• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care Bill has passed

Mystery21 said:
This country is slowly decreasing in power and economy wise, you might not be able to reconize it now but after Obama's term it will take alot to reconstruct it back to what it was.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Some people just don't listen. :roll:
 
I just have a few questions about this bill...

First, Is it true that this bill has originated in the senate?
 
BmanMcfly said:
I just have a few questions about this bill...

First, Is it true that this bill has originated in the senate?
Click to expand...

Yes, the first resolution was the Senate bill. The third resolution was the reconciliation bill, which goes to the Senate. If the reconciliation bill passes the Senate, then the provisions in that bill become law, as they supersede the earlier bill.
 
Last edited:
Bassman said:
Did somebody say "TAX REVOLT"??
Click to expand...

Chuz Life said:
You and me Bass,...

We can make that happen.

Count me in.
Click to expand...

I fully support you doing this, and I suggest you notify the IRS of your intentions so they don't think you're some kind of chicken. I hear they respect that kind of courage.
 
Lil Bush and his lot had at am minimum 6 years to do something, they merely sat on their respective hands and did diddly squat.

It was essential that Health Care reform was enacted, it still is, whether obmacare is the answer I have no idea, I doubt anyone else does either.

Businesses going out of business? not going to happen, they will adjust, they have in other Country's where Government has enforced Health care reforms, they will in the USA.

Country going to be bankrupted?

Shucks, it already is.

I dislike obama and his bully boys, but at least he has had the guts to do something.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I certainly agree with the efficiency angle, but I don't think that overspending is that simple. The entire structure needs to be looked at. In some areas, employment needs to be cut. In others, it needs to be INCREASED.

And I do not agree with timeframes for benefits to expire; to me, a solid set of parameters for them to continue needs to be developed, and then needs to be re-evaluated from time to time by professionals. My brother is on SSD, and they handle his case VERY efficiently.
Click to expand...
All true, I was intentionally keeping it simple as a starting point. Louisiana has overhired in various agencies for years and the bill is past due, we are in a cutting period for non-essential government employees ourselves, I do agree it's a structure due for a complete overhaul. As for the timeframe argument there are potentially better options, that I'll concede. What I think needs to happen with re-evaluations is an establishment of some effort towards recipient independence where possible. If someone is permanently disabled or if they cannot be reasonably found otherwise to be capable of providing for themselves for a very narrow array of factors, I see no problem with them drawing on services.


I agree with this, but it needs to go MUCH further than that. Insurance companies use every loophole imaginable to NOT pay the provider, and to make it more difficult for the patient. These abuses must be addressed, and the fraud laws won't cover them.
Click to expand...
There are good and bad companies, the most abuse I've seen or heard about from the private sector was in certain group policies and HMO's, although individual insurance in the form of indemnity insurance(which is outdated, these should be outlawed) have happened. I will say there was a h.i. company I worked for a total of 4 days, I was physically ill at the end of my tenure there. They sold the big promise of a model where I had a desk, shot at management, and could retain independence. All lies, they did not offer flexibility in sales technique and prefered the "sell hard and misrepresent" approach and had multiple policy loopholes created in the contract, however these companies are not the standard, they are the exception. I think though we could agree, close the loopholes and hold insurance providers to the ethics standards absolutely.
It's not fraud when the insurance company repeatedly tells you that you are sending the authorization to the wrong fax number... and they have 16 fax numbers. These kinds of abuses need to be regulated right out, with reforms that force the insurance companies to use some sort of standard or centralized system.
Click to expand...
Ah, the departmental shuffle, this happens with many big financial companies, including creditors, insurers, banks, etc. Actually, pretty much every big corp. I will agree it's annoying, but will also say it is due to departmental incompetence and not necessarily misrepresentation. Trust me, if you don't have a direct line to a high ranking mid to upper manager your day will be ruined trying to put out a fire, been there, done that. One of the biggest problems with departmental incompetence is that everyone wants to show the person above them they can do the next level job when actually they can't even do their own correctly, the misinformation and misdirection is frustrating.........especially when you have a client ready to physically harm you for the company's mistake.





Most doctors I know that have left the field have left because of malpractice insurance costs, or poor or lack of insurance reimbursement. I haven't heard that regulations are the issue at all, these days.
Click to expand...
It could be a regional thing, Louisiana doctors that left at the time left because of state regs, but all of those things ballooned their mpi costs, and reimbursement from medicare, not specifically insurance companies here.



I don't, but you're right... we'll have to wait.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna watch the market when I get time tomorrow. I see one of two things happening. Either the market will spike tomorrow because something finally was decided and people will be speculating on the gains the health insurers will see because of the mandates or the market will go into full blown collapse mode. If the former happens we will see a huge bubble that will burst beyond anything we've seen in our lifetimes as more things are added or if the latter happens the market will blip along with minor spikes on occasion but will never fully recover, and in fact recede as things are added. Hate to be the pessimist here, but these are the only two economic possibilities I see with this bill.





Staff shortages I absolutely agree with and I agree with CYA costs. I think regulatory compliance cost are problematic, but because they are not efficient or do not address the real issues. I'd like to see more regulation, but more efficient regulation... which would probably mean some regulations cut.
Click to expand...
I think we're in agreement but hanging on the general idea of regulation. I would probably be a libertarian if I could trust everyone, knowing some people would jeapordize their own mother to save a buck I can see the merit of having appropriate regulations. Where the end and beginning of such is I am more than happy to discuss.
 
Last edited:
I have made it no secret that I preferred an incremental approach to the problems of health care insurance in this country. Vastly preferred in fact. I think doing too much at once means too many things can go wrong.

With the above said, I still support and approve passing this bill. The problem with reform is we all have ideas on how to do it, and if we all hold out for our plan, nothing gets reformed. I think the situation in this country in regards to health care and health care insurance is too important to just keep doing nothing. This bill has things I would rather not have(yet), and does not have some things I do think are needed. The problem is that if it is not done now, nothing is probably what will be done, and for some time, until the problem is much worse and harder to solve.

I am glad it passed, though far from ecstatic. As some one kinda in the middle on health care, the thing I most note about this process to this point is how sad the debate has been. Lies have been perpetrated by those of both sides, and exaggerations, which leave most people with no real knowledge to really base an opinion on. Protesters on both sides have been "astroturfed", have been offensive(nazi references are really not needed), and have put winning over everything. Rhetoric has been high, reasoned debate rarely happening. Too many people have seen this as a sport, pulling for their team and finding humor in the efforts of those who really are trying to make their country better, either by supporting or opposing the bill. It's not a sport, it's much to important for that.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, the first resolution was the Senate bill. The third resolution was the reconciliation bill, which goes to the Senate. If the reconciliation bill passes the Senate, then the provisions in that bill become law, as they supersede the earlier bill.
Click to expand...

So, the house did not have a vote on this specific bill then?

Now, you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong here... but if this is the case, isn't this an invalid law because it didn't go through the proper constitutional process?

If that happens to be the case. what would the implications be of such a precedent?

Also, if what I've heard is correct, how is this being framed as being a proper process of making new laws??

If I'm wrong then disregard... but at least explaonm... thanks.
 
The true battle will begin when the States reject the Socialist/Marxist Obama agenda.

It could lead to more problems and divisions than have been seen since 1861.

Over 20 States have talked about refusing to go along and with the vast majority of the PEOPLE saying no this, Obama may find he is the cause of something more than even he and his minions bargained for.

Some Texans are looking for a reason/excuse for cessation and just the serious consideration will be awful.

This Phony Health Plan along with the needless waste of money on it along with the equally PHONY reasons for Car and Trade may be the start of the resurrection of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it
Click to expand...

Forcing this on an unwilling majority the way it has been done with lies and bribery threats and intimidation falls into the quote I just cited.

