PDA

View Full Version : The House Plan in the U.S.



Lordcrazy
9 Nov 2009, 08:19pm
Do they even know that by doing this they'll just put us 1 TRILLION more in debt and we wont get out of debt for another century at the least?

The Baltimore Ravens
9 Nov 2009, 08:20pm
you have to love thoes guys

LegalSmash
9 Nov 2009, 08:45pm
Do they even know that by doing this they'll just put us 1 TRILLION more in debt and we wont get out of debt for another century at the least?

Elucidate your point more clearly, please.

TheTruth
9 Nov 2009, 08:47pm
Do they even know that by doing this they'll just put us 1 TRILLION more in debt and we wont get out of debt for another century at the least?

This is new and exciting.

PotshotPolka
9 Nov 2009, 09:43pm
Do they even know that by doing this they'll just put us 1 TRILLION more in debt and we wont get out of debt for another century at the least?

It's actually 90 odd billion a year for a 10 year plan.

mNote
9 Nov 2009, 09:55pm
The government sure reflects the people.

Ms. Blargh
9 Nov 2009, 10:55pm
Aren't they allocating the money for health care from other things? Instead of raising taxes?

PotshotPolka
10 Nov 2009, 08:26am
Aren't they allocating the money for health care from other things? Instead of raising taxes?

It's a bit of everything. The cost is also hidden to some extent because that's only what the government will be paying (in estimates obviously), it doesn't include the costs to businesses or individuals who have to expand their coverage.

Lordcrazy
11 Nov 2009, 06:51pm
I didn't listen to the news for very long considering we are selling our house and there was people coming to see it.... sorry

Caution
11 Nov 2009, 07:00pm
I didn't listen to the news for very long considering we are selling our house and there was people coming