[DELETED BY AUTHOR]
21 Jul
Force Democrat Voters to Watch This Video!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 at 9:22 pm | 17 views
Stats
I HATE SARAH PALIN!!!! AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!
Why would anyone in their right mind not like Sarah Palin?….she is just what this country needs so bad, she can return us back to our Patriotic Roots and let “IN GOD WE TRUST”..be the Truth…
she is a fresh breath of spring and Washington could use some. How in the world did the
people elect the leaders we have today is beyond me. Undoubtely ignorance is bliss and the
word CHANGE really meant something, without checking the CHANGE out……that has proved
to be dangerous. Please wake up and realize, America is fast dissappearing. God will have
to appologize to Sodom and Gomorah if He don’t judge America….(a great Evangelist said
this over 30 years ago)….Sandi Smith
What’s the problem here – isn’t Obama bringing in basic healthcare for those who chose to have this whilst those who have private healthcare can still choose to stay with that. In the UK – nationalised health has not driven out the private sector or choice at all. Whilst there is a legit concern over why should I pay for private healthcare and for public healthcare for others (you can argue the same about schools etc) – this video seems to be distorting and fearmongering – that somehow there will be no private healthcare for those who want it.
If you currently have coverage, yes, you can keep it…. Unless your plan changes in any way.
If your plan changes, you are no longer allowed to participate in your private plan.
If you change jobs, you are not allowed to enroll in your new employers’ plan.
If you leave your job to become self employed, you cannot purchase your own plan.
Private health care insurers will not be allowed to write new policies if the effective date of those policies falls beyond the first date that the proposed legislation goes into effect.
In short, private insurers will be prohibited from signing on new customers and will lose their old customers through attrition. In short order, private insurers will cease to exist.
Furthermore, individuals who do not sign up for coverage will be fined $2,500 per year by the IRS for their non-compliance.
Reading the bill is truly an eye opening experience.
The more people read the bill, the more they realize why this Admin is attempting to ram this through so quickly.
@Aye Chihuahua: Repeating these claims doesn’t make them any more true. Private health plans will, indeed, be allowed to write new policies as long as they meet the new regulations, plans that do not meet the regulations will have a five year grace period to do so. This is not dissimilar from how health-care is currently regulated, though the minimum requirements will change. And as Gaffa pointed out, this is not dissimilar from the plans in Europe or Israel where private health-care still exists.
@trizzlor:
As I said, reading the bill is an eye opener.
I suggest that you experience it.
@trizzlor:
The operative term here is “as long as they meet the new regulations”, which apparently are so restrictive that they forbid new policies, and will slowly drive people out of their existing policies, and out of private health care, thereby killing the business, and once it’s dead, the “choice” no longer exists.
@trizzlor:
Well my goodness, if this is true and is what the majority of Americans want, why don’t the democrat’s Congress just pass their healthcare reform bills, reconcile them, let Obama sign it into law and all will be happy…….right? They won, they have the majority and the Oval Office, they can do anything they want, what’s the hold-up?
On another note, Waxman got in a little tussle with the folks at Investor’s Business Daily over what’s in the House bill. He didn’t fare so well. Guess the democrats should go back to investigating every sniffle the Bush Administration made, they are for sheet as far as governing.
@Missy:
I don’t know what part of ‘Obama and the Dems are pathological liars’ they don’t understand.
@yonason:
Now there’s a dem talking head calling for Pelosi’s removal, wonder who put out that memo.
They’ve lied, conned, threatened to remove stimulus money from the districts of members not on board, stamped their feet and whined. Now they are turning on each other. Results? Other than burying us in debt, not much.
@Aye Chihuahua: Don’t confuse Trizzlor with facts. Obviously he’s reading the same sheet of talking points that the idiot Dem Congressman from Missouri tired to pass off to his constituents earlier in the week.
Heh!
Great snark from the RNC.
Roll the tape:
h/t – Hot Air
The bill? There is no “the” yet. There are several. Are you reading them all?
@Fit fit:
Yes, I’ve read the information coming out of the Senate as well as what has been put forward by the House.
Which ones have you read?
@Aye Chihuahua: That’s good Aye. Send it over to Curt and ask him to rotate into the featured video after Reagan’s take on socialized medicine is done.
@Fit fit:
The House seems to be taking the
fall, I mean, the lead here. Here’s what we know about that bill:>>Furthermore, individuals who do not sign up for coverage will be fined $2,500 per year by the IRS for their non-compliance.>>
Unless of course, you’re an illegal alien, in which case, see PG 170 above:
“: Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)”
“NONRESIDENT Alien” _does_ = illegal alien, right? It almost sounds like anyone from outside of the country who just hasn’t gotten here yet.
So…what is the benefit of being a citizen, and what do I have to do to qualify as an illegal alien?
What would be the downside of disavowing my citizenship these days?
I haven’t really been following this so apologies if this point has already been discussed…
Do you guys really think that all US citizens should not be compelled to have basic health insurance?
And out of interest – for those who can’t afford -or- choose not to have insurance what happens if they get ill?
Interesting report from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8140811.stm
@Aye Chihuahua: Your exaggerations are not facts without references to the bill. Maybe you should read up on grandfather clauses – we’ve discussed the IBD article that you’re pulling them from ad nauseum and even the health-care detractors have admitted that the bill does not directly ban private coverage. The rest is just reading tea-leaves about how the “market” will react, yet there are dozens of countries that have national health-care and maintain private coverage for those who can afford it. If US health-care companies can’t succeed within this framework then they’ve been piggy-backing on a legalized monopoly and it’s time for some of that creative destruction you guys like so much.
@Mike’s America: Twittering over the health-care bill is like learning War and Peace from a coloring book (and how much respect can you have for a man who uses a quarter of his tweet characters to shout-out the defunct #tcot), but let’s take a look at some of fleckman’s points:
what does the section actually say:
So a cap on the coverage amount is the equivalent of rationing?
Another leap of faith:
The actual bill:
So having a person in charge of administration is now tantamount to elimination choice?
The hysterics:
The actual bill:
So an anti-discrimination clause now allows illegals? He might as well have said that one-eyed zombies will get covered too.
I’m not sure what kind of alternative plan fleckman is envisioning; one where there is no cap on coverage, applicants can be discriminated against based on personal characteristics, and no one actually runs the damn thing … but maybe I’ll join him in never-land sometime.
If this is who’s doing your leg-work then you’ve succeed brilliantly at amassing a confederacy of dunces.
@trizzlor: I realize your are a legend in your own mind. But other than simply nay say what others have put forward and regurgitate dutifully the talking points George Soros and friends have provided you I haven’t seen anything that you have said which negates the fundamental arguments myself and others here are making.
You’re simply playing the Obama snake oil game with health care in the same way you have with so many other Obama issues.
Oh goodness, once your facts no longer make any sense you resort to accusations of nay-saying – maybe you should re-watch the video at the helm of this thread. “Soros talking points”, “Obama snake-oil”, “regurgitated nay saying” – two more and I could have had a bingo! Care to throw in ACORN and the Certificate of Live “Birth”? Maybe you should look into the Let Freedom Ring group a bit more and ask yourself how they can afford such flashy videos before you accuse anyone of rehashing talking points and look even more the fool.
But enough prodding, your arguments against this plan have fundamentally been based in the assumption that private health-care will be banned or forced out. This is plainly false, which is why the only evidence you have is half-sentences from a link-whoring twitter. It’s pretty obvious that you want to argue this from a libertarian perspective. Of course, that would require actually examining the economic failure that health-care has been, and would generally fly in the face of your draconian approach to military policy. So instead you rely on the tried-and-true technique of just making sheeet up.
As I’ve mentioned previously, my ideal implementation would be that of Israel, a country which has the double-whammy of a huge elderly immigrant population with no support system and an entire swath of youth in the military. Nevertheless, the government is able to offer comprehensive basic coverage that includes these two at-risk groups while maintaining competition with private non-profits that provide luxury coverage. Everyone is quite content with the system and the main detractors argue that the basic coverage isn’t comprehensive enough. Now I’m sure “non-profit” is going to put you off the plan immediately because you seem to be operating primarily on buzzwords, but if you consider insurance from an economic stand-point, it’s not really a product that obeys the natural flow of supply and demand. The people most in need of health insurance, the poor and the elderly, are exactly the ones that a for-profit company would be motivated to deny. Unlike more typical products, it’s fairly easy to identify the applicants who will cost you money and kick them out, which is why the market has failed in arriving at affordable comprehensive coverage even though the US leads the world in medical and scientific advances. It’s also why we were forced to implement Medicaid to essentially avoid privatized euthanasia. If we just keep walking like your suggest, the same market collapse that hit the elderly decades ago will trickle down to the rest of us – this is most obviously seen in the rise of care costs without a complementary rise in care quality.
The balance is then for the government to step-in for the at-risk individuals and non-profits to provide niche coverage for those who can afford it. The current versions of the bill don’t achieve this entirely, but neither are they a draconian anti-market trust-bust, my hope is that once the safety-net is implemented then the private coverage will converge. Your advice, if we can even call it that, is to whistle past the graveyard right into the casket.
@trizzlor:
Your pontifications are nothing more than hot air without actual references to the bill.
See how that works?
I’ve read the House version. I’ve read the Senate version. I have done extensive research on both.
Prove me wrong. If you can.
By the way, your advice about reading up on grandfather clauses is some pretty good stuff. You should apply it.
@trizzlor: Again, not one bit of facts to back up your assertions. Just more worn out George Soros supplied talking points.
We’ve done our job and presented reams of analysis by a variety of sources and all you do is nay say.
Says quite a lot about your credibility.
@ suek
Actually, a nonresident alien is a person with a green card. They’re here legally, just not citizens.
@Aqua: There is a problem with the widening coverage of benefits under these bills for ILLEGAL ALIENS:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/ensuring_insurance_for_illegal_aliens_180602.htm
@ trizzlor
I actually agree with some of what you said. As a matter of fact, I don’t think you’re going to find very many people out there that don’t believe something needs to be done about healthcare. To say differently is just a patently false.
The problem I’m having with the whole issue right now is the speed at which they want to move. That’s number one. It needs to be done right. Secondly, and for me, most importantly, we have a bunch of lawyers working on healthcare. I’m just about tired of lawyers. For some reason, they seem to think they know everything, when the truth is they are just about the stupiest people on the planet. Doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and other healthcare providers should be brought in on this, not just for hearings, but as subject matter experts.
Case in point: Last night, Obama showed the American people exactly why a lawyer should STFU about healthcare. “Red Pill, Blue Pill. This one cost half as much as this one. Why do we need it.” Well brainiac, what is someone is allergic to the “Red Pill?” I am. I can’t take a generic version of my cholesterol pill. And I know, Obama’s gonna stop the need for Choesterol pills by cutting off my supply of cheeseburgers, but that’s a different story.
Now triz, I haven’t read much about the Israeli healthcare, but it sounds interesting and I would like to look into it further. And, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist. But I will agree with you on one point. Health Insurance needs to be a not for profit operation. Otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose. That’s my opinion and I know I have friends that will disagree. But the system is broken and I think that is one of the reasons.
@ Mike’s America
I actually read about that yesterday on Michelle Malkin’s Site I’m not disputing that at all. But a non-resident alien isn’t an illegal alien. There’s a big difference. A non-resident alien pays taxes, or faces deportation. You can’t deport an illegal alien, the democrats would have a cow.
@Aye Chihuahua: This is typical – you presented a number of assertions with no evidence what so ever. I claim that they’re not in the bill and your retort is for me to prove that they’re not in the bill … as well as some of that “I’m rubber, you’re glue” insight that must’ve been so effective for you in middle school. Let’s repeat for the challenged – we’ve discussed your assertions that the bill bans private coverage and it’s bunk. Here‘s MataHarley on this exact topic:
The first part contradicts your claims that the bill directly bans the private option – it unequivocally does not. The rest is reading tea-leaves about how a public option may effect the private sector. I could just as easily make the argument that a public option will put competitive pressure on the current private monopolies and actually cause them to improve and make higher profits … either point is just hot air. In response, I pointed out a number of countries, Israel in particular, that have a public option without marginalizing private care and maintain overall wellness. So let’s review: your fundamental assertion is pure conjecture, even admitted out by your fellow bloggers; and even your conjecture has a number of real-world counter-examples. Of course, I can’t show you the absence of your stipulations in the bill …
@trizzlor: Thanks for the latest George Soros talking points.
Of course it’s all bunk and even the mainstream media admits it.
Why don’t you try reading something other than Mother Jones magazine for a change?
@Aqua: I think we’re very close in our thinking on this issue. I’m also concerned about the speed with which this is being pushed through, particularly because I’m not convinced that a few months of debate will change anything for a decade long implementation. I think it’s fairly clear that Obama wants to get this passed while he still has political capital, and that really isn’t how it should be done. On the other hand, I can understand the concern that nothing will get passed if the fickle public loses interest in the proposal – and that’s the worst possible scenario. Frankly, I think mandates and quick action are a good thing. I was glad that Bush was able to implement his pet projects because we’d actually find out if they worked rather than putting out middle-of-the-road programs and repeating mistakes over and over. I’m really irked by the fact that it’s been thirty years and we still don’t have a consensus on what side of the laffer curve we’re at.
As for your second point about lawyers making the bill, I think much of the nitty-gritty will actually be determined by medical associations and professionals. The reams of twits that Mike fancies so much scare-mongers this as union collusion:
But if you actually read those passages in the bill, they are intended to establish groups of medical professionals with input into the program. The lawyers set up the framework and the doctors define the variables.
@trizzlor:
If you’re going to blatantly lie about what I said, and it’s obvious that you are completely willing to do so, then there is no point in having any further conversation with you.
Not once have I said that this Obamanation will “ban” private plans.
What the “public option” will do is create a non-profit govt run plan which has to neither make a profit nor break even. As we have seen with Medicare and Medicaid the govt will run the thing deep into red ink and then simply print more money.
When the plans offered by private insurers are vastly more expensive because they have to, at a minimum, break even then obviously the policy holder will most often choose the option which is less expensive.
As additional policy holders splinter off for cheaper options and less compliance hurdles more and more of the private insurers will go by the wayside. That is simple supply/demand economics.
You’ve gone on at length in your effort to present what you claim to be the facts.
Show us the proof.
If you can.
You claim to be so informed and educated about what is being proposed.
If you are what you are pretending to be, then show us the proof.
PREVIEW OF THE HORRORS THAT AWAIT US WITH OBUNKOCARE
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/07/what_happened_t_4.html
@ trizzlor
I don’t know triz, this interview with an Israeli doctor left me with a lot of questions.
As for unions and ACORN influencing healthcare, can you really blame anyone on the right for thinking that? Obama told them flat out, they would have a seat at the table in his administration.
However, I just read that Reid says there will be no vote before the August recess and then Pelosi just said the same thing. I imagine a lot of law makers will get an earful from the little people when they get home. Maybe they will go back to Washington and do this the right way. The fraud and waste in medicare and medicade could be dealt with immediately. They don’t need to wait for a full out healthcare bill for that.
Then they can go to work and see what really works. It’s rather obvious the plan they are following is Romney-care and it is not working. You can check out Mata’s Post on that to judge for yourself.
@Aye Chihuahua: This is like pulling teeth. Here’s a snip from your assertions:
Both of these statements are false, let me repeat: private health plans will, indeed, be allowed to write new policies as long as they meet the new regulations, plans that do not meet the regulations will have a five year grace period to do so.
Instead of all the hemming and hawing, you could have just provided a quote from the bill, I wonder why you chose not to.
@Aqua:
trizzle may be ignorant, perhaps willfully, of the racial elements and preferences contained within this proposed legislation.
I am preparing a post on that and will have it ready to post tomorrow if I can push real life aside for just a little bit.
@Aqua: Thanks for the link, here‘s another interesting article comparing Israel & the US. The conclusions are similar: the basic coverage is more than adequate, but the cost is not necessarily sustainable. Still, it’s important to note that they’re spending three times less than us per capita.
@trizzlor: Oh yes WE are the scaremongers here. Not Obama threatening death to anyone who believes another way is better.
Triz. You are fast becoming a JOKE!
@trizzlor:
Are you a natural born dumb ass or is that an acquired, finely honed talent?
Here’s what I said:
Here’s some info from the House version:
So, what am I supposed to believe?
You, or what I am reading in black and white?
I’ll take the House version for $1,000 Alex.
@Aye Chihuahua: Come on.. you know better. I doubt Triz even knows how fast and loose he is playing with the truth. Good grief! How many independent sources have we linked to that show what this bill entails and this moron STILL denies it?
It’s abundantly clear Trizz is wasting oxygen that might better serve someone with a fully functioning cranial capacity. What a shame Obama’s health care rationing would give him a pass while dooming some poor senior citizen to an early grave.
Triz #30,… yes, what I said is true in the house bill. There is a Y1 deadline for any new enrollees. After that first year passes, they can no longer enroll anyone to anything but the government blank template. As the House bill states on pg 16:
This will pit a government, supposed “more affordable” provider against a private enterprise insurer. It gets compounded when you talk about taxing the health care for the company that provides insurancy for their employees in lieu of a higher salary.
The government can go all day long running in the red because they just attach more cash from the taxpayer. A private insurer must cover his costs minimally to remain in business (as a non-profit), or net more in order to grow and flourish.
The whole concept behind this is so back-asswards as to be laughable. We already have government provided insurance in Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, and VA for our veterans. Everyone one of them in bankrupt or in dire straights. And the only reason they have lasted as long as they have is because for the pennies on the dollar they pay the medical professionals, the pennies NOT paid is then spread thruout the private providers and insurance world to make up the difference.
When you have nothing but public plans… or non-profit private insurers… who the hell is going to make up the difference?
We have fabulous health care, but we also have waste. Unfortunately, most of the waste comes from middle man management, poor communication, litigation prevention medical practices, and hospitals that run at a loss because of the costs of their specialty equipment. Adding the government as a middle man is a step backwards.
I always wonder why the heck you have to go thru a primary doctor before seeing a specialist, but that’s an insurance requirement and an unnecessary expense. If you’re experiencing skin problems, why go to your primary who says “go see a dermatologist”. Why not go directly to a dermatologist and cut out the idiot steps.
And a huge thing is litigation expenses. 50% of doctors overhead is E&O insurance. They also need to make a living. Costs of drugs, the research and approval expense is also absurd.
Before anything needs to be done (ala changing this over to government control)… who will only make it more cumbersome, more expensive and considerably worse service… we first need to start shaving all this PC regulation that drives up the costs. Government has created the waste and rising expenses. They sure aren’t the entity to fix it.
@Mike’s America: , @MataHarley:
I wonder if Triz is as easily distracted by bright shiny objects as he(?) is by doubletalk?
__________________________________________________________________
I wonder if you have to see a primary before being referred to a premature aging specialist?
http://www.boingboing.net/200901081233.jpg
[Courtesy embed - Aye]
@MataHarley:
The way I read it, there is no one year grace period and the restrictions for new enrollments go into effect on day one of Y1.
Am I incorrect?
Sounds like we are saying the same thing, Aye…. sorta. The way I read it is they can take new enrollees to current grandfathered plans up to the day before year one. That *is* the one year grace period. After that, they can only take new business… competing against the goverment plan… with the template.
Now I don’t know if they can take the minimums and add more perks. There is so much more that is unclear. But “more” is different from state to state because of their individual health insurance mandates. Some states require you pay for acupuncture, detox, etc. Other states don’t. That’s why some states are far more expensive than others for the base coverage needed.
I still have yet to see how these bozos plan on handling the 10th amendment issue of each state… unless, of course, their “minimum coverage” matches that of the most regulation heavy state, which is MA, I believe. According to this site, the most expensive states for health insurance because of state mandates are:
Maybe I’m a dolt, but I don’t see a one year grace there.
In other words, on the very first day this legislation takes effect (God forbid) there will be no more new enrollments into existing plans.
I read it as the first day of Y1 referring to the first day of the legislation, not the 366th.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Thanks. And that’s not a photoshop, either. That IS the way I’ve seen him look in several videos recently. I guess it won’t be long before he loads up on botox and hair dye.
And there are idiots in the MSM who are lying about Palin’s hair falling out. Must be to distract away from dear leader’s degeneration.
And I agree. The way it reads, no new policies can be written in the year it’s passed, which sounds like it’s grandfathered back to the beginning of the year, so if you had a policy, you would have to cancel it and take that one, anyway.
The damned thing CAN’T be constitutional.
Do you guys call your schools ‘socialized education’ and your army ‘socialized defence’? If government is so bad at running things then maybe it shouldn’t run anything.
Isn’t universal mandatory healthcare just as important as universal mandatory education? In the US you have a public and private education system which seems to be able to run alongside each other. I don’t understand why Obama’s plan seems try and add new regulations to existing private insurance. Why overcomplicate something that’s already controversial but necessary? The biggest problem seems to be the cost. I guess the insurance companies are scared people won’t pay high premiums to stay on their plans and instead choose to go on a government scheme – but why would they do that if the government plan would be so (apparently) rubbish?
Maybe all companies should have compulsory healthcare to the workers with a private insurance company of their choice and only those without jobs or self-employed below a certain income level get access to a bog-standard government health insurance if they can’t afford private insurance. That way the cost would be cheaper and there wouldn’t be the unfair competition between government and private insurance companies.
This is just a brief note, directed to Mike and Aye.
Strangely enough, I actually like you guys. You are dedicated and passionate, and we live in a world of such apathy. Frankly, the country needs people like you.
But I read through the exchange between you and Aye and trizzlor.
Here’s a for e.g. :
Why do you both feel the need to write like this? I read “trizzlor’s” comments, and he’s engaging in serious debate. I read yours, and you are engaging in a pissing contest.
That’s all. It’s so tedious. Someday I’ll find a conservative blog where I can talk to people who don’t like to piss so much.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, I like you too, but you do have a habit of getting the facts confused. You reference Aye’s remarks, which are not mine, and lump me in together.
You might have noticed that I have posted MANY articles on these pages about the health care “reform” debate, but Trizz prefers to overlook the substance of ALL of them and just say “it ain’t so.”
Frankly, that’s not debate and YOU know it.
I have noticed you haven’t weighed in on this issue. Since it is more in line with your professional expertise than GLOBAL WARMING, on which you pontificate frequently I am rather curious as to why?
@GaffaUK: Mandatory education just takes you through the first few years. It’s not a life sentence to government indoctrination.
As for Defense, that’s the ONE AREA where government SHOULD play a role.
And as for compulsory insurance, the idea you suggest is a good one. But it’s not the one Dems are pursuing. Their idea is to force ALL Americans into the same health care plan (except for their union buddies and Congressmen, who will be exempt).
While crappy substandard care might be a good thing for people currently getting little or no care, it’s not something that should be imposed on everyone.
But then Dems do have this inclination to drag everyone down to the same level whereas Republicans want to help lift everyone up to the higher level.
Aye, I’m about 98% sure it’s the 365th day (includes the Y1 day). This falls into line with the Health Care Task Force they are creating that is supposed to “research” and make recommendations for additional preventative care programs… *not* included in the current budget forecasts. This puppy isn’t even the entire picture, but by the end of the first year, they’ll be packing on the rest of it.
This is why I think there is a year’s grace period. They’re not done with mandates that may, or may not, affect what an employer must either offer, or contribute to anyway.
You see, if I’m reading Title III correctly, it appears every employer is mandated to offer coverage to both full and part time employees – the basics of which must meet the government minimum. They can do this via private plan, or thru the public gov’t plan. If he has a group plan, the employee still has the right to opt out and obtain a plan thru the Insurance Exchange. However the employer still must contribute to the “Health Choice Commissioner”, who deposits it in the “Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund”. Oh boy… another “trust fund” lockbox. NOT! LOL
This means that every employer who has a payroll annually of over $250K must either offer coverage, or pay into the government trust fund a certain percentage of they annual total payroll. In other words, another payroll tax. And this is going to significantly increase the cost of doing business.
I was reading about the “affordable premium amounts” (starts on pg 135). Someone might want to backcheck me, but it smells like it’s going to be based on a percentage of total household income as a ratio to the povery level figure (FPL). In other words neighbors in House A make $50K more annually than neighbors in House B. They are both on the public health plan, but neighbors be get the same coverage for less money because of their income level.
Anyone want to throw in here?
Every few days I try to go in and absorb more of the House monstrosity… and of course, get myself slash-my-wrists depressed! :0) (yes, that’s a joke, son…). So I suggest you keep those “daily distractions” a’rolling.
@MataHarley: That’s admirable that you and others have been reading this bill. But you know what is going to happen. The Dems will put out another huge amendment in the middle of the night before a vote actually takes place that will change everything around to the point that NO ONE, not even the people writing the changes, will understand all the implications.
It’s a good thing to expose the abomination that is the current bill. But what ’til we see how much worse it gets.
@ GaffaUK
Yes to education. There are plenty of people, especially on the right, that believe the federal government’s role in the education system is way too much. I for one believe it should be left to the States. One of the great things about living in the States is the ability to move to another one if things in the one your currently reside suck. (check out California and New York, leaving in droves because of taxes). Let the States deal with education and abolish the Department of Education.
The military is run by the military, for the most part. Yes, they answer to civilian politicians. For the most part though, the military is self sufficient. Only when politicians try to make military strategy do things go very badly. When politicians follow the advice of the Joint Chiefs, things seem to run pretty smoothly.
The federal government is not very good at running anything.
@MataHarley: A few clarifications.
From pg.14 ln 10:
Which is why the reference to a five year grace period, although in legal terms I believe Aye is right and the first day of Y1 is the first day of the program. Though, I can’t make heads or tails of this sentence from sec 102.b.1.A: “The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1“, so it’s up in the air.
@Aye:
As to the substance of your argument, which MataHarley has quite refuted in summary, but I’ll link into the actual bill. Here is Sec. 102.c.1 (pg. 19, line 1):
In other words, private plans that are not grandfathered in can continue to exist within the Exchange. What is the Exchange? From the House summary:
Do we have to go to Double Jeopardy or can you concede that new private plan enrollment is not explicitly banned by the bill?
@trizzlor:
Never once did I say that the bill “bans” private plan enrollment.
Again, you’re either being obtuse or you’re deliberately lying about what I have said.
@Aye Chihuahua: Trizz’s goal is like so many on the left: Not to illuminate an issue but to muddy the waters so thoroughly that most Americans throw up their hands in confusion and let Dems get away with their plan.
I’ve cited enough sources to show how damaging this bill is to the current health care freedoms Americans enjoy. Trizz has yet to present any credible sources to back up his arguments.
He’s just playing his little semantic game hoping no one notices.
triz, we may have to go thru capitalism 101 with you, I see.
No, the bill does not “ban” private insurers. What the bill does do is create a government plan to compete with a private plan.
Now ponder on this for awhile. The government plans, just like Medicare/Medicaid pay approx 62-75 cents on the dollar to doctors and hospitals for care. This does not cover their base costs, so they tack on the 25-38 cents they are losing onto the private market instead. (this is one arena for our increasing health costs, but not the only one). This bill does nothing to make up for the losses doctors and hospitals assume.
This also means there is no way that a private plan, equivalent to government plans, can compete when they are paying for services in full, *plus* making up for the loses of the government plans.
Now perhaps you’ll explain to us all what will happen when everyone moves over to the cheap government plans, and the private insurers go out of business. Just who will make up the loss from the shortage payment of services?
I’ll give you a hint… it’s the taxpayer.
Do they lay this out for the layman? Heck no… because they know they’d never go for it. So what they will accomplish is to destroy the private insurer, cut the payments and income to the hospitals and doctors. There will be fewer entering the business since they can’t make enough money to cover their expense costs… of which this bill does NOTHING, NADA, ZIP to correct.
This ain’t reform… this is disaster. Reform is lowering the expenses. And one of the first places they should start is the litigation, since E&O insurance and the battery of “unneeded” tests are all done to cover their butts in case of lawsuits. I repeat, this bill does nothing to lower the costs.. it just shafts the medical professionals and facilities with lowered pay, and starts a spiral of debt to the taxpayer that will never be able to be recouped.
Aye #40, the private insurers can enroll new people per the government plan’s criteria. The key words are “enroll in such coverage”… i.e. the old plans.
If they change any of the plans, co pays or alter plans (as most do yearly), they must then offer the government plan. And no doubt at a higher rate because they, unlike the government, will not be allowed to shaft the medical professionals and facilities. Thus they will be driven out of business because everyone will opt for the cheaper care with the template coverage.
As for the rest of the not so rosy scenario, see my above comment to triz on capitalism 101
Now, no one still addresses my burning question… i.e. is the government plan catering to the state with the most heavily regulated mandates? (i.e. MA, NY, NY, etal) They’d have to if they don’t want to roll over the 10th Amendment… yet again. This means that plans that were cheaper on one state will now have to cover more optional procedures than they used to…. which also drives their costs up.
We have private schools as an option, and their curriculum is not under control of the government. Those that are graduated must meet standardized tests for knowledge. We also have home schooling (at least for now… they’re trying to kill that too). All of these make it extremely different from a bill that is obviously constructed to create a single payer health care system… akin to no private schools and home schooling in the education realm.
And I’m not entirely convinced that public schools are constitutional anyway. Personally, I think the feds should be out of it, and it should be a state/local government endearvor, because it surely doesn’t fall in the feds power.
Military, as Mike said, is the prime purpose of the feds, along with regulating cash and intrastate/int’l trade. Even at that, we have local military in our Guard. I have no problems with them doing their constitutional duty and protecting our nation.
And yes, the government *is* so bad at running things they shouldn’t run anything but what was laid out in the Constitution. Everything else is, as far as my purist heart is concerned, an ugly web woven starting with the New Deal.
@Aye Chihuahua: If I mis-interpreted your statement – “private insurers will be prohibited from signing on new customers” to imply that the bill bans private insurers from enrolling new customers, then my apologies for this drawn-out argument. If we’re both on the same page that the bill has a system in place for individuals to purchase private plans (if they leave their job or become self-employed, for example) then you were correct all along.
@MataHarley: I think your econ 101 lesson would have to include an explanation for why so many other countries are able to offer a public option without losing the private sector. There’s no question that private health-care will have to change as a response to this: perhaps they’ll move towards luxury plans that offer niche benefits for those willing to pay more, or put more lobbying emphasis on tort reform rather than on securing regional monopolies. But the point is that private health insurance has had ample time to develop an effective solution but has instead coalesced to a model which marginalizes those that need insurance most – the need for Medicare for the elderly is a prime example of this. On a side note, while I trust your statistics, I’m curious to see how the 25-38c charge is calculated and levied – if you don’t mind posting a reference.
And since we’re talking about schools, I would like to point out that private and home-based schooling generally goes through an accreditation process (usually by the government, or a cabal of non-profits in the US) to ensure that the schools meet a minimum requirement. Even with stellar knowledge scores (SAT, GRE, etc.) it’s extremely difficult to pursue secondary education from an un-accredited school; furthermore, degree titles from unaccredited schools are illegal in many states. This doesn’t seem far off from the health-care policy.
And in the spirit of making inflammatory statements at the tail-end of a health-care discussion: I don’t really understand why it’s a matter of course that the government can monopolize, collectivize resources, and re-distribute wealth for the military but not for other facets of protecting the citizenry.
@trizzlor:
Like, Great Britian? Do you think, in four years time, there will be enough health care professionals to take on the massive increase of patients the democrats are promising to fold into the system? As long as GB has had their program, they have not been able to solve that problem. Their citizens with private insurance still have to wait or go to another country. Also, as Mata mentioned above, the government will pay a percentage of doctor fees and healthcare costs, I see a percentage of doctors going Galt if this fiasco becomes law. All this, to cover 15 million uninsured poor.
For one thing, when signing on the dotted line, our troops become property of Uncle Sam. Our government is definately not redistributing wealth in their case, they are taking care of their responsibility, honoring a contract. Also, these are the government owned citizens that are protecting the citizenry and their medical care leaves a lot to be desired.
Just wondering if you have ever had the opportunity to use the VA or a clinic or hospital on a military base. If so, perhaps you recall having to schedule appointments months from ahead and you better not miss it, then come the lines. I’ve spent hours with my father waiting in the pharmacy for his meds. When I was expecting, we weren’t allowed to even make the appointment until we were four months along. Then on appointment day, around 30 women at various stages of pregnancy were herded through a one sized fits all presentation of what to expect in the coming months, calorie intake, etc. what was good for one was good for all. We were in lines for blood work, and exams, then handed a cup and sent to the bathroom, all of us at the same time, I’ll never forget the visual and then, of course, the pharmacy thing for our vitamins.
After my first and only appointment, I went home, lived with my parents and went to my own doctor until my son was born.
But, it’s just the military, no names or faces, impersonal units that the government monopolizes, collects resources and redistributes wealth for. Kind of forgotten people until their body count can be used politically during a time of war or to politically point out that they might be getting something a private citizen isn’t. Getting back to that 15 million uninsured poor. They get the same treatment as our military, they just aren’t contributing anything for it.
Perhaps you’d better read up on the history of Medicare and Medicaid, triz… ala Truman first started banging the social medicine drum back in ’45, and two decades of battles of “no” ensued until Johnson siged them into law. And who signed up first? Truman. First enrollee. At least he had the balls to take for himself what he advocated for the rest of the nation. Big difference with this group of snobs in Congress.
A lot of this social welfare for the elderly thought originated from the Great Depression , and the seniors finding themselves broke, and with no savings. That was a time when most assistance programs were functions of the states. Thus, Roosevelt and his introduction of SS, which was to include medical care.
Considering that the government has been robbing the taxpayer each paycheck since SS’s passage, including medical benefits, why would the private sector attempt to compete with what the government as long since agreed to offer as part of their “collection” of taxes? They did, however, provide umbrella packages to pick up where Medicare left off. So your thought that they “coalesced to a model which marginalizes those that need insurance most” is entirely ill conceived. They simply did not duplicate what the government has decided to provide, funded by what they have absconded for decades.
I’ve been working, and having deductions, since I was 15 years old. Frankly, I wish they had left me all that cash, because I will only see a pittance of it returned at best, as they decide how they want to dole out that which they robbed.
Have no idea what your point is about schools. My point to Gaffa is that there are other options competitive options to public schools, and therefore not totally socialized. I also stated I believe the feds have no business in the education department, and that it’s a local/states issue. Having a relative standard of education level, without actually dabbling in education, so that there is a consistency of measurement from state to state is not my issue.
And in your spirited “inflammatory statement”, I personally have never said that I support government monopolies, collecting of resources or redistribution of wealth for anything outside of their constitutional powers to regulate treasury and organize military for national security. So if you’re looking for a “that’s okay with you, why not this?” from me, you’ll be waiting a very long time.
@Aqua
Paying taxes for the military is surely mandatory though and thus it isn’t self sufficient. Surely you can’t move from State to State and avoid paying for the military irrespective whether you agree with defence budgets or where the military are deployed. If there is so much suspiciously over the role of Federal Government – then why not have the States as seperate countries with a united military umbrella – for those States who wish to participate? I don’t think it would work as no doubt some states might not be that viable if left to their own devices. But that would be a logical conclusion for those of you who feel the Federal Government is too instrusive.
@GaffaUK: ” then why not have the States as seperate countries with a united military umbrella “
Good grief! Could you possibly stay ON TOPIC for ONCE?
@ GaffaUK
Ok, I obviously worded that wrong. Provide for the common defense is part of our constitution. And don’t even start with the general welfare, that can be explained in the Federalists Papers. Comparing paying for the common defense of the country and a national healthcare system are so completely different, it doesn’t even merit the apples and oranges defense. No one person can take responsiblity for the common defense of the country. However, each and every person can take responsibility for their own healthcare. Taking money from the people and using it to provide for defense, is one thing. Taking money from the people and deciding what healthcare they get is socialism. And I stand by my statement that the department of education is also an act in socialism. Why? The same reason. The government claims it is giving money to the States for the purposes of education the people. Well, the government doesn’t have any money, it’s ours. So, taking our money and giving it back to us is like me taking your lawnmower and giving it to your neighbor. Your neighbor thinks I’m da bomb, you on the other hand think I suck.
Same thing with healthcare. Taking my money and giving it to someone else, no matter the reason, is socialist. We have safety nets in place. Instead of using those nets correctly, the democrats constantly use them for social engineering to prop up their voting base. When Obama wanted SCHIP passed, the democrats made republicans out to be monsters. Well, they passed a bill that would cover families making up to $83,000 a year, even if they had private health insurance. They also allowed illegal immigrants to be covered under SCHIP.
@Aqua
In regard to illegal immigrants – I think they should get squat except transport back to the border or nearest airport.
Personally I would like to pay as little tax as possible and decide how I should spend it. Yet of course there are practicalities – where putting money into a pool makes more sense. Defence is one such thing – as I believe is education and health. Now I’m not talking about the Dem’s healthplan specifically. Nor do I think private schooling or health should somehow be outlawed.
But it seems there are many who are more concerned about purely protecting their own healthplans than even seeing that it’s a problem when of the one of the world’s most richest nation even can’t provide basic medical insurance for one-sixth of it’s population. Do you really believe health should be optional? And irrespective whether the US federal government or whether the States individually organise education – do believe schooling should be optional?
@ GaffaUK
You’re probably right, a lot of people do want to protect their healthcare plan. So, why shouldn’t they get to keep it without being penalized for having a good healthcare plan. You have to understand, to democrats, some pigs are more equal than others. The unions will get a free pass on all of this. And union healthcare plans are typically the best out there, bar none. But, if you’re a big business and you don’t have a union, but still provide your employees with great healthcare, you’re just greedy. Double standard? Hell yes. I personally believe we need some reform to the current system. I’m not happy with my healthcare plan. I pay a lot of money for some very basic services. But I work for a small company and the pool is very shallow. I’m not saying I don’t have a choice here, I could go work for a larger company if I so chose. The republicans have a couple of great ideas that are being tossed into the trash by the dems. Allowing association would help small businesses ban together to form a larger pool. Also, they have a way to help those that want insurance but can’t afford it get it. Most of that would come from fraud savings. There is currently 3% fraud in medicare and medicade. Compare that will insurance companies and credit card companies that have about .03% fraud. The best plan for reforming healthcare in my opinion is to keep what works and reform what doesn’t. Oh and that one-sixth number is bogus. Some of the younger generation chooses not to be insured, even if they can afford it. And the illegals are lumped into that number as well, because they use the emergency rooms and that is how they arrive at that number. They also count those that are temporarily without insurance because of a job change. That is something that needs to be reformed. Portability is something that should be a must.
@Aqua: I was watching Sen. John Kyl on Fox News Sunday yesterday. He pointed out a great number of ideas that Republicans had put forward to make health care more affordable and accessible. Every one of them was shot down by Democrats in party line votes.
The reason? The GOP ideas were market centered and didn’t involve large new government programs with control in Washington.
@ Mike’s America
Reply
I saw that too. The most interesting and most telling amendment the republicans put forward that the democrats shot down was, no matter what else you do in the healthcare reform bill, promise you won’t ration care.
@Aqua
I think the number is technically correct – as good as you can get to an accurate level. However you are right insomuch that it is more complicated.
Check out the below where this guy did an estimated breakdown.
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/
Discounting those covered by Medicare, non-citizens and those who can afford health insurance but choose not to take it there at least 15.6 million who are uninsured. I’m not sure why the 18-34 should be left to guard for themselves just because they are younger. Don’t young people get ill? So that still MILLIONS of people without insurance in a rich country. Also it has 9.3 million non-citizens included – it’s not clear whether these are illegal or not. I would imagine they are legal and surely those who pay taxes and are legal should also qualify? I certainly agree that illegal immigrants should not be covered unlike some.
I’m sure the GOP has put forward some good ideas and I’m not praising the specifics of the Dem’s plan – but has the GOP put forward any plan where health insurance is mandatory? I think health should be like car insurance – mandatory. Of course if you don’t agree with car insurance you don’t have to buy a car – but you can’t really avoid living. Nethertheless there are some serious issues like schooling & healthcare which are so basic that need to be covered.
They keep calling this “reform” of the health care system, but nearly everything I’ve heard and read on this seems to be mostly about the creation of a universal government health insurance system, with almost nothing about how they will reform health care. There is nothing about capping malpractice attorney fees. There is almost nothing said about reigning in health care insurance or patient bill gouging (AKA. padding) by clinics, hospitals etc. and all the other typical less than honest billing practices. It all seems to be about insuring that health care providers will have a guaranteed payer (the taxpayers) and for the most part keeping the current health care provider status-quo. (except for the stick-it-to private insurers regulations). It does nothing to create more health care system workers (which will be desperately needed to provide all this health care, else it can only create de-facto rationing of healthcare). And it totally ignores addressing the current illegal immigrant non-payment problem.
And besides all this, consider just how “affordable”, “effective” and “patient thoughtful” the current Medicare, Medicaid and VA programs are (All sarcasm intended.)
Looking at those three systems. Is it any wonder that the general public doesn’t believe all the Obama/Far-left/MSM hype? What is truly ludicrous is the claim that all this can be done without adding to the deficit. Who honestly believes that BS?
@suek This is the official definition of “Resident Alien”: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc851.html
@ditto: Good point about Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. Who would want MORE of that?
Yes, the VA is so terrible that it’s consistently ranked higher in patient satisfaction over private care. I’m sure many of you are familiar with VA care, but a big part of the reason they do so well is because they have nearly life-long enrollment from a very early age and actually have incentive for preventive care. If you really want to see rationing, read this article on private contractors getting denied health-care after Iraq and compare that to veteran care:
@trizzlor #74
What do you expect the Secretary of the VA to say in a VA press release? I would bet you’ve never even been inside a VA Hospital, or talked with the patients or staff members. Oh, and I can give links too:
Problems at VA treatment sites persist
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/11/two_years_later_problems_at_va_treatment_sites_persist/
American Legion criticizes VA treatment of soldiers wounded in Iraq, Afghanistan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868458/posts
After 58 years at their Ninth Avenue site, construction on a long-awaited VA facility in Aurora will thankfully begin in June.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_11954782
Waits Grow at San Diego VA Hospital
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2007/may/09/waits-grow-at-san-diego-va-hospital/
Veterans wait to see if VA will pay for endoscopic errors
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090703/NEWS01/907030350/-1/ARCHIVE01/Veterans+wait+to+see++if+VA+will+pay+for+endoscopic+errors
Veterans hospitals play by own rules
http://www.mississippiwebsite.com/va_article.htm
Doctor says VA hospital has 18-month backlog on some surgeries
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/05/09/news/top_stories/12_00_795_8_07.txt
VA hospital in Salisbury may end surgery, ER
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/355442.html
Arizona Veterans Navigate a Medical Maze
http://mitchell.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=81
More Veterans Come Forward Reporting Medical Malpractice
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/veterans-complaints.html
At V.A. hospital, a rogue cancer unit
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31470106/
Told to wait, a Marine dies
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/11/told_to_wait_a_marine_dies/
Walter Reed hospital scandal ‘hits at the heartstrings of America’
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/06/MNG71OG4NQ1.DTL
Army secretary quits in wake of hospital scandal
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/02/army.secretary/index.html
‘It Is Just Not Walter Reed’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007030401394.html
Human experiments scandal at Arkansas VA hospital unearthed
http://southernstudies.org/2008/08/human-experiments-scandal-at-arkansas.html
Veterans Malpractice: Will More Money Help?
http://blog.worldvillage.com/business/veterans_malpractice_will_more_money_help.html
And don’t forget this one: Obama Admin Backs Off Making Vets Pay for VA Treatment
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/03/obama-admin-backs-off-making-vets-pay-for-va-treatment.html