I hope that cooler heads prevail until the Nov. elections when we have a chance to correct the massive errors that have just taken place.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
 
LaMidRighter said:
All true, I was intentionally keeping it simple as a starting point. Louisiana has overhired in various agencies for years and the bill is past due, we are in a cutting period for non-essential government employees ourselves, I do agree it's a structure due for a complete overhaul. As for the timeframe argument there are potentially better options, that I'll concede. What I think needs to happen with re-evaluations is an establishment of some effort towards recipient independence where possible. If someone is permanently disabled or if they cannot be reasonably found otherwise to be capable of providing for themselves for a very narrow array of factors, I see no problem with them drawing on services.
Click to expand...

I would agree with most of what you say here, though, I still say in some cases MORE hiring increases efficiency. And the factors that determine if one can continue to receive benefits would be somewhat more liberal from me than from you, I would imagine.


There are good and bad companies, the most abuse I've seen or heard about from the private sector was in certain group policies and HMO's, although individual insurance in the form of indemnity insurance(which is outdated, these should be outlawed) have happened. I will say there was a h.i. company I worked for a total of 4 days, I was physically ill at the end of my tenure there. They sold the big promise of a model where I had a desk, shot at management, and could retain independence. All lies, they did not offer flexibility in sales technique and prefered the "sell hard and misrepresent" approach and had multiple policy loopholes created in the contract, however these companies are not the standard, they are the exception. I think though we could agree, close the loopholes and hold insurance providers to the ethics standards absolutely.
Click to expand...

One thing I automatically disagree with. Eliminate HMOs and bring back indemnity policies to EVERYONE. These are by far the easiest policies to deal with, both as a provider and as a patient.

And since I deal exclusively with group plans as a provider, I can tell you without hesitation that they ALL suck. I would LOVE to see some outside regulatory group, one made up of providers and consumers create a set of ethics and standards for the insurance industry, and then have the "bite" to enforce it.

Ah, the departmental shuffle, this happens with many big financial companies, including creditors, insurers, banks, etc. Actually, pretty much every big corp. I will agree it's annoying, but will also say it is due to departmental incompetence and not necessarily misrepresentation. Trust me, if you don't have a direct line to a high ranking mid to upper manager your day will be ruined trying to put out a fire, been there, done that. One of the biggest problems with departmental incompetence is that everyone wants to show the person above them they can do the next level job when actually they can't even do their own correctly, the misinformation and misdirection is frustrating.........especially when you have a client ready to physically harm you for the company's mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. It goes WAY beyond simple departmental incompetence. It's intentional. It happens far too often for it not to be. In actuality, this is like a gnat on the windshield. The worst is when I tell a reviewer that my client is suicidal and they want to deny authorization anyway because they don't see the reason for continued care. YES. I've heard that more than once. In some cases, I've gotten nasty with the reviewer (my favorite line is, "when you actually SEE this patient to make the determination, then I will give your opinion credence. Until then, I do not"... it doesn't make me friends with them, but sometimes it gets me what I need), I've had the subscriber call the insurance company, or the client has either had to pay out of pocket or discontinue treatment. This is the kind of abuse... simple abuse for the sake of greed that needs to stop.

It could be a regional thing, Louisiana doctors that left at the time left because of state regs, but all of those things ballooned their mpi costs, and reimbursement from medicare, not specifically insurance companies here.
Click to expand...

Must be regional. Different here.



I'm gonna watch the market when I get time tomorrow. I see one of two things happening. Either the market will spike tomorrow because something finally was decided and people will be speculating on the gains the health insurers will see because of the mandates or the market will go into full blown collapse mode. If the former happens we will see a huge bubble that will burst beyond anything we've seen in our lifetimes as more things are added or if the latter happens the market will blip along with minor spikes on occasion but will never fully recover, and in fact recede as things are added. Hate to be the pessimist here, but these are the only two economic possibilities I see with this bill.
Click to expand...

I agree with the slight bubble. I think the market will then right itself. I don't foresee any major economic changes at this juncture.

I think we're in agreement but hanging on the general idea of regulation. I would probably be a libertarian if I could trust everyone, knowing some people would jeapordize their own mother to save a buck I can see the merit of having appropriate regulations. Where the end and beginning of such is I am more than happy to discuss.
Click to expand...

The example you just gave is precisely why I could NEVER be a libertarian. Human nature contradicts the libertarian position. As it does the socialist position.

Ultimately, this is the problem with the idiots in Washington. They are extremists. You and I are not so alike, politically, though we find a lot of agreement in our perceptions of healthcare. Some fine tuning, for sure, but a lot of agreement. Unfortunately, it's the extremists that are both running the show and yelling the loudest.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I would agree with most of what you say here, though, I still say in some cases MORE hiring increases efficiency. And the factors that determine if one can continue to receive benefits would be somewhat more liberal from me than from you, I would imagine.
Click to expand...
I agree with more hiring in very specific instances, if a CBA(cost/benefit analysis) was to be done comprehensively and all factors included, I could be happy with a situational readjustment. On the recipient side, I might surprise you. Again, it's to get numbers to acceptable levels and make sure only people who demonstrably need permanent assistance stay permanent and that those who need temporary assistance are better off than when they started. I am not opposed to treating safety nets as investments, having tuition extensions for instance if someone wanted to go to an institution of higher learning, or otherwise was trying to improve themselves to become tax payers instead of tax consumers.




One thing I automatically disagree with. Eliminate HMOs and bring back indemnity policies to EVERYONE. These are by far the easiest policies to deal with, both as a provider and as a patient.

And since I deal exclusively with group plans as a provider, I can tell you without hesitation that they ALL suck. I would LOVE to see some outside regulatory group, one made up of providers and consumers create a set of ethics and standards for the insurance industry, and then have the "bite" to enforce it.
Click to expand...
Indemnity works about 30 years ago, they probably would be pretty good for a situation such as yours now that I think of it, but for hospitalization they are horrid, especially the one I worked for. There are bodies of professionals in the insurance industry that do a fantastic job, but unfortunately only in an advisory role, such as the Million Dollar Round Table, LIMRA, etc. They probably should have teeth though.



I don't agree. It goes WAY beyond simple departmental incompetence. It's intentional. It happens far too often for it not to be. In actuality, this is like a gnat on the windshield. The worst is when I tell a reviewer that my client is suicidal and they want to deny authorization anyway because they don't see the reason for continued care. YES. I've heard that more than once. In some cases, I've gotten nasty with the reviewer (my favorite line is, "when you actually SEE this patient to make the determination, then I will give your opinion credence. Until then, I do not"... it doesn't make me friends with them, but sometimes it gets me what I need), I've had the subscriber call the insurance company, or the client has either had to pay out of pocket or discontinue treatment. This is the kind of abuse... simple abuse for the sake of greed that needs to stop.
Click to expand...
Ah, your example is definitely willfull. There was a company I used to use as an independent but no longer go through because they were just stupid, nice people, but stupid. Everyone wanted more authority and would waste time trying to use the limited amount they had for client problems, often they would do the exact opposite of what needed to be done and it would then take twice as long to un**** it, that wasn't willfull incompetence, they were just out of their league.









I agree with the slight bubble. I think the market will then right itself. I don't foresee any major economic changes at this juncture.
Click to expand...
The problem I've noticed with market correction is it always hurts, I think this will be a super bubble and will hurt for longer. But time will tell.



The example you just gave is precisely why I could NEVER be a libertarian. Human nature contradicts the libertarian position. As it does the socialist position.

Ultimately, this is the problem with the idiots in Washington. They are extremists. You and I are not so alike, politically, though we find a lot of agreement in our perceptions of healthcare. Some fine tuning, for sure, but a lot of agreement. Unfortunately, it's the extremists that are both running the show and yelling the loudest.
Click to expand...
In full agreement here Cap.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I agree with more hiring in very specific instances, if a CBA(cost/benefit analysis) was to be done comprehensively and all factors included, I could be happy with a situational readjustment. On the recipient side, I might surprise you. Again, it's to get numbers to acceptable levels and make sure only people who demonstrably need permanent assistance stay permanent and that those who need temporary assistance are better off than when they started. I am not opposed to treating safety nets as investments, having tuition extensions for instance if someone wanted to go to an institution of higher learning, or otherwise was trying to improve themselves to become tax payers instead of tax consumers.
Click to expand...

I can agree with pretty much everything you say here... and the last bit about tuition extensions is something that I have often professed. Be careful... it's quite the progressive position. ;)




Indemnity works about 30 years ago, they probably would be pretty good for a situation such as yours now that I think of it, but for hospitalization they are horrid, especially the one I worked for. There are bodies of professionals in the insurance industry that do a fantastic job, but unfortunately only in an advisory role, such as the Million Dollar Round Table, LIMRA, etc. They probably should have teeth though.
Click to expand...

When I worked at a hospital (15 years ago), indemnity policies were the gold standard. Patients who had them never had to worry about treatment being cut or problems with payments. Indemnity policies, to me, are still the gold standard. Easy, great coverage, and no insurance company interaction. Why have they been phased out? Two reasons, but both are from the same animal: GREED. Insurance companies found that by using HMOs they could control things far better. They could cut coverage, cut authorizations, cut services, and make things all around more difficult for providers and subscribers in the hope that if things are difficult enough, people will just give up. However, providers are not blameless. Over billing, double billing, fraudulent billing, and keeping a patient for longer than necessary milked the insurance industry. Change needed to happen What I would like to see would be indemnity policies with provider reviews. The reviews, however, are based solely on the recommendations of the provider. Back in the day, there were no reviews at all. This is where the problems occurred. Now, the reviews are insurance company driven, not provider driven. If the provider can show medical need, then there should be no issue. Nowadays, this is not always the case.



Ah, your example is definitely willfull. There was a company I used to use as an independent but no longer go through because they were just stupid, nice people, but stupid. Everyone wanted more authority and would waste time trying to use the limited amount they had for client problems, often they would do the exact opposite of what needed to be done and it would then take twice as long to un**** it, that wasn't willfull incompetence, they were just out of their league.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I just think it's flat out greed and being after the bottomline, regardless of the service you provide.

The problem I've noticed with market correction is it always hurts, I think this will be a super bubble and will hurt for longer. But time will tell.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will be super bubble. We'll have to wait and see.

In full agreement here Cap.
Click to expand...

I figured. I should see if I can get Obama and Congress to log onto DP. If they did, they might actually find out how to REALLY solve some of this country's woes.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I can agree with pretty much everything you say here... and the last bit about tuition extensions is something that I have often professed. Be careful... it's quite the progressive position. ;)
Click to expand...
I look at it this way, no one will have a consensus of people willing to eliminate safety nets, and even then, we cannot do it without massive economic damage and societal upheaval, so the only other option is to tame the beast in an intelligent way.



When I worked at a hospital (15 years ago), indemnity policies were the gold standard. Patients who had them never had to worry about treatment being cut or problems with payments. Indemnity policies, to me, are still the gold standard. Easy, great coverage, and no insurance company interaction. Why have they been phased out? Two reasons, but both are from the same animal: GREED. Insurance companies found that by using HMOs they could control things far better. They could cut coverage, cut authorizations, cut services, and make things all around more difficult for providers and subscribers in the hope that if things are difficult enough, people will just give up. However, providers are not blameless. Over billing, double billing, fraudulent billing, and keeping a patient for longer than necessary milked the insurance industry. Change needed to happen What I would like to see would be indemnity policies with provider reviews. The reviews, however, are based solely on the recommendations of the provider. Back in the day, there were no reviews at all. This is where the problems occurred. Now, the reviews are insurance company driven, not provider driven. If the provider can show medical need, then there should be no issue. Nowadays, this is not always the case.
Click to expand...
I would like to see that as well, and adding a review board to indemnity would be a fantastic idea, but costs must be controlled and brought back to reasonable levels for that to work. Here's to hoping we can get some common sense back in all forms of healthcare in the future, I don't like this bill, but the horizon is unknown right now.




Perhaps. I just think it's flat out greed and being after the bottomline, regardless of the service you provide.
Click to expand...
It's a perspective thing, we have differing experiences, so I'll leave it at that. Although I will concede that the greed point could be applied to those individuals I dealt with as well, no one should ever put a promotion or profit over satisfying a customer, it's bad business.



I don't think it will be super bubble. We'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
It's really all we can do right now.



I figured. I should see if I can get Obama and Congress to log onto DP. If they did, they might actually find out how to REALLY solve some of this country's woes.
Click to expand...
Good luck, although it appears they'd get flamed pretty badly at the moment.
 
danarhea said:
I don't have a link yet. It just happened. Will provide a link as soon as one is available.

The next bill to be voted on is the Reconciliation bill.

EDIT: Link is here.

The way I see it, Republicans should not have gone down the road of misrepresentations and attacks. IMHO, this is what killed their attempts to stop this bill, which I agree is bad. Also, IMHO, the Tea Partiers are an albatross around the neck of the GOP, and tonight's vote is proof of that.

Will post the results of the Reconciliation vote in this thread, just as soon as they come in.
Click to expand...

I'm coming into this rather late so I don't even know if my voice will be heard in the heated debate.

I am disappointed with the uneven-handedness of this bill. I expected more corporate regulation, more tort reform, more mention of preventative medicine and education, and more quality control of the vital factors of the typical American lifestyle. Instead I feel that more emphasis is being placed on the individual to be forced into getting insurance, as opposed to overhauling the health sector as a whole.

Yes, hospital bills are high and people don't pay them, but that is just a symptom. The root is that unhealthy living is an epidemic in the U.S. I've lived there, I've seen it with my own eyes. To me, this bill will just allow a continuation of all the unhealthy factors in American society while doing nothing to address them. So yeah, it actually does play into corporate hands, because the "health care industry" largely does not want you to be healthy. They profit off of illness. This bill just ensures that they can profit even more.

I am tired of conservatives saying that they shouldn't have to foot the bill for someone else or ranting about all the other trite inconveniences they'll suffer via taxation for this monstrosity. I don't care if you're someone living in an urban area or in the backwaters -- no person is an island. Every thing you do in life affects your human society. Humans are social creatures and our behaviors are all linked. So I think, even though there are downsides to this legislation, it's ultimately a good thing. All this talk about socialism is why your opponents have not be listening to you.

My beef with liberals is that they are touting this as the savior of American health. Not so fast. Just because the bill is paid for now does not mean people are going to get all their problems fixed over night. First of all, aside from the fact that this bill does not address preventative medicine, Western medicine itself does very little in the prevention department. America needs a lifestyle overhaul and I don't see how it's going to happen. All of your talk about how UHC is the golden light for America and everyone has the right to be taken care of by the government is why your opponents have not been listening to you.

To both extremes: the hysteria about how this bill is the downfall of America is just intrinsic to the low brow level of the debate which has in turn permitted your government to think you are too stupid to partake in the health care discussion. You wonder why your elected officials don't listen to you? It's because nothing you say is rational. And if they're not rational, well, they are just a symptom of the greater problem too.

I hope this is a strong lesson to those who took part in the debate. The only thing that can stop your government from passing this kind of sweeping legislation is cold, calculated intelligence. Anything less and your voice is just white noise.
 
Orion said:
I'm coming into this rather late so I don't even know if my voice will be heard in the heated debate.

I am disappointed with the uneven-handedness of this bill. I expected more corporate regulation, more tort reform, more mention of preventative medicine and education, and more quality control of the vital factors of the typical American lifestyle. Instead I feel that more emphasis is being placed on the individual to be forced into getting insurance, as opposed to overhauling the health sector as a whole.

Yes, hospital bills are high and people don't pay them, but that is just a symptom. The root is that unhealthy living is an epidemic in the U.S. I've lived there, I've seen it with my own eyes. To me, this bill will just allow a continuation of all the unhealthy factors in American society while doing nothing to address them. So yeah, it actually does play into corporate hands, because the "health care industry" largely does not want you to be healthy. They profit off of illness. This bill just ensures that they can profit even more.

I am tired of conservatives saying that they shouldn't have to foot the bill for someone else or ranting about all the other trite inconveniences they'll suffer via taxation for this monstrosity. I don't care if you're someone living in an urban area or in the backwaters -- no person is an island. Every thing you do in life affects your human society. Humans are social creatures and our behaviors are all linked. So I think, even though there are downsides to this legislation, it's ultimately a good thing. All this talk about socialism is why your opponents have not be listening to you.

My beef with liberals is that they are touting this as the savior of American health. Not so fast. Just because the bill is paid for now does not mean people are going to get all their problems fixed over night. First of all, aside from the fact that this bill does not address preventative medicine, Western medicine itself does very little in the prevention department. America needs a lifestyle overhaul and I don't see how it's going to happen. All of your talk about how UHC is the golden light for America and everyone has the right to be taken care of by the government is why your opponents have not been listening to you.

To both extremes: the hysteria about how this bill is the downfall of America is just intrinsic to the low brow level of the debate which has in turn permitted your government to think you are too stupid to partake in the health care discussion. You wonder why your elected officials don't listen to you? It's because nothing you say is rational. And if they're not rational, well, they are just a symptom of the greater problem too.

I hope this is a strong lesson to those who took part in the debate. The only thing that can stop your government from passing this kind of sweeping legislation is cold, calculated intelligence. Anything less and your voice is just white noise.
Click to expand...

Awesome post man. :applaud
 
LaMidRighter said:
I look at it this way, no one will have a consensus of people willing to eliminate safety nets, and even then, we cannot do it without massive economic damage and societal upheaval, so the only other option is to tame the beast in an intelligent way.
Click to expand...

I agree. Something incremental. I would hope that this will turn into something like that.


I would like to see that as well, and adding a review board to indemnity would be a fantastic idea, but costs must be controlled and brought back to reasonable levels for that to work. Here's to hoping we can get some common sense back in all forms of healthcare in the future, I don't like this bill, but the horizon is unknown right now.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this, though I do have more hope for this bill. There are somethings in it that I am happy about (no pre-existing conditions. 26 year old age cap on parental coverage, for two).




It's a perspective thing, we have differing experiences, so I'll leave it at that. Although I will concede that the greed point could be applied to those individuals I dealt with as well, no one should ever put a promotion or profit over satisfying a customer, it's bad business.
Click to expand...

Agreed.



It's really all we can do right now.
Click to expand...

Agreed.



Good luck, although it appears they'd get flamed pretty badly at the moment.
Click to expand...

I know. That'd be the beauty of it. ;)
 
The worst thing about the whole healthcare issue was the complete lack of content. Republicans went after the entire concept with demonizing hyperbole, and the democrats passed it through conniving political force. The bill could have been 100x better or 100x times worse, and still have no effect on the outcome. Most American's have no idea what the bill actually means, and yet that doesn't stop them from having a strong opinion on the subject.
Have we truly become a nation of style over substance?
 
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

I don't have anyone to express my frustration with that this piece of **** passed. Zero bipartisanship. Severe increase in regulation, Reduction in market competitiveness. Mandatory insurance. WTF does the reconciliation bill call for? ****!
 
Congrats in joining the civilized world..
 
If I were creating a healthcare reform bill from the ground up, this isn't the one I would have created. There are definitely things I don't like about it, but it's certainly better than no reform at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom