• 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

LaMidRighter said:
I'm an insurance agent in L&H sales and am completely against this bill, even though it could initially bring me 100%+ increases in business, that should tell the supporters everything they need to know.
Click to expand...

No, that should tell your employer something. heheh

But yeah, this bill is nothing more than a play towards the insurance companies. It will do nothing to benefit the People.
 
chosendudenyc said:
Under the Bush Administration, those 8 straight years, our Constitution was void and abused to push conservative agenda's and policies. Few said anything.


How dare you state that anything unproven, unlike the Bush Administration succession of voiding our Constitution for 8 straight years, from the Obama Administration needs to be criticized and seen unlawful?
Click to expand...

Oh good gawd, here we go.

Name the bill Bush passed that was not bi-partisan. Thank you.
 
chosendudenyc said:
If you can afford health insurance, why not have it?
Click to expand...

**** you, that's why! Why should you tell me what to do with my money? Why should you force me to play your game? If I could afford the rip off which is health insurance, I still don't need it. There is a real problem, the real problem is that America pays more for heath care and has the least access to it than any other industrialized country out there. This bill doesn't address the problem, it merely forces me to play in a corrupt game. Thanks for spending my money for me, but I think I knew better how to use it.
 
If conservative Republicans can take back the House/Senate in November I have a terriffic payback idea, eliminate the rules allowing for the vestment after 5 years so that when the Dems who voted for this turd are kicked out they have to follow their own rules.
 
chosendudenyc said:
Under the Bush Administration, those 8 straight years, our Constitution was void and abused to push conservative agenda's and policies. Few said anything.


How dare you state that anything unproven, unlike the Bush Administration succession of voiding our Constitution for 8 straight years, from the Obama Administration needs to be criticized and seen unlawful?
Click to expand...

We were never attacked by terrorists. What happens on the Obama watch? Our own military men and women get slaughtered by one of their own, a Muslim extremist, but his early problems are missed because Napolitano is busy watching the Religious Right, anti-abortion supporters, returning veterans, and proponents of the Second Amendment.
 
rivrrat said:
No, it doesn't. Many people who do not have insurance CAN afford it. They CHOOSE not to. (like myself)
Click to expand...

You are talking like it is a great thing. On the contrary, the greater number of people covered lowers the overall health care costs for everyone. This is very basic idea of risk management. The deviation for individual health care costs (not including the elderly) in the US when we consider "accidents" is quite high which allows for much greater consumer benefit.

Equivocally saying it is "acceptable" not to carry any type of insurance regardless of how it effects others seems a little extreme to me.

And if they truly cannot afford it, then there's Medicaid for them.
Click to expand...

That is an empty statement. What about the costs that private insurance does not cover?

How is that unfair OR un American? It's unfair that a business can choose whether or not to do business with you?
Click to expand...

The externalities associated with such practices have been shown to raise the cost of health care, and contribute to the majority of bankruptcies in the United States.
 
Erod said:
OK, here's a question I'd like answered.

My wife and I both work. We use my work's healthcare plan. Is she going to be required to buy from HER workplace now or face a fine?
Click to expand...

I really would like an answer to this if anyone knows.
 
Ikari said:
**** you, that's why! Why should you tell me what to do with my money? Why should you force me to play your game? If I could afford the rip off which is health insurance, I still don't need it. There is a real problem, the real problem is that America pays more for heath care and has the least access to it than any other industrialized country out there. This bill doesn't address the problem, it merely forces me to play in a corrupt game. Thanks for spending my money for me, but I think I knew better how to use it.
Click to expand...
I thanked you because I agree with the overall premise. Now, insurance isn't a rip-off, it pays for what it is supposed to pay when you are with a good provider. Where the problems come in are those of abuse, people have a false assumption that policies are there to save people money on healthcare, they are not.....it is a catastrophic loss prevention measure. While people complain that they pay premiums and not need the insurance I argue that's a good thing, it means you don't have major health problems. The big problems with health affordability come from alot of factors that created an artificial market, it goes past providers and insurers although we aren't completely blameless, the main culprit are the idiots and party that have passed legislation overall throughout the last century that have created a problematic and over legislated health market.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The externalities associated with such practices have been shown to raise the cost of health care...
Click to expand...

What the hell is an externality? I keep seeing people on the left use this term. Is it something to do with Socialist theory?
 
Erod said:
I really would like an answer to this if anyone knows.
Click to expand...

Logically, her workplace should keep supplying her with health insurance, and she would keep paying her part to keep it. Then again, that's logic, and the Obama administration and his minions don't seem to embrace that concept.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I thanked you because I agree with the overall premise. Now, insurance isn't a rip-off, it pays for what it is supposed to pay when you are with a good provider.
Click to expand...

It's a god damned scam and I wish I'd thought of it first. Horrifically overpriced, it uses such things as pre-existing conditions to rule out paying out, they will do their damnedest to not pay out, there isn't enough oversight, they are part of the problem with the inflated costs of health care, they use choices such as smoking to increase premiums, etc. Health insurance as it is run in this country is a scam. The best scam ever right after Scientology.
 
reefedjib said:
What the hell is an externality? I keep seeing people on the left use this term. Is it something to do with Socialist theory?
Click to expand...


No, that's really socialist therapy or how they brainwash you over to their side.
 
Ikari said:
It's a god damned scam and I wish I'd thought of it first. Horrifically overpriced, it uses such things as pre-existing conditions to rule out paying out, they will do their damnedest to not pay out, there isn't enough oversight, they are part of the problem with the inflated costs of health care, they use choices such as smoking to increase premiums, etc. Health insurance as it is run in this country is a scam. The best scam ever right after Scientology.
Click to expand...

Medical care is so expensive because of all the malpractice suits. They need to limit or eliminate those suits, and watch medical costs go down. Fat chance of that happening because lawyers would fight that one into the ground.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Just a reminder to keep things civil and no personal attacks.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I thanked you because I agree with the overall premise. Now, insurance isn't a rip-off, it pays for what it is supposed to pay when you are with a good provider. Where the problems come in are those of abuse, people have a false assumption that policies are there to save people money on healthcare, they are not.....it is a catastrophic loss prevention measure. While people complain that they pay premiums and not need the insurance I argue that's a good thing, it means you don't have major health problems. The big problems with health affordability come from alot of factors that created an artificial market, it goes past providers and insurers although we aren't completely blameless, the main culprit are the idiots and party that have passed legislation overall throughout the last century that have created a problematic and over legislated health market.
Click to expand...

What is your view on HSA based policies that have the $5,000/person out of pocket measure yet kicks in 100% when your costs exceed the out of pocket stipulation? My current plan is quite similar and my premium is like 75% cheaper than if i were to have your standard 90/10. No prescription coverage though.
 
bicycleman said:
Medical care is so expensive because of all the malpractice suits. They need to limit or eliminate those suits, and watch medical costs go down. Fat chance of that happening because lawyers would fight that one into the ground.
Click to expand...

I think technology adds a lot to the price. I just had a implantable cardioverter defibrillator installed in my chest that cost pretty near a 100k.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You are talking like it is a great thing. On the contrary, the greater number of people covered lowers the overall health care costs for everyone.
Click to expand...
Not true, it's a risk pool, the reason group insurance is so expensive is because the least healthy in the pool skew the risk model towards the sub-standard end of the spectrum. Even if you have a full contributory policy, it is costing someone alot of money.
This is very basic idea of risk management.
Click to expand...
Correct, but you don't add risk to save money. Forcing people into health rolls artificially with no gap-loss possibility will shock the system, I am not a fan of pre-existing conditions.......but, if time was to be allotted for absorbtion of risk slowly it would be a better solution.
The deviation for individual health care costs (not including the elderly) in the US when we consider "accidents" is quite high which allows for much greater consumer benefit.
Click to expand...
Also correct, which is also a problem with overconsumption of the group model, healthier people should go individual, however group has recieved preference through the years and it has skewed data to unrecognizable figures.
Equivocally saying it is "acceptable" not to carry any type of insurance regardless of how it effects others seems a little extreme to me.
Click to expand...
Eh, if someone can pay cash for care or can work out payment plans more power to them. I still say they should have a major med. policy or figure out a plan to absorb the risk. But I am a fan of choice.



That is an empty statement. What about the costs that private insurance does not cover?
Click to expand...
Need solid examples, every plan is different.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
It's a god damned scam and I wish I'd thought of it first. Horrifically overpriced, it uses such things as pre-existing conditions to rule out paying out, they will do their damnedest to not pay out, there isn't enough oversight, they are part of the problem with the inflated costs of health care, they use choices such as smoking to increase premiums, etc. Health insurance as it is run in this country is a scam. The best scam ever right after Scientology.
Click to expand...

Then you are quite lucky you have never had to file a serious claim on property, health, or personal liability. However, risk management remains a vital part of any developed nation. So. Opinions are like.......
 
The more of this I read, the more sickened by it I am. How in the hell did they think this was going to "help"?

Here's some good ones just in the first 50 pages:

  • If your current health plan expires and you cannot find a comparable one after this bill takes effect, you must take the government option
  • The government will now waste money and resources auditing all employers who self-insure
  • Government committee will determine treatments and benefits. There is no appeal process if you are turned down for a treatment, unlike with insurance companies
  • The federal government is granted direct, real time access to all bank accounts for electronic funds transfers. That's individual bank accounts, YOUR bank account

This isn't at all ok. Not at all.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You are talking like it is a great thing.
Click to expand...
Freedom of choice regarding how I spend my own money that *I* make IS a good thing. Freedom for me to decide for myself what is best for ME and my health care IS a good thing. Freedom for me to choose whether or not I wish to buy a private sector product IS a good thing. Freedom for me to take that same money that would otherwise go into a black hole and instead invest it wisely and see a return on that investment IS a good thing.

On the contrary, the greater number of people covered lowers the overall health care costs for everyone. This is very basic idea of risk management. The deviation for individual health care costs (not including the elderly) in the US when we consider "accidents" is quite high which allows for much greater consumer benefit.
Click to expand...
Health Insurance is part of the reason FOR the high costs. How the **** can adding more health insurance ever hope to decrease costs?

Equivocally saying it is "acceptable" not to carry any type of insurance regardless of how it effects others seems a little extreme to me.
Click to expand...
Of course it's acceptable to choose not to purchase a private sector product. It's perfectly acceptable to not be fined just for being alive.


That is an empty statement. What about the costs that private insurance does not cover?
Click to expand...
The patient pays them. See, this is how it *should* be. No govt involvement. No insurance. Just the doctor, and the patient. Period. Costs would drop dramatically.


The externalities associated with such practices have been shown to raise the cost of health care, and contribute to the majority of bankruptcies in the United States.
Click to expand...
Insurance, govt, and malpractice are what have raised the costs of healthcare.
 
Last edited:
bicycleman said:
Logically, her workplace should keep supplying her with health insurance, and she would keep paying her part to keep it. Then again, that's logic, and the Obama administration and his minions don't seem to embrace that concept.
Click to expand...

But she opts out of her plan entirely because I have her and our kids on my plan.

So does she get to opt out, or does she get fined for not participating. Do I have to take her off of my plan? Must we have different plans altogether?
 
jallman said:
The more of this I read, the more sickened by it I am. How in the hell did they think this was going to "help"?

Here's some good ones just in the first 50 pages:

  • If your current health plan expires and you cannot find a comparable one after this bill takes effect, you must take the government option
  • The government will now waste money and resources auditing all employers who self-insure
  • Government committee will determine treatments and benefits. There is no appeal process if you are turned down for a treatment, unlike with insurance companies
  • The federal government is granted direct, real time access to all bank accounts for electronic funds transfers. That's individual bank accounts, YOUR bank account

This isn't at all ok. Not at all.
Click to expand...

Holy crap.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
What is your view on HSA based policies that have the $5,000/person out of pocket measure yet kicks in 100% when your costs exceed the out of pocket stipulation? My current plan is quite similar and my premium is like 75% cheaper than if i were to have your standard 90/10. No prescription coverage though.
Click to expand...
HSAs are great as long as you don't have immediate risk. With time to accumulate you can cover OOP easily and still get the 100% coverage, honestly the premiums pretty much pay for themselves. As for the 90/10, I would usually go 80/20 when I was more active in the health market, while it has a higher ded.+OOP, the premiums were more tolerable, usually I would sell that as a Preferred Provider Organization, but it is nowhere near the quality of an HSA when you are in good health, as well, HSAs are still relatively new, admittedly I have ralatively limited experience in them, but so far so good IMO. As well, prescription coverage could be paid for with your cash value if I'm correct, but you may want to talk to your agent about that one.
 
BmanMcfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, the vote on the first resolution WAS the vote on this specific bill. This goes to Obama's desk now. The vote on the third resolution was for the changes in the first bill. This one goes on to the Senate to be voted on. If the Senate passes the third resolution, then that goes to Obama's desk, and the changes in the first resolution become law.

This is perfectly Constitutional.

Note: I believe you were referring to "deem and pass", which was dropped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom