would be the simplest way to provide everyone with health care.

What is ironic and shows just how much disinformation and misinformation is out there; the health care bill Congress passed and Republicans call a 'government takeover' and 'Obamacare' is almost identical to the Republican proposal back when Clinton was trying to pass reform.

The Democrats' 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill - Kaiser Health News

I actualy mentioned something like that the other day in antoher thread, but my proposal was more akin to something like this. Let those below whatever age limit is set. purchase "catastrophic" coverage through Medicare, which covers basic hospital care etc. One of the benefits of this I believe would be that risk pool I was talking about, and another would be to eventually shore up Medicare funding issues. Still other things the Govt. could do, is provide incentives to those companies who provide low cost insurance in the form of tax breaks etc. In other workd Company A. offers low cost policy for x dollars a month they get a tax break, company B. doesn't offer they don't and much like the arilines, it would set up competition between these people finally for business. I can assure you I'm NOT anti healthcare reform and believe that in this nation there should be no reason why we cannot deliver low cost high quailty health are to the citizens of this nation. I just do not think that doing it through penalties and mandates is the best way to achieve that is have the feeling that it will eventually not solve a thing.

 

[KissMy]

While that is a big number, Missouri is conservative state. It is not sending a message to Obama other than they are still against the health care bill. I am sure that Obama as well as the other Democrats are not going to look at this as anything other than the right protesting. They will not look at the presidential election results where Obama lost the state by only .1 % of the vote. If a liberal state votes a majority against it then maybe it will be looked at as America opposing the law.

Missouri is the most accurate bell-weather state in the US. This last election was one of the few times Missouri did not pick the winner but Obama only lost the state by less than 0.1 % of the vote.

Just another democrat lie BUSTED!

 

[007]

While that is a big number, Missouri is conservative state. It is not sending a message to Obama other than they are still against the health care bill.

I beg to differ. Yes it is, and when this hits the Supreme Court and the must buy health insurance mandate is struck down as unconstitutional, it won't only be a message, it will be a huge defeat for the junior hitlers that crafted the disastrous bill, but a huge victory for conservatives and America.


I'm not sure of that at all. Democrats know what they've done, and now they know they're paying the price. They pushed their agenda down the throats of Americans, now Americans are pushing back, and the dems know damn well what it is, and it isn't just "protesting." It's a political battle. A battle that will be won by one side or the other.

They will not look at the presidential election results where Obama on lost the state by only .1 % of the vote. If a liberal state votes a majority against it then maybe it will be looked at as America opposing the law.

So if a state isn't a liberal state, it's not America? What kind of bull shit is that?

You picked apart my thread and did not get one piece of the meaning. If Texas, Oklahoma or any other conservative state had a vote and it had a similar result the left and Obama would just blow it off as the right does not know what they are talking about. They do not take the Tea Partiers serious in much the same way.

This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court to be settled. I really do not know what will happen. They way I interpret the Constitution this bill will fail but I do not have a vote. I find it hard to believe you can force everyone to pay for something such as health care insurance. Where will it end if this gets through?

Why shouldn't I pick apart your post? It said a lot of different things I wanted to comment on.

So it appears what we disagree on most is your opinion that the dems aren't taking conservatives or the Tea Party seriously. I think they are. I think they're scrambling around in a full panic about them, because by all indications, the liberals are going to get kicked to the curb in record numbers in November, and yes, the kenyan and his merry band of liberal socialists are worried shitless about it. They eat, breath and sleep power, and since they've gotten their hands on it, they've been able to ram their filthy, radical, socialist agenda down throats of Americans, against the will of the majority. They've simply been able to say "fuck you" to America. They LOVE that power, and the thought of LOSING that power scares the ever lovin' HELL otta them. Yes, they're concerned, they're damned concerned.

 

[Navy1960]

You make the assumptions based on risk cost, in that the only way to offset those with pre-existing condition in the system is to somehow force those healthy individuals into the system in order to spread the risk around.

The more important reason a mandate exists is to prevent adverse selection--letting people opt out of insurance until they need it, at which point they sign up (with no risk of exclusion) to draw benefits that other people have dutifully been paying. If anyone can get insurance whenever they please (perhaps subject to open enrollment restrictions), why bother signing up when you don't need it? When people drop out only to sign up when they become ill or unhealthy, it gets more expensive not cheaper.

That assume's a system by which you have not addressed actual costs of health insurnace but the number of insured.

The cost control sections of the law are concentrated on delivery system reform (improving the efficiency and quality of health care, not health insurance). The insurance market reforms are only part of the law. If you want to know more about those things, you can refer to:

• "The Cost Implications of Health Care Reform"
• "The Impact of Health Reform on Health System Spending"
• "Health Care Reform and Cost Control"

I'm pressed for time but there's more resources available if you want them.

I will read them thank you, as I have read many articles on this issue and debated it with many people on here. Eventually though, your going to run into what I mentioned above. The impact of this law will be felt from a cost standpoint on the states because they have to shoulder a heavy burden through state Medicaid in order for this law to work properly. The other thing that always seems to fall through the cracks on this law is from the funding standpoiint is the front end is loaded with collection and the back is is when the services kick in. Again I agree with some of the principles of the law but how it is implemented and the methods by which it seeks to bring those services to people I could not disagree with more.