• 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

LiberalAvenger said:
They do it with car insurance.
Click to expand...

Different circumstances altogether. One, it's a state-mandated issue, not federal. Two, you buy car insurance to protect yourself and your car from other idiots who cause damage. With health insurance, you are paying for your own gamble.
 
lizzie said:
Different circumstances altogether. One, it's a state-mandated issue, not federal. Two, you buy car insurance to protect yourself and your car from other idiots who cause damage. With health insurance, you are paying for your own gamble.
Click to expand...

Health insurance protects others from having to pay for you. Not all that different. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Health insurance protects others from having to pay for you. Not all that different. ;)
Click to expand...
Total bull****, I would know, it's one line of sales in my profession. You pay into a pool of money, weighted against risk. But please feel free to keep up with this fallacy, wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of your rant.
 
I'm still confused as hell about his bill. I original supported the public option, then I was unsure.

IMHO, the only victory the GOP and Dems have actually achieved is confusing the American people.
 
USA-1 said:
Where was your concern when Bush got us into a war that will cost more than this heathcare bill?
Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that I supported Bush's war and what does this have to do with anything I've said?
 
Boo Radley said:
Health insurance protects others from having to pay for you. Not all that different. ;)
Click to expand...

Very different. If you buy health insurance, and you get creamed in a car accident and spend 6 months in an ICU on a ventilator, you haven't paid in squat compared to what you are costing. The health insurance premiums on all the other carriers go up to pay for you. In government health care, people like me will pay much more than we utilize to take care of people who don't pay a dime. Sorry, but I'm not a bleeding heart. Bleeding hearts are bleeding this country to death.
 
Cilogy said:
I'm still confused as hell about his bill. I original supported the public option, then I was unsure.

IMHO, the only victory the GOP and Dems have actually achieved is confusing the American people.
Click to expand...

Very true! The health care bill is confusing, but what we do know is that massive tax increases are quickly heading our direction.

It's like being in the eye of the storm.
 
lizzie said:
Very different. If you buy health insurance, and you get creamed in a car accident and spend 6 months in an ICU on a ventilator, you haven't paid in squat compared to what you are costing. The health insurance premiums on all the other carriers go up to pay for you. In government health care, people like me will pay much more than we utilize to take care of people who don't pay a dime. Sorry, but I'm not a bleeding heart. Bleeding hearts are bleeding this country to death.
Click to expand...

It's called socialism. This is exactly what will happen in a redistributive socialized health care system. And guess what? There's also 'rationed care' due to overwhelming the system with too many patients. So not only do you pay more, but you get much less in return.
 
Cilogy said:
I'm still confused as hell about his bill. I original supported the public option, then I was unsure.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons we have ended up with this monstrosity. People trust their government to make good decisions, and they don't inform themselves. Yeah, I know it's a pain in the ass, but it pays off to have an informed public.:roll:

Cilogy said:
IMHO, the only victory the GOP and Dems have actually achieved is confusing the American people.
Click to expand...

There was no victory for the GOP. If people are confused, it's because they are willingly confused.
 
USA-1 said:
Where was your concern when Bush got us into a war that will cost more than this heathcare bill?
Click to expand...

The healthcare bill costs $172 billion/year.
Iraq costs $105 billion/year.

The healthcare bill costs more.
 
justabubba said:
if you were actually right, then there would be no need for this bill ... the one you are so opposed to having been successful
Click to expand...

Insurance reform does not equal healthcare. If you have a heart attack and go to the ER, the hospital must treat you regardless of your plan. This reform took place to further enslave the country before the federal government and to push a damaging agenda. It's government take over of healthcare, which means more power to the federal government and less to the people.
 
pendulum_jaw said:
It's truly breathtaking how ignorant our electorate is. Reading some of these posts, one can really appreciate just how worthless our education system is in this country...

Watching people cheer legislation which steals wealth from some Americans to give to others is sickening enough, but what is really astonishing is observing these useful idiots essentially cheering their own demise. It would be like watching the Jews in 1945 hooraying and tickling each other on they gleefully ran into the gas chamber.
Click to expand...

Haha...it's funny because it's stupid.
 
Okay, I'm done bitching about this bill. Now we should all just sit back to wait and see just how good or bad it is.

Does anyone believe it can ever be repealed? It will (pleasantly) surprise the hell out of me if it is. But I doubt it. We love our entitlements.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
I did some more digging, Lerxst, and I went to the CBO Estimate itself, issued on 3/20/10.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/Manager'sAmendmenttoReconciliationProposal.pdf

In Table 4 you will see the expenses. Now there are two sections. They are titled "Effects on Insurance Coverage", which is counting covered people, and "Effects on the Federal Deficit", which is in Billions of dollars. I am looking at the column for 2019, when the program is fully ramped up.

Under "Effects on the Federal Deficit", for 2019, the Total is $172 billion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this info, I will read further. I'm looking now for a plan to offset some of the expense...possibly cuts to other programs. Surely this isn't a straight up tax increase.
 
Telecaster said:
Okay, I'm done bitching about this bill. Now we should all just sit back and see just how good or bad it is.

Does anyone believe it can ever be repealed? It will (pleasantly) surprise the hell out of me if it is. But I doubt it. We love our entitlements.
Click to expand...
If America gets the next two elections right and finally rids itself of some of the old trash in Washington it can be gone in 2012.
 
digsbe said:
Insurance reform does not equal healthcare. If you have a heart attack and go to the ER, the hospital must treat you regardless of your plan. This reform took place to further enslave the country before the federal government and to push a damaging agenda. It's government take over of healthcare, which means more power to the federal government and less to the people.
Click to expand...
+1

Never in the history of the U.S. government have they forced private American citizens to purchase a consumer good or service. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize the federal government the power to mandate and force a private citizen to purchase another private good or service simply because they live in America.

Where in the Constitution does it suggest the federal government has the authority to do such a thing? If you by a car, it makes sense that you buy car insurance. You made the decision to buy the car, so you must therefore buy car insurance.

It does NOT make sense to me if you're born a U.S. citizen, you therefore must buy private health care. That's overstepping their power and enforcing law that they have no constitutional right to do so. This bill is unconstitutional.
 
Politics101 said:
It's called socialism. This is exactly what will happen in a redistributive socialized health care system. And guess what? There's also 'rationed care' due to overwhelming the system with too many patients. So not only do you pay more, but you get much less in return.
Click to expand...

I guess I take umbrage with the idea that there are "too many patients." If those seeking medical care actually need it, then how are there "too many?" How many uninsured aren't getting medical attention when they need it? Certainly there are many who simply use the E.R. as a their primary physician. There is already a very large cost for this kind of care. Many times it is to treat illnesses that could have been mitigated before an E.R. visit was necessary.

So we know that a good deal of uninsured individuals are in fact impacting the cost of health care. It's pretty much understood that decent preventative care would be less expensive than use of the E.R. as a primary source of medical treatment.

So what I need to understand is how you determine what percentage of our population makes up the "too many patients" that are to be added to the health care situation. I am assuming these patients are those who simply do not get any kind of care at all right now. Is this correct?

How many "new patients" are going to be added to the health care system?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Total bull****, I would know, it's one line of sales in my profession. You pay into a pool of money, weighted against risk. But please feel free to keep up with this fallacy, wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of your rant.
Click to expand...

Yes, but are doctors not required to provide critical care regardless of your financial standings? Who takes the bill if this causes you to go into bankruptcy?

Edit: Doctors in the ER.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Only 40% of the people support this albatross....
Click to expand...

Rev, were you the one that told me once that polls mean nothing? Was this mantra used during the last presidential election?

As with other things, they have issues, e.g. who takes them, who they call, and the demograhics they select.


Link [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports]Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Reputation

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[10] Democratic Party activists have pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[11] According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates and its public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys."[12].

John Marshal of Talking Points Memo commented on their reliability in a February 2009 article:[13][14]

The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around -- because they're based on robocalls -- gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[15] Examples of Rasmussen's questions with wording issues include:

* Agree or Disagree: "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."[16]
* Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?[17]
* Suppose that Democrats agreed on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress. Should the Democrats pass that bill or should they change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans?[18]
* Do you agree or disagree with the following statement... it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?[19]

Some of Rasmussen polls have contained two different weights for questions, depending on the party of the statesman in the question.[20] In one example, the first question asks for a job rating for Tim Pawlenty, a Republican governor, using an approve/disapprove scale. The next question asks for the way that Al Franken, a Democratic senator, is performing his role, but uses a Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor scale. Nick Panagakis of Pollster.com has pointed out that, when using the latter scale, "approval is often reported by combining the top two and bottom two scores", including the "fair" score as a "disapproval" vote.
Click to expand...
 
Lerxst said:
I guess I take umbrage with the idea that there are "too many patients." If those seeking medical care actually need it, then how are there "too many?" How many uninsured aren't getting medical attention when they need it? Certainly there are many who simply use the E.R. as a their primary physician. There is already a very large cost for this kind of care. Many times it is to treat illnesses that could have been mitigated before an E.R. visit was necessary.
Click to expand...
Too many patients is the wrong way to look at it. But there will be too many "unfunded" patients, and there will be too many "overusing" patients. Think of it this way, people with private insurance may not abuse it because they still have to pay out of pocket expenses or deductibles or a combination of both, so when they go for services it will be during a time of definite need. By the nature of subsidized care, some will simply not care who's paying and use the services every time they have a stomach ache, nevermind it could have a perfectly logical explanation like eating too much spice, gas, overeating, hangover.....won't matter, they don't have to foot the bill, we do.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Too many patients is the wrong way to look at it. But there will be too many "unfunded" patients, and there will be too many "overusing" patients. Think of it this way, people with private insurance may not abuse it because they still have to pay out of pocket expenses or deductibles or a combination of both, so when they go for services it will be during a time of definite need. By the nature of subsidized care, some will simply not care who's paying and use the services every time they have a stomach ache, nevermind it could have a perfectly logical explanation like eating too much spice, gas, overeating, hangover.....won't matter, they don't have to foot the bill, we do.
Click to expand...

You have to realize though, that the private insdustry already recieves a huge amount of subsidy. Most people who have private insurance recieve it through their employer. Employers have continued to offer more and more generous health insurance benefits because it is essentially a tax shelter from federal, state, and local goverments. Had you instead taken higher wages and gone out and bought your own insurance it would be far more expensive because you would be paying taxes on all of that income before buying insurance. Furthermore, since employers are the ones actually paying the insurance bill it further seperates the consumers from the actual cost of health care, not to mention the moral hazard already associated with insurance of any type.

One advantage private health care has over medicare is they typically do not pay like a fee for service plan. Therefore they are not subjuct to the supply induced demand associated with medicare. However, medicare and medicaid has been increasingly using HMO's to provide care, which in this case, reverses the effects of supply induced demand and actually results in underconsumption.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Too many patients is the wrong way to look at it. But there will be too many "unfunded" patients, and there will be too many "overusing" patients. Think of it this way, people with private insurance may not abuse it because they still have to pay out of pocket expenses or deductibles or a combination of both, so when they go for services it will be during a time of definite need. By the nature of subsidized care, some will simply not care who's paying and use the services every time they have a stomach ache, nevermind it could have a perfectly logical explanation like eating too much spice, gas, overeating, hangover.....won't matter, they don't have to foot the bill, we do.
Click to expand...

That's assuming an awful lot about peoples health care habits don't you think? Are they already doing it now with the E.R.? Less expensive office visits would only help the situation. If they are predisposed to overusing the system they are probably already doing it. How will this bill change their habits? Do you really think that those who are uninsured now, and not getting any real health care, will of a sudden just go "health care crazy?" We are already paying for these overusers/abusers as it is.

Or will they possibly start going to the their doctor when they need to because now they can?

See where I am coming from on this?
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Too many patients is the wrong way to look at it. But there will be too many "unfunded" patients, and there will be too many "overusing" patients. Think of it this way, people with private insurance may not abuse it because they still have to pay out of pocket expenses or deductibles or a combination of both, so when they go for services it will be during a time of definite need. By the nature of subsidized care, some will simply not care who's paying and use the services every time they have a stomach ache, nevermind it could have a perfectly logical explanation like eating too much spice, gas, overeating, hangover.....won't matter, they don't have to foot the bill, we do.
Click to expand...

There will always be people who scurry to the doctor for every cramp and twinge... and there will always be others who stoically refuse to see a doctor- out of stubbornness or out of fear- no matter how serious their symptoms are.
People are diagnosed with stage 4 cancer every day.
By the time your cancer is stage 4, you've likely been living with pretty serious symptoms for years.

There will always be some who overuse doctors, and some who under-use them.
Those are basically the two sides of the hypochondriac coin (and I should know, because I'm a hypochondriac).
Either you go to the doctor constantly because you're afraid you're dying of a terrible disease... or you never go to the doctor, because you're afraid you're dying of a terrible disease.

Anyway, neither one of these categories comprise the majority of Americans.
Most people go to the doctor responsibly, for regular checkups and screenings or when they feel really sick.
As for the other two categories- people who go way too often and people who don't go nearly often enough- those people will do those things whether or not they're insured, because it's not money that's driving them; it's psychological issues.
Every ER in the country right now is full of people with sinus infections, bladder infections, sore throats, indigestion and heartburn.
People who over-use doctors will do so whether or not they're insured, whether or not they can ever pay.
Right now, ERs aren't allowed to turn them away, no matter how silly their complaints.

When these people have another alternative, perhaps ERs won't have to see them.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
The healthcare bill costs $172 billion/year.
Iraq costs $105 billion/year.

The healthcare bill costs more.
Click to expand...

What did we get out of Iraq?

Oh yeah, a destabilized region, massive insurgency, massive debt....

In terms of bang for your buck, I'm leaning toward health care reform...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom