Healthcare Bill Passes. (elephant in the room)

[Rev.Reverence]

?

The DGN ate my words.

..somethin' to the effect, that you are silly (or perceived as foolish, I can say that I perceive this a foolish motion, right?), to a fault, to compare WANTING EXTRA, to WANTING NONE...

[phee]

The DGN ate my words.

..somethin' to the effect, that you are silly (or perceived as foolish, I can say that I perceive this a foolish motion, right?), to a fault, to compare WANTING EXTRA, to WANTING NONE...

I can understand that.... wanting none....

Are you saying because you want none, that you bare no responsibility to those who do need/want "some"?

[Rev.Reverence]

I can understand that.... wanting none....

Are you saying because you want none, that you bare no responsibility to those who do need/want "some"?

Ok...stop saying 'you'...*I* HAVE insurance (why must it always be personal for you? can I not stand up & speak for the voiceless & forgotten?)...I am speaking of the few Amish & Ammonites populous are a prime example)...if they do not goto doctors EVER...if they'ld rather DIE...it is unconstitutional for the mass, to make the few buy something they have no want, nor will to possess, nor even a use for it.

[phee]

I suppose I should not say "I" let me rephrase in a way that will not cause such a personal reaction.

Are you saying because ONE wants none, that one bares no responsibility to those who do need/want "some"?

(BTW just curious... do you think the Amish and Ammonites have no voice?)

[candyman]

I suppose I should not say "I" let me rephrase in a way that will not cause such a personal reaction.

Are you saying because ONE wants none, that one bares no responsibility to those who do need/want "some"?

(BTW just curious... do you think the Amish and Ammonites have no voice?)

I don't think that anyone really has a "responsibility" for others in the sense that it can be enforced through any lawmaking or even guilt trips. The "responsibility" here is held high on a pedestal, I believe too high, and is actually a much more complicated issue. If someone "needs" something it may or may not be something that someone wants to fund...like they don't agree with it. If someone "wants" something then in my opinion they can screw off...no way in hell I am going to support someone financially with what they just "want" unless it is my child and even then it is still up in the air. You should pay for your own wants...needs are different but there are varying degrees of "need" so its tougher to say yes or no to that.

Everyone has a voice...but voices need to be received, understood, and acted upon...its happening less and less and some people might as well be pissing into the wind. It has actually gone away from individuals and we, the people, have now taken the place of the "you" in "ITS GOOD FOR YOU!"

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I have to interject here... and speak for the Amish and Mennonites.. as someone who actualy lived in an Amish community for 3 years... as someone who has had an Amish man bleeding in my car as I rushed him to the hospital to have his fingers sewn back on... the Amish go the Doctors.

spelling sucks

Edited April 7, 2010 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[phee]

I have to interject here... and speak for the Amish and Memmonites.. as someone who actualy lived in an Amish community for 3 years... as someone who has had an Amish man bleeding in my car as I rushed him to the hospital to hve his fingers swen back on... the Amish go the Doctors.

(Thank you)

[torn asunder]

I don't think that anyone really has a "responsibility" for others in the sense that it can be enforced through any lawmaking or even guilt trips.

then what would you call the social security tax? you *must* pay it by law, unless i am mistaken...

[candyman]

then what would you call the social security tax? you *must* pay it by law, unless i am mistaken...

Yeah I know that one is kinda what deflates that argument. I am kinda looking at how we can have less of that kinda thing happening. That was implemented before our time so instead of concentrating on what was done before we have to fix what we have today and work our way back to the problem. In a case like this it is kinda hard to start working at the source before you clear a path to it. So, what I think I am trying to say is that although things like this do exist let us not make more programs like it, figure out a way to help without whipping everyone into place, and work on making things better...if that makes any sense at all...I am almost having a hard time comprehending it right now.

[Rev.Reverence]

I suppose I should not say "I" let me rephrase in a way that will not cause such a personal reaction.

Are you saying because ONE wants none, that one bares no responsibility to those who do need/want "some"?

(BTW just curious... do you think the Amish and Ammonites have no voice?)

I have to interject here... and speak for the Amish and Mennonites.. as someone who actualy lived in an Amish community for 3 years... as someone who has had an Amish man bleeding in my car as I rushed him to the hospital to have his fingers sewn back on... the Amish go the Doctors.

spelling sucks

The Amish have a voice, I'm sure..

..not here, in this thread though.

...it's not a regular occurrence gaf...& they probably don't skip out on their bills...when they do happen to do thus.

...now, phee...you are taking me far to literally...there ARE peoples here in America...that do not wish to see a doctor...there are, if you don't think so, you're a lost cause..& I'm done with this bullshite topic...

[torn asunder]

...now, phee...you are taking me far to literally...there ARE peoples here in America...that do not wish to see a doctor...there are, if you don't think so, you're a lost cause..& I'm done with this bullshite topic...

dude, really? done with this bullshit? nowhere did phee say he didn't believe there were people who don't want to see a doctor. are we reading the same thread?

even though it may be true that some people don't want to see doctor's, there is still a (moral) obligation to contribute to the greater good. people without insurance run a greater risk of developing a serious medical issue, that, with early detection (by seeing a doctor regularly) could have been greatly lessened or even cured before it got too bad. in general, people without insurance don't go to doctors unless it's an emergency; i've yet, personally, to see/hear of an uninsured person paying cash out-of-pocket for a routine physical or screenings. shit, most uninsured people i know don't even go to the dentist! it just doesn't happen.

my point with all this is, uninsured people let things go until they can't avoid it anymore, by which point, things are too serious. cancer, heart disease, etc. can be treated with early detection before they develop into major (and costly) medical treatment. it costs much less for preventive treatment than it does for late-stage. and who do you think pays for the uninsured people who end up in the hospital with a terminal late-stage disease? the people who are paying taxes.

forcing people to pay for insurance is a good way to get a majority of people on a preventive-care regimen. you will have the option of opting out of the insurance program, from what i understand, but by opting out, you are being required to contribute to the "medical expense pool" (for lack of a better term), so that when you come down with something serious, there will be money there to help treat you.

personally, i would be ok with an opt-out clause whereby people aren't required to get insurance *or* pay the penalty, if they are ok with signing a document that states something of this nature: that if they develop a serious medical condition of any kind, and have opted out of the medical establishment, they have no legal recourse when the medical establishment refuses to treat them.

so let me pose it to you this way - if you had gotten your way, and neither bought insurance, or paid the "penalty" tax for not doing so, would you be cool with every doctor in america denying you treatment if you developed some form of cancer, or other serious terminal disease? would you sign a release document saying that you specifically decline treatment for any illness, even if it's one that's terminal without treatment, but easily curable with?

if so, then i could see having an opt-out clause. but it would be permanent and binding; one couldn't just say, "oh, i know i haven't paid into the system for 20 yrs, but now i changed my mind & want treatment." at that point, it would have to be "well, tough - you didn't pay, you're not getting treated. you signed a legal document saying you were ok with that."

is that what you're looking for?

[phee]

...now, phee...you are taking me far to literally...there ARE peoples here in America...that do not wish to see a doctor...there are, if you don't think so, you're a lost cause..& I'm done with this bullshite topic...

I think I must have missed something here....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I would like to note.. this is an AP story hosted on Yahoo news, not some conservative source.

Report says health care will cover more, cost more

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs. In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

[Rev.Reverence]

forcing people to pay for insurance is <a breach of the constitution> a good way to get a majority of people on a preventive-care regimen. you will have the option of opting out of the insurance program, from what i understand, but by opting out, you are being required to contribute to the "medical expense pool" (for lack of a better term), so that when you come down with something serious, there will be money there to help treat you.

personally, i would be ok with an opt-out clause whereby people aren't required to get insurance *or* pay the penalty, if they are ok with signing a document that states something of this nature: that if they develop a serious medical condition of any kind, and have opted out of the medical establishment, they have no legal recourse when the medical establishment refuses to treat them.

so let me pose it to you this way - if you had gotten your way, and neither bought insurance, or paid the "penalty" tax for not doing so, would you be cool with every doctor in america denying you treatment if you developed some form of cancer, or other serious terminal disease? would you sign a release document saying that you specifically decline treatment for any illness, even if it's one that's terminal without treatment, but easily curable with?

if so, then i could see having an opt-out clause. but it would be permanent and binding; one couldn't just say, "oh, i know i haven't paid into the system for 20 yrs, but now i changed my mind & want treatment." at that point, it would have to be "well, tough - you didn't pay, you're not getting treated. you signed a legal document saying you were ok with that."

is that what you're looking for?

..that would pretty much fix it up...

.....this is America, you don't go around *making* peoples do shit...it's *supposed* to be a free country.

[edit to clarify]

They are making YOU (not me, I have insurance, crappy that it is, crappier that it will be.) buy something (coverage) it is mandatory...& the fine, exceeds the cost of the coverage..that's not "Just" at all...

Edited April 23, 2010 by Rev.Reverence

[phee]

..that would pretty much fix it up...

.....this is America, you don't go around *making* peoples do shit...it's *supposed* to be a free country.

[edit to clarify]

They are making YOU (not me, I have insurance, crappy that it is, crappier that it will be.) buy something (coverage) it is mandatory...& the fine, exceeds the cost of the coverage..that's not "Just" at all...

But.... what about how they make you have car insurance, obey traffic laws, cross walks, pay taxes, etc...? they go around making you do that.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

But.... what about how they make you have car insurance, obey traffic laws, cross walks, pay taxes, etc...? they go around making you do that.

All of those things are optional except taxes.

As for paying taxes.. they had to add an Admendment to do that legally.

This is the FIRST and ONLY thing (for now) that the Federal government has impossed on us with threat or fines and inprisonment.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[phee]

Obeying Cross walks is optional?

[phee]

The government also makes you wear clothes in public.

[Hellion]

All of those things are optional except taxes.

As for paying taxes.. they had to add an Admendment to do that legally.

This is the FIRST and ONLY thing (for now) that the Federal government has impossed on us with threat or fines and inprisonment.

That does explain why the POS government is building a lot of prisons nationwide,tax payer prisons that is.

(sarcasm)still would not surprise me.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Obeying Cross walks is optional?

Crossing the street is. So is walking.

and clothes are not required unless you go in public.

Try to name something that the government requires you to have/do from birth that if you don't you can get fined or inprisonned for not doing/having.

[phee]

Crossing the street is. So is walking.

and clothes are not required unless you go in public.

Try to name something that the government requires you to have/do from birth that if you don't you can get fined or inprisonned for not doing/having.

Taxes as you mentioned.

Registered Birth Certificate/Proof of citizenship.

(But I think I see your point)

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Taxes as you mentioned.

Registered Birth Certificate/Proof of citizenship.

(But I think I see your point)

Taxes only if you have income or purchase things. I can go homestead some land in Alaska, live off the land and end up never paying taxes of any kind. It's dificult, but it can be done.

Registered Birth Certificate/Proof of citizenship... Neither are required to live. you need them to get certain benefits or to get a job.. but there is no jail time or inprisonment for not having them. Now, as an adult male, you can be detained if you cant show ID to a Police officer.. but only until you can prove who you are. Still no prison or fines.

[the eternal]

Taxes only if you have income or purchase things. I can go homestead some land in Alaska, live off the land and end up never paying taxes of any kind. It's difficult, but it can be done.

Registered Birth Certificate/Proof of citizenship... Neither are required to live. you need them to get certain benefits or to get a job.. but there is no jail time or imprisonment for not having them. Now, as an adult male, you can be detained if you cant show ID to a Police officer.. but only until you can prove who you are. Still no prison or fines.

Here's the good news!

You can stay at home that way you'll never have to worry about the MAN's pesky traffic laws,

be naked, so as not to worry about the MAN's pesky obscenity laws

not work so as not to worry about the MAN's pesky birth certificate laws (hey Obama didn't--wink wink nudge nudge),

and die at home since you're not going to leave the house (which would require clothes)and be troubled with a Hospital that's in the Obama's socialist healthcare system.

AND, since you don't work, say it with me people, you don't pay a cent for healthcare nor are penalized, because poor people are NOT required to

pay for coverage.

You can be home, naked, and dead!

WOOHOO FREEDOM!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

eternal, it's not like you to be so snarky. Maybe you should go count to 10 or something.

I do enjoy my freedom. I enjoy my freedom to CHOOSE to live within my countrys Laws. I love that I have a choice to not be part of the system even if my only option to not be part of it is some extreme measure that I would never commit to. It's still my choice. Choice sometimes mean sacrifice.

Poor is just as much a frame of mind as it is a finacial measure of wealth. Poor does not have to equal government dependancy. Poor does not have to mean that that government comes in and takes care of you. Poor does not have to mean envy of or anger at those who have more than me. I just don't understand the Liberal mind set.

I know whats really bothering you. Pelosi said it best "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..." Now that people are analizing it, you are starting to realize that the Republicans were right when they said this was going to kill our economy.

[Rev.Reverence]

..that would pretty much fix it up...

.....this is America, you don't go around *making* peoples do shit...it's *supposed* to be a free country.

[edit to clarify]

They are making YOU (not me, I have insurance, crappy that it is, crappier that it will be.)

buy something (coverage)...

..it is mandatory...

..& the fine, exceeds the cost of the coverage..

..that's not "Just" at all...

But.... what about how they make you have car insurance, obey traffic laws, cross walks, pay taxes, etc...? they go around making you do that.

I made that part bigger so you can see it...

..no one ever made me buy car insurance..I can't drive..

...& that, is a STATE LAW...

Please refrain from comparing TRAFFIC LAWS, & PUBLIC DECENCY to the MANDATORY PURCHASE of a service...it is a foolish argument, to say the least...or, do you just like being confused & confusing????

Edited April 24, 2010 by Rev.Reverence