188 replies to this topic

[SmartMoney]

Logically thinking, if the 43 Dems couldn't support this bill, why would any REP be supportive?

Exactly.

Let the lawsuits begin!!!

Thank God for lawsuits nowadays...

[SacKen]

Well, why don't you ask Mitt Romney? It's basically his plan.

And I will add, thank God Mitt did the right thing in Massachusetts... it is probably my sister's only hope to have health care.

I keep hearing this excuse, and I fail to see how. Granted, I have never read the actual plan that Mitt Romney presented, but I don't remember his plan (or what is in Massachusetts) having all the other B.S. in it that has nothing to do with getting health care for people. The insurance market concept is such a negligible part of the current legislation that I wouldn't say they are anywhere NEAR the same if that is the key comparison that you are considering here. Not to mention that the market concept is not what people have a problem with.

[SacKen]

...
SacKen

"It's the manner in which it is being done that is in question."

Let's see . . . 43 Dems voted against it.
Not one Republican voted for it.
Seems like there was more arm twisting from the GOP if you ask me.
If we took a vote on motherhood and apple pie, there would still be a few
kooks (1-2%) who would vote against it for some oddball reason.
But 178 out of 178?! You know they would crucify any who thought for themselves.

Im curious, have you actually read what is in the bill? Or are you another one that is supporting it on principle and not content?

The vote buying, bribing, threats, backdoor tactics, etc., used to get this through are not the only "manner" I have an issue with. It's how this bill is, essentially, regulation, arm-twisting and punishment for insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment companies, successful business people.... I could go on and on.

I am actually having a very hard time finding things in the bill that actually REDUCE the cost of health care. Not health insurance for the "poor", but the root cause: health care. If anything, all the taxes and limitations they are imposing on the actual care providers and manufacturers will INCREASE health care.

[SacKen]

There is a section in the bill called, SUBTITLE A – EDUCATION. Can anyone please tell me what any of these additional expenses have to do with making sure everyone has access to affordable health care? It has nuggets in there like:

Sec. 1501. TAA for communities. Appropriates $500 Million a year for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 in the Community College and Career Training Grant program for community colleges to develop and improve educational or career training programs. Ensures that each state receives at least 0.5 percent of the total funds appropriated.


Section 2102. Student Financial Assistance. This section provides $13.5 billion in mandatory appropriations to the Federal Pell Grant program.


Section 2214. Income‐Based Repayment. The section amends the Income‐Based Repayment program to cap student loan payments for new borrowers after July 1, 2014 to 10% of adjusted income, from 15% percent, and to forgive remaining balances after 20 years of repayment, from 25 years.


And my personal favorite:

Section 2104. Investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. This section amends section 371(b) of the Higher Education Act by extending funding for programs under this section created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 for programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority‐serving institutions through 2019, including programs that help low‐income students attain degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering or mathematics by the following annual amounts: $100 million to Hispanic Serving Institutions, $85 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Predominantly Black Institutions, $30 million to Tribal Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Alaska, Hawaiian Native Institutions, $5 million to Asian American and Pacific Islander Institutions, and $5 million to Native American non‐tribal serving institutions.

[SmartMoney]

20 ways ObamaScam will take away our freedoms:

http://www.investors...capitalhill.htm

[UncleVinny]

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 13% of Republican support health care reform.
If 178 Republicans voted on the issue, statistically, you'd expect about 23 to vote for it.
By voting as a block, 13% of their members are disenfranchised.

Ken,
Good points, but you are missing the big picture.
For years the way it has worked is that:

"insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment companies, successful business people" made so much profits, they paid some of their windfall to the politicians to keep that golden goose alive. Just look at their profits in the past few years.

This legislation favors the consumers instead of the profits of the large corporations.
It levels the playing field. Why should execs get $$ Billions while medical costs
approach 20% for Americans? (When its only 10% in other countries).

Besides . . . I KNOW the people here on the forum are intelligent and articulate.
Is it so bad that some portion of our population wants to focus on one of the
BASICS of life - that we are taken care of physically? Why be so begrudging
of of a policy that improves the lives of our fellow citizens? Is that so bad an ideal?

[The Average Joe]

"Well, why don't you ask Mitt Romney? It's basically his plan. smile.gif

And I will add, thank God Mitt did the right thing in Massachusetts... it is probably my sister's only hope to have health care. "

Oh, you mean the plan that is bankrupting Mass.? The one that was seriously underestimated on costs?

For the state's policymakers, rapidly rising health-care costs are the central problem with the plan. Since 2006, the cost of the state's insurance program has increased by 42 percent, or almost $600 million. According to an analysis by the Rand Corporation, "in the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state's gross domestic product (GDP)."

The system in place has done little or nothing to control insurance costs. The State has the highest insurance premiums in the Nation and among the fastest rising.

Meanwhile, the cost of insurance premiums in the state is the highest in the nation, and double-digit rate hikes are expected again in 2010.

There is bipartisan concern about the future of the program from advocates of a single payer to libertarians.

The worry, shared across the political spectrum, is that the state's health-care spending will overwhelm the state's budget. Already, it has forced service cuts that have irked those on both sides of the aisle.

Physicians for a National Health Plan, a doctor's group that supports a fully socialized, single-payer health-care system, warned in a February 2009 report that the new system had failed to reduce medical spending, and has subsequently drawn funding away from crucial health resources such as emergency room care.

Michael Tanner, a health policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute notes that huge deficits and skyrocketing public expenses already have resulted an increased cigarette tax of $1 a pack, as well as $89 million in new fees on the health-care industry.

Wait til we get similar results on a national scale...

SacKen, we're on the same page. I posted links to the same material recently. Yes, what exactly does nationalizing the student loan industry have to do with reigning in health costs?

And finally Vinny, Why be so begrudging
of of a policy that improves the lives of our fellow citizens? Is that so bad an ideal?

No, it is not a bad ideal. The policy isn't necessarily bad, but the implementation and the details of the plan are an EPIC FAIL! Entitlements are already bankrupting the nation, and this is just going to get us there oh, so much faster.

[bordercolliefan]

I keep hearing this excuse, and I fail to see how. Granted, I have never read the actual plan that Mitt Romney presented, but I don't remember his plan (or what is in Massachusetts) having all the other B.S. in it that has nothing to do with getting health care for people. The insurance market concept is such a negligible part of the current legislation that I wouldn't say they are anywhere NEAR the same if that is the key comparison that you are considering here. Not to mention that the market concept is not what people have a problem with.

Do you understand the Massachusetts plan? Since my sister is using it, I am quite familiar with it.

It has a universal mandate, just like the new federal bill. It has penalties for non-compliance, just like the new federal bill. It has subsidies for people who can't afford health insurance, just like the new federal bill. And it has a health insurance exchange, for people who have trouble finding insurance.

So what exactly is your point? It sounds like you just weren't very familiar with the Massachusetts plan.

I will repeat, it is a godsend for my sister, who is not offered health insurance through her employer and would not be able to afford it on her own.

[bordercolliefan]

And by the way, yes, I agree with jbailey that cost control is a huge concern that is not adequately addressed by the new legislation.

We must continue to ask ourselves: how does the U.K./France/Switzerland provide universal health care at 50% of the cost per capita that the U.S. incurs, and still have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality?????

I think I know the answer.

[Robert Giacometti]

And by the way, yes, I agree with jbailey that cost control is a huge concern that is not adequately addressed by the new legislation.

We must continue to ask ourselves: how does the U.K./France/Switzerland provide universal health care at 50% of the cost per capita that the U.S. incurs, and still have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality?????

I think I know the answer.

Maybe they have strict tort laws that don't overburden their businesses and public agencies with frivolous lawsuits driving up the costs of everything?

If we are asking ourselves questions how about this one, whenever a prominent forgein official needs healthcare services preformed, do they go to the U.K./France/ Switzerland or do they come to the USA?

[Chris]

Do you understand the Massachusetts plan? Since my sister is using it, I am quite familiar with it.

Here's from 2008...

• Overall uninsured rate dropped from 13% to 7%
• 355,000 newly insured
• 92,000 did not sign up for health insurance and face a $219 tax penalty that rises to over $900 in 2008
• 60,000 were exempt from the health insurance mandate for their low incomes
• The plan cost Bay State taxpayers $869 million this year, $150 million or 21% over the original budget

....and I think now the cost overruns for 2009 were 42%. Run a company project and go over budget by 42% and see if you still have a job....! I also read that many businesses left the state and set up across the border to avoid the new tax on them. What's better, a job with little to no health benefits or no job at all....? This is something you "progressives" never think about, the actual result and human reaction to your policies. Chris

[uberman]

single payer is just a stones throw down the road...all it takes is backbreaking legislation that puts the insurance industry in a losing position and walaa...government run health care...

That day can't come too soon. The health care industry is a joke there are certain industries which simply shouldn't be for profit, health care included. When middle-aged men who have been paying into their health plans for decades are suddenly dropped a few days after being diagnosed with cancer, there's something wrong with the system.

It's an embarrassment to this country that we don't already have single payer universal health care, it's a further embarrassment that it took 100 years for this legislation to get through.

[uberman]

[The Average Joe]

"We must continue to ask ourselves: how does the U.K./France/Switzerland provide universal health care at 50% of the cost per capita that the U.S. incurs, and still have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality?????"


I have answered this in detail before, so I will simply gloss over the salient points.

The reason they are able to commit more towards socialist programs is that WE bear the burden of being the military policeman for the world. they spend 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount of GDP that we do on military because they know we will take care of the "messy business" wherever and whenever it arises. That leaves abig surplus for "extras." They also aren't paying ridiculous amounts of interest on debt (700 billion last year, which would have funded health care and many other programs).

The statistics on longer life and infant mortality are not quite red herrings, but they are misleading. If you take out auto accidents and violence (neither of which relate to health care), they are not 'better than us."
Also, the way infant mortality stats are calculated skews against us. We save babies that would die at birth in other countries. unfortunately, many of these don't survive more than a week or two, but since they were born alive, they count for infant mortality stats. if we didn't go to such heroic measures to save these babies that would have been dead otherwise, our stats would be much better.

Statistics can lead you to inaccurate conclusions if you don't have all the information...something to consider whenever you are given "hot topic" stats...