Health Care "Overhaul"

[AdamLanes 1]

So you didn't answer any of the questions. Not that I was expecting you too. Would you have a problem if I pointed a gun at you and took money from you by force to pay for my medical bills? It is the same thing you are proposing the government does when you want taxes to pay for health care. Taxes are not voluntary as you probably are aware. If you don't pay them, people with guns show up and throw you in jail. So the government uses the threat of men with guns to collect taxes, and you think that is okay if the money is used to pay for somebody elses health care? So you won't mind if I ever meet you, and forcefully take your money, as long as I promise to spend it on health care? Thanks!!!

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

> Liberty is the antithesis of forced labor.

Then you advocate abolition of the military, then?

I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. A market does exist for defense, as does the incentive to voluntarily pay for defense if you desire its service. What I am against is the forced funding of the government, including the military. Today in the USA we hear that the government is protecting us. Who or what are they protecting us from? The same people they funded, supplied, and trained in warfare, while promoting war? The US government goes around the world stirring up controversy, lying, stealing, overthrowing democratically elected governments, and installing dictatorships. Throughout history war has been a favorite tool of governments to consolidate power and transfer wealth. The US government is stealing our future! They are turning us and out posterity into slaves! Who can defend us from them?

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

In a society we all pay our share for a lot of what we have. Military, roads, welfare, etc.

Why force people to pay for things they want? Do you need the government to force you to pay for the things that you want? Do you want the government to force you to pay for things that you don't want? People should pay for the things they desire, or they don't get them. The only acceptable "tax" is a usage tax. You pay for things proportionately to what you use. Of course that would cause the government to be clearly seen for what it really is: a drag on the economy, an unnecessary middle man, and a violent evil.

[StreetScooby 5]

Another interesting article:

Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill

Quote

With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

So much for his attempts at bipartisanship.

Quote

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

But, this is an EMERGENCY! Obama has to do something about this NOW.

Quote

We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an “Exchange-participating health benefits plan,” all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.

President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:

* Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
* About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
* Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

I realize the Bush Neo-Cons fudged numbers, alot. But the Debtocrats are being incredibly bald faced about the slanted interpretation of numbers. Obama's numbers are not going to add up, other than as an incredibly expensive boondoggle.

Quote

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

It'll be interesting to hear which actual version of the bill he's pushing. Apparently, there's many different versions circulating on the hill.

Obama is becoming the ultimate scare monger. Everything is an emergency (financial regulation, climate, health), and only he and his guys know how to "fix" it, and it must be done now.

Let's hope our Senates puts the brakes on this.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,994]

>A market does exist for defense, as does the incentive to voluntarily pay for
>defense if you desire its service.

OK, let's explore that.

We go to a "pay whatever you like" for military protection. 95% of people pay nothing, because they assume they don't need it, there haven't been any invasions for a while, and someone else will pay for it anyway. As a result, there is no money to maintain anything beyond the Coast Guard, which still gets support due to the service it provides to boaters. Is that an acceptable outcome?

>The US government is stealing our future! They are turning us and out
>posterity into slaves!

At our request.

>Who can defend us from them?

We _are_ them. We are doing this to ourselves, and can reverse it if we like. We prefer not to.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>No need - under Obama-care, there will be a set of criteria in place that
>will identify when you are to not receive any more medical help so you'll be
>disected and pieced out for the use of the elite (er.... the people).

Not a bad idea. A combination of that and advanced military prosthetics should allow ordinary people like Dick Cheney to survive well into the next century, where he will provide a valuable public service by crushing rebel forces and protecting the Emperor from Jedi traitors.

I don't think Dick qualifies in the left's brave new world of hope and medicine

plus I think most of his replacement parts are metal and some kind of viscous substance that is energized by angry language

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

plus I think most of his replacement parts are metal and some kind of viscous substance that is energized by angry language

It emits alot of SOX, too. Ask anybody that has him over. The sulphur smell only comes out after an expensive cleaning process.

We are all engines of karma

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I can’t understand the argument that some how all the other shit we the tax payers pay for is more ok then saving our fellow citizens lives.

Who's making that argument? I'd rather not have to pay taxes for all that other shit, either.

Quote

I think the insurance companies are investing all they can in the spin machine...

What is it about our system that makes everyone spend so much time lobbying, spinning and trying to get their share of the government money?

Could it be that the government has all the power, so the most logical course is to play for that, rather than doing a good job (at whatever you're supposed to be doing)?

Can't build a decent car? No problem, just spend enough on lobbyists and the government will cover you.

Can't accurately assess credit risks, and make bad loans? No worries, your lobbyists are making sure the government's got your back.

The problem is that government is a trough, and politics is a feeding frenzy. Get rid of all that government money people fight over, and people go back to actually doing something useful--instead of spending all their time and energy trying to get their turn at the trough.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>The US government is stealing our future! They are turning us and out posterity into slaves!

At our request.

Your assuming that "we" are a collective, with only one voice, and that all of "our" property (and time) is already collectively shared.

The government is stealing from some people, and giving to others. They are _not_ the same people.

I know that _I_ didn't make any such request. And I didn't ask or authorize anyone else to do so for me.

What "we" requested is actually that government take stuff from "them" and give it to "us".

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>A market does exist for defense, as does the incentive to voluntarily pay for
>defense if you desire its service.

OK, let's explore that.

We go to a "pay whatever you like" for military protection. 95% of people pay nothing, because they assume they don't need it, there haven't been any invasions for a while, and someone else will pay for it anyway. As a result, there is no money to maintain anything beyond the Coast Guard, which still gets support due to the service it provides to boaters. Is that an acceptable outcome?

That would be acceptable to me.

I don't think we need a big military to push our imperial agenda around the world. I think it's bad for us here, and bad for the world, too.

I also think that an adequately armed population is sufficient defense against foreign occupation. People in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have done pretty well resisting occupation by the imperial forces, and they were barely armed when things began.

I'd rather we scrapped the imperial military and relied on the fact that, even if an invasion was successful, an occupation never could be.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AdamLanes 1]

So you prefer people to be forced by the threat of violence to pay for their protection? That is the system we have today, and it is absolutely absurd! In the absence of a coercive entity, defense companies will emerge to supply the services of defense. If in your make believe scenerio where 95% of the people don't want to pay for services they don't need, that's fine! Why force them to pay for something they don't want? I don't pay for a hotel room before I need one, but the hotel still exists. People will see the potential demand for defense services and will build their companies accordingly. Investors have an incentive to invest where there is the potential for an increase in future demand. Competition will promote choice, quality, and a good price.

[billvon 2,994]

>Your assuming that "we" are a collective, with only one voice, and that all of
>"our" property (and time) is already collectively shared.

No, I am assuming that "we" includes both us AND the government. It does pretty much what we want. When it doesn't, we vote people out of office.

Indeed, a lot of things that I don't like about the government comes about _because_ of popular elections. Most people see competitions most easily in terms of professional sports, where there are two teams; thus, the two party system is comfortable and familiar and gets a lot of support, despite its problems. Most people don't mind paying taxes but want "their fair share" of stuff, whether it's roads, or more military, or a bailout of their favorite car company. But these are not inherent failures of government; these are a failure in the decisionmaking process of people who are asking for them.

As always, the old adage applies - be careful what you wish for, because we are getting it.

>The government is stealing from some people, and giving to others. They are
>_not_ the same people.

Never are. Taxes go from the rich to vets and the homeless. Taxes go from big companies to small companies (and often new branches of big companies.) Fees go from consumers to the space program.

>I know that _I_ didn't make any such request. And I didn't ask or authorize
>anyone else to do so for me.

Your sole remedy is to vote against laws that do that, and vote for politicians who will not do such things. If everyone feels as you do, things will change in a hurry.

>What "we" requested is actually that government take stuff from "them" and
>give it to "us".

Exactly. And there's always a "them" and there's always an "us."

[billvon 2,994]

>So you prefer people to be forced by the threat of violence to pay for
>their protection?

Yes - just as we "force people by the threat of violence" to obey traffic lights. Sounds really scary and sinister when you say it that way, eh?

> In the absence of a coercive entity, defense companies will emerge to
>supply the services of defense.

OK. Who will pay for them?

>Why force them to pay for something they don't want?

Because defense is not something you can decide you want _after_ China occupies northern Alaska and starts drilling/mining.

> I don't pay for a hotel room before I need one, but the hotel still exists.

Right. And if we had to repel thousands of invasions every day, then that analogy would work. Defense isn't like that. You go decades without needing a military, and then need it in a very big way on one afternoon.

[rushmc 23]

If not passed in the next two weeks this bill is dead. The hurry was to hide the truth about the bill. As many here have stated over and over. This bill IS NOT about health care. That is becoming more evident as each day passes.

Quote

Experts: Obama's 'Public Option' Insurance Will Abandon 100 Million Citizens

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:22 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size





Up to 100 million people would lose their current healthcare plan within the next three years if Congress passes the "public option" health bill now making its way through Congress, policy experts tell Newsmax.

Defections on that scale would mean the death of the health-insurance sector within five years, a leading GOP congressman says.

These findings fly in the face of President Obama's assurances.

"Under our proposals," Obama told the American people during his July 18 weekly radio address, "if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."

Not so, according to a report released Monday by the Lewin Group, a nonpartisan Falls Church, Va., firm that provides consulting services to the healthcare industry. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation sponsored the study.

The study concludes that, although the government won't actually order people to leave their private insurance plans, it will induce their employers to do so. The taxpayer subsidies in the public option will tilt the economic scales so much that employers and individuals will abandon the private insurance market by the millions, the Lewin Group study indicates.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., an orthopedic surgeon and senior ranking Republican on the Health subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, tells Newsmax the imbalance will kill private health insurance as it currently exists in less than a decade.

"I don't see how it can go longer than somewhere between three and five years," Price tells Newsmax. "The phase-in makes it so that we'll see tens of millions go from private plans to the government-run plan within a year or two. And then five years is the drop dead date where everybody is forced off."

The mainstream media is beginning to question Obama's presumptions as well.

ABC senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper writes on his Political Punch blog that the president has admitted his statement is not literally true.

The government "might create circumstances" that would lead to a widespread change in policies, Tapper writes.

"I can't pass a law that says, 'I'm sorry, employers, you can never make changes to the healthcare plans that you provide your employees," Obama recently told ABC's Diane Sawyer. "What I can say is that the government is not going to force . . . your employers or you to join a government plan, for example."

Tapper reports that Obama later appeared to hedge on his promise during ABC News' healthcare forum, saying: "If you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don't want you to have to change."

Yet that is exactly what would happen to tens of millions of policyholders if Congress passes the current plans, Lewin Group and other experts say.

Obama has justified the public option as a means of policing private insurers, saying it "will keep them honest and help keep prices down."

The reality, critics say, is that Obama's proposal would go far beyond that, possibly even driving the private health-insurance sector out of business altogether, at a time when the economy already is closing in on 10 percent unemployment.

The Lewin Group appears to support Rep. Price's conclusion that public-option healthcare will bring radical changes to voters' health insurance coverage.

That consultant's analysis finds that the average monthly premium under the public option would be $179 less than the average private premium.

Lewin's analysts calculate that this would induce 83.4 million Americans and their employers to change plans. Because the employers usually make the decision, millions of those individuals would have little or no say in whether they would join the public-option plan.

Lewin concludes that 103.4 million Americans would sign up for the public plan, cutting the size of the private-insurance market just about in half. In three years, 48.4 percent fewer people would be covered by private insurance.

"The president simply isn't telling the truth," Price charges. "I don't know if that's because he hasn't read the bill, or he doesn't know what his cohorts up here on Capitol Hill have done to the legislation, but it's very, very clear."

He adds, "This will destroy the individual private insurance market in this nation. And if you talk to the folks who authored the plan, they admit it. They aren't trying to hide that at all. It's just the President who's trying to hide that."

One reason that healthcare policy experts cite for the profound impact the public-option would have on private insurers is "cost shifting."

Hospitals and physicians now defray the cost of the billions of dollars of free medical care they provide to uninsured people — known as "uncompensated care" — by increasing their fees to private health plans. As the number of people covered by private plans diminishes, fewer policyholders remain to absorb the cost of uncompensated care, which raises their premiums and results in an ever-narrowing base of privately insured.

"It’s a death spiral," Price tells Newsmax, "because as you take people out of personal insurance market then you are decreasing the number of individuals for whom risk is spread across. As you do so, the cost increases for each individual that remains in the private market. With the bill, you get to that point relatively quickly."

Advocates of the bill maintain, however, that by boosting the level of healthcare enrollment to about 95 percent of the populace, uncompensated care should diminish drastically. So far, the president's biggest hurdle comes from members of his own party, who are nervous about projected budget deficits and a surtax of up to 8 percent on the wealthy that would be used to reduce the plan's estimated budgetary impact of more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

"Congress needs to strive for a bill that's deficit-neutral over the long term, even beyond 10 years. All the bills so far have run deficits in the first 10 years, and would likely run massive deficits in following decades," senior Heritage analyst Brian Riedel tells Newsmax.

Riedel voices open skepticism about current projections for the plan's impact on the deficit: "The healthcare estimates are almost certainly underestimating the cost of health care. For starters, government healthcare programs almost always cost substantially more than is projected," he says.

"In this instance," Riedel adds, "many are assuming that the public plan will create all of these efficiencies that hold down costs, and I'm not sure that's going to happen. Additionally, there's always a chance that taxpayers are going to be asked to subsidize the public option, in order to give it a competitive advantage over private health care. That will raise the cost as well."


© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Your sole remedy is to vote against laws that do that, and vote for politicians who will not do such things. If everyone feels as you do, things will change in a hurry.

That would be true in a pure democracy.

I'm thankful not to live in one of those. It shouldn't matter if 51% of Americans vote to kill off the other 49%--they should not have that right.

Majority should never rule absolutely. The rights of minorities must be protected.

The problem here is that a majority is forcing something on a minority. How is that ok? If the majority of people in your state voted to outlaw gay marriage, would you be ok with that? Or would you argue that, even though they are in the minority, people possess certain rights the majority should not abridge?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

Yes - just as we "force people by the threat of violence" to obey traffic lights. Sounds really scary and sinister when you say it that way, eh?

Well roads should be privately owned, and the owners of private property should be able to make the rules concerning how their property is used by others. So it is not the same. How the government funds the police and military is through coercive taxation. They "protect, serve, and defend" you by forcefully taking money from you. That is the antithesis of protection and defense!

Quote

Quote

In the absence of a coercive entity, defense companies will emerge to supply the services of defense.

OK. Who will pay for them?

I already explained it to you Bill, the people that desire and/or require such services. Also investors.

You are assuming that nobody would think of or want to protect themselves, family, or possessions, with a voluntarily funded defense. The people with the most to lose, would naturally have the largest incentive to fund such a defense. Organizations would see a potential demand for such protection services and charge you accordingly as you require their services. People also have the right to defend themselves.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

So you didn't answer any of the questions.

Ok this is dumb shit I have no time for. You asked if I think healthcare is a right? I said yes. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean I didn’t answer your questions.

Quote

Taxes are not voluntary as you probably are aware. If you don't pay them, people with guns show up and throw you in jail. So the government uses the threat of men with guns to collect

Yes you pay taxes right? Healthcare is not the first thing your taxed for right? so why out of all the taxes we pay the one that will save our fellow citizens lives is the one that gets a bug up your ass?

Quote

So you won't mind if I ever meet you, and forcefully take your money, as long as I promise to spend it on health care? Thanks!!!

Does your head hurt when you spin like that?

We all pay taxes or most of us do, that go to many programs. Again the point you seem to miss over and over and over again is we already pay taxes. Not just me but we all do. and guess what those taxes are used for many programs. I am sure that everyone might not agree on all of them but we still pay.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Yes you pay taxes right? Healthcare is not the first thing your taxed for right? so why out of all the taxes we pay the one that will save our fellow citizens lives is the one that gets a bug up your ass?

You're stereotyping Adam based on your thoughts about other people. I bet he's got a "bug up his ass" about virtually all taxes.

Quote

We all pay taxes or most of us do, that go to many programs.

40% of us pay no Federal Income Tax. That seems really unfair to me. Does it seem fair to you?

Quote

I am sure that everyone might not agree on all of them but we still pay.

Ah...the old "bad things are happening all the time, so why do you worry about this bad thing?" argument.

We pay because if we don't men with guns come and throw us in jail. That doesn't mean we're happy about it, or want to pay more, or even want to pay the half or so of our income that currently goes to taxes of one sort or another.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

MONEY IS NOT EVERY THING AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE VALUED MORE.

Yes, the individual's right to liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. That comes with a price, called personal responsibility. IMO, the arguments here are revolving around what should be personal responsibility and what our government can impose on us.

Personal responsibility.

Does that always effect getting sick? Last I checked skinny people who work out and take care of themselves get sick, smokers get sick, so do none smokers. Fucking kids get sick as well.

You can be responsible, as you want there is no guarantees. So what happens when someone can’t afford the medicine or procedures that might be needed to get well?


Personal responsibility is great when things are in your control it means nothing when they are not. Trying to bring personal responsibility in this debate is basically saying pe0ple who get sick somehow are responsible. I understand that might be the case in some cases but we really don’t know, and there are many cases where you have no control.

As I said before getting sick is like a natural disaster that effects one family.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

You're stereotyping Adam based on your thoughts about other people. I bet he's got a "bug up his ass" about virtually all taxes.

This thread is the first time I can remember seeing him and you don’t make a good impression when you try to tell people what there saying or attempted to read there mind, or assume you know there financial situation.

I call a spade a spade and have been for the many years I have been here. You talk to me like an adult who is actually having a debate and I will treat you the same. Talk to me with BS spin and I don’t have time for your dumb shit.

Quote

40% of us pay no Federal Income Tax. That seems really unfair to me. Does it seem fair to you?

It depends. If the 40% will become homeless or go Hungary if they pay the tax no its not unfair. It would be unfair to make them pay a tax that would jeopardize their survival.

Many corporation don’t pay their fair taxes because of loopholes in the tax law and the amount of money the spend on lawyers specifically so they don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

Do you think its fair for a big corporation or a highly paid CEO to pay less taxes because he has the ability to hire people who help him to go around the system?

Quote

We pay because if we don't men with guns come and throw us in jail. That doesn't mean we're happy about it, or want to pay more, or even want to pay the half or so of our income that currently goes to taxes of one sort or another.

Again this is personal opinion of mine that out of all the things we get taxed for; Healthcare is one of the things that I can understand and would not mind.
The others fuck that a whole lot of other threads.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[StreetScooby 5]

Bowing to Veto Threat, Senate Blocks Money for Warplanes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/22defense.html?hp

Looks like a bone.
Ok, we let you save $2B.
But, that plan of yours for $1T, well think about...

Comments?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Who's making that argument? I'd rather not have to pay taxes for all that other shit, either.
......

+1

We are all engines of karma

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Comments?

You know what I keep on finding out more and more. They’re all fucking thieves, and there ALL full of shit. Right, left all of them suck.

I think we need a lobby for the people without lobbies. I think that’s a good idea.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

When it doesn't, we vote people out of office.

What happens when a majority of the people are "on the dole"?

Quote

But these are not inherent failures of government; these are a failure in the decision making process of people who are asking for them.

+1

What happens when schools have basically failed in educating citizens for a long time now, and we end up with a population that can't make their own decisions, especially under the context of our Constitution? Republics are difficult to keep.

Quote

Your sole remedy is to vote against laws that do that, and vote for politicians who will not do such things. If everyone feels as you do, things will change in a hurry.

+1

Plus, I pray there are enough educated citizens that will vote rationally, in the context of our Constitution.

We are all engines of karma

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

Who's making that argument? I'd rather not have to pay taxes for all that other shit, either.
......

+1

You mean each of us have to make our own roads, schools, and such?

How about the defense of the boarders?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain