• 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

Oh this is just fun...

Page 124 of the bill has language written into it that bars judicial review and suit against the federal government by private insurers if they take exception to the fixed prices the "Health Choices Commissioner" sets in place for procedures.

:roll:
 
jallman said:
Oh this is just fun...

Page 124 of the bill has language written into it that bars judicial review and suit against the federal government by private insurers if they take exception to the fixed prices the "Health Choices Commissioner" sets in place for procedures.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Lawsuits against the Federal Government have never been very successful anyways, but this time now its going to be written into law.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Who picks up the bill if you develop a serious condition? How does this effect aggregate cost?
Click to expand...
I pay my own bills.

Nope! You just are ill informed in regards to health care economics. :2wave:
Click to expand...
Wrong. :2wave:

Never said it did (so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth). However, if a vacant charred house is sitting there for a year until it can be restored because my douche of a neighbor didn't purchase insurance.... It will effect me. You understand how externalities work?
Click to expand...
What does insurance have to do with it? Your neighbor can choose to restore the house or not, regardless of insurance.


That all sounds really nice. Reality dictates something different entirely.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.

Going out quite far on the limb? Given your history for faulty comments in regards to health care economics, i cannot take your opinion seriously. The market for health care does not behave in a simple supply/demand fashion. There more forces at work, in which you have neglected to define and/or comment on.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have commented on them. At length. I've made no faulty comments whatsoever. At the lowest level, Govt, insurance companies, and malpractice are the reasons for the high costs. Those initial high costs put upon people who couldn't afford them caused some people to neglect their obligations to pay and force the rest of us to pay for them, which only further drove up the costs. And the libtard's answer for this mess is to add more of the same that started it in the first ****ing place. ****ing brilliant.

Not with the least bit of accuracy. All you provide are normative rants.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. I've yet to see anyone disprove a single bit of it.
 
jallman said:
Oh this is just fun...

Page 124 of the bill has language written into it that bars judicial review and suit against the federal government by private insurers if they take exception to the fixed prices the "Health Choices Commissioner" sets in place for procedures.

:roll:
Click to expand...

I forget which page, somewhere near the beginning, it states that if there's not enough money to pay for ****, then the Secretary "shall make such adjustments as are necessary" such as reducing benefits, increasing premiums, and establishing waiting lists.

WOOT!
 
rivrrat said:
I forget which page, somewhere near the beginning, it states that if there's not enough money to pay for ****, then the Secretary "shall make such adjustments as are necessary" such as reducing benefits, increasing premiums, and establishing waiting lists.

WOOT!
Click to expand...

yay for death panels?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well, on the demand argument we have an artificially created demand that has just been created, it would not have to be subsidized if it had not been legislated.
Click to expand...

The demand is entirely (or pretty damn close) organic given the oath doctors take, and the life or death scenario. Dynamic shifts in demand given increased access need to be isolated accordingly. We know that health care after age 70 is pretty much inelastic, while health care at age 25 is less so. Yet.... given the life or death scenario, it is perfectly inelastic given all age groups.

Demand for health care should tread a certain level if we aspire to have a truly healthy society.

If someone does not have the money for health care, they will either go into debt (which has a tendency to lead to bankruptcy) or go without it. Either scenario raises the cost.

This thing is going to cause massive economic damage and further dependence on government services, there have been instances where it's most ardent supporters have pretty much let that slip.
Click to expand...

The only way i see this reform damaging the economy is if we see even greater costs increases (health care inflation).

Sure. For instance with this situation, you don't have to be insured, or even pay to seek medical assistance in certain instances because of federal law, it puts a strain on hospitals which raises costs. If you pay cash you get a discount, but since many can't pay cash the increases are assessed on insurance payouts, when insurance companies have to pay more then we have to pay more. If the federal government hadn't put that burden on hospitals in the first place, along with very unfriendly tort laws which further not only increases in cost, CYA medicine, and an upward shift of MM. Insurance, we would see savings passed along to us down the entire health chain.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I am not in the camp of "less available health care" is always better.

True, and while I agree with you, I can't go as far as to force people to purchase.
Click to expand...

I think it is a silly idea as well, but they did not include a public option. My personal preference would be for a heavily deregulated private sector to compete with an open public option. :shrug:
 
rivrrat said:
I forget which page, somewhere near the beginning, it states that if there's not enough money to pay for ****, then the Secretary "shall make such adjustments as are necessary" such as reducing benefits, increasing premiums, and establishing waiting lists.

WOOT!
Click to expand...

That starts about midway down page 29 where it talks about rationing healthcare.
 
jallman said:
That starts about midway down page 29 where it talks about rationing healthcare.
Click to expand...
What, there's no rationing in this bill! Nancy and Obama said so, and they never lie!
 
jallman said:
That starts about midway down page 29 where it talks about rationing healthcare.
Click to expand...

But wait!! There's not going to be any rationing of health care! How dare you speak such vile words. Those are only bloated talking points instigated by the evil right wing to try and make you believe that the govt will...


Oh wait, nvm. They put it right there in black and white in the bill.

God this is a sad day for this country. I've never voted a straight ticket in my life and I swore I never would. But I most likely will come Nov. Just to voice my disagreement with the ****tards who voted this atrocity in.
 
Coronado said:
What, there's no rationing in this bill! Nancy and Obama said so, and they never lie!
Click to expand...

Well it's right there in black and white. It goes on till about page 42 and in that time, it sets up the rolls of committees that will decide what health care you get and it defines the role of the Health Choices Commissioner (read: Healthcare Czar) who will adjust those choices based on the current year's budget. :shrug:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The demand is entirely (or pretty damn close) organic given the oath doctors take, and the life or death scenario. Dynamic shifts in demand given increased access need to be isolated accordingly. We know that health care after age 70 is pretty much inelastic, while health care at age 25 is less so. Yet.... given the life or death scenario, it is perfectly inelastic given all age groups.
Click to expand...
The rub is that the hypocratic oath is non-binding, so unless a state law requires medical providers to give access during an emergency it really is an unquantifiable factor, as it would depend solely on the providers will to give healthcare at a loss. Don't know which way this factor would swing to be honest.

Demand for health care should tread a certain level if we aspire to have a truly healthy society.
Click to expand...
I see this as potentially abused more than any other entitlement, if anything demand will exceed supply. For instance my mother works in the charity system here, she sees people who will not take generics and are constant "customers" because they aren't paying, these people will be on the public option eventually when the scum in Washington makes adjustments, so Louisiana's problem is about to become a national one.

If someone does not have the money for health care, they will either go into debt (which has a tendency to lead to bankruptcy) or go without it. Either scenario raises the cost.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, again, risk is so skewed right now to actually get the situation right would require around 3-4 decades of slowly peeling back the internal problems. Such as eliminating national medical school caps on enrollment, tort reform, etc.



The only way i see this reform damaging the economy is if we see even greater costs increases (health care inflation).
Click to expand...
If anything we are going to see those healthcare inflation costs escalate in about two years, as well, let's not forget that this bill is a setup to eliminate private insurance companies, if they go down everyone does.



Agreed. But I am not in the camp of "less available health care" is always better.
Click to expand...
Not always better, usually not in fact, but this bill is not the way to go.



I think it is a silly idea as well, but they did not include a public option. My personal preference would be for a heavily deregulated private sector to compete with an open public option. :shrug:
Click to expand...
If the heavy regulations are appropriate I agree, however many of the regulations on my industry are not only a band-aid on a bullet wound, they miss the wound itself.
 
jallman said:
Oh this is just great...just effin' great:

On page 65 of the bill, it is mandated that tax payers will subsidize the plans of all UNION retirees and "community organizations".

And then on page 95, it states that the federal government will pay ACORN and Americorp to sign people up for the government run option.
Click to expand...
Hey, those palms aren't gonna grease themselves now, are they?
 
I have it on good authority (Faux News) that end of days/communism/Great Depression II all begin the day Obama signs health care reform ~

39cartoon44anydaynow.jpg
 
rivrrat said:
But wait!! There's not going to be any rationing of health care! How dare you speak such vile words. Those are only bloated talking points instigated by the evil right wing to try and make you believe that the govt will...


Oh wait, nvm. They put it right there in black and white in the bill.

God this is a sad day for this country. I've never voted a straight ticket in my life and I swore I never would. But I most likely will come Nov. Just to voice my disagreement with the ****tards who voted this atrocity in.
Click to expand...

And here it is clear to see how red and blue are on the same team and just keeping the ball away from the people. They bicker about crap to appear on different sides. But really they are just getting the people to ante up.
 
jallman said:
Well it's right there in black and white. It goes on till about page 42 and in that time, it sets up the rolls of committees that will decide what health care you get and it defines the role of the Health Choices Commissioner (read: Healthcare Czar) who will adjust those choices based on the current year's budget. :shrug:
Click to expand...
A non-accountable bureaucrat making my health care decisions for me? That is a vast improvement over a non-accountable beancounter making my health care decisions for me.

Yay for CHANGE!!
 
rivrrat said:
I pay my own bills.
Click to expand...

You are not everyone. I would like you to answer a question: What impact does medical bankruptcy have on the pricing mechanism for health care?


Wrong. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Given all you have offered are normative rants, i simply cannot agree.

What does insurance have to do with it? Your neighbor can choose to restore the house or not, regardless of insurance.
Click to expand...

Not everywhere. You are still missing the point. Not everyone has the money to restore their home in an orderly fashion in the event of a fire. Which is why insurance is so heavily demanded in a developed economy. If they do not have the money and let it sit there in shambles it will impact my life.

You neglected to comment on externalities.

No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. In order to understand how markets function, you have to consider the most basic premise: scarcity. Given the pricing mechanism, what is the relationship to scarcity?


At the lowest level, Govt, insurance companies, and malpractice are the reasons for the high costs.
Click to expand...

Why does that not correspond to other nations?

Those initial high costs put upon people who couldn't afford them caused some people to neglect their obligations to pay and force the rest of us to pay for them, which only further drove up the costs. And the libtard's answer for this mess is to add more of the same that started it in the first ****ing place. ****ing brilliant.
Click to expand...

Given the inelasticity of health care demand, your comment could not be more off base. The chief cause of health care inflation is an aging population. Are you aware of how the "market" achieves equilibrium?

Incorrect. I've yet to see anyone disprove a single bit of it.
Click to expand...

Not in the business of arguing opinions. You are completely fumbling the cost side of the equation because you are unaware of health care demand. Under your premise; the only way to decrease costs is to decrease quantity demand (invoking a shortage).

Where is a good ole supply side solution when you need one? Increase the supply of doctors and the cost of health care falls. ;) Or...... And this is a novel idea. Having a more healthy society will in fact decrease quantity demanded (regardless of elasticity). Adequate health coverage plays a major role.

You are arguing based on emotion and ideology.
 
Catawba said:
I have it on good authority (Faux News) that end of days/communism/Great Depression II all begin the day Obama signs health care reform ~

[IMGx]http://bestoftheleftpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/39cartoon44anydaynow.jpg[/IMG]
Click to expand...




It would be truly shocking to see you actually address some of the points brought up by jallman... Truly shocking. :roll:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
It would be truly shocking to see you actually address some of the points brought up by jallman... Truly shocking. :roll:
Click to expand...
jallman has the advantage of actually knowing what is in the bill. It's almost unfair.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
It would be truly shocking to see you actually address some of the points brought up by jallman... Truly shocking. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well why would they do that when half the people arguing this topic haven't bothered to even read the bill? Admittedly I haven't finished it...barely made a dent in it. These are just issues I've seen with what I have read so far.

And it's slow going. The language is...thick. It practically needs translation at certain points. LOL
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Given the inelasticity of health care demand, your comment could not be more off base. The chief cause of health care inflation is an aging population. Are you aware of how the "market" achieves equilibrium?
Click to expand...

How does this bill correct this?? It doesn't. What it does is add millions more to the Medicaid roles, creating more inflation.

Where is a good ole supply side solution when you need one? Increase the supply of doctors and the cost of health care falls. ;) Or...... And this is a novel idea. Having a more healthy society will in fact decrease quantity demanded (regardless of elasticity). Adequate health coverage plays a major role.

You are arguing based on emotion and ideology.
Click to expand...

Additional doctors probably won't decrease health costs, but more patients along with fewer doctors will certainly greatly increase wait times to get into doctor's offices.
 
Coronado said:
jallman has the advantage of actually knowing what is in the bill. It's almost unfair.
Click to expand...




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA"]YouTube- Congressman John Conyers: "Why Read The Bill?"[/ame]


just read a comment that claims you need 15+ hours of modern political science education, and you need to have read the whole bill to comment on healthcare changes. Ignoring for a moment that congress wouldn't qualify under those standards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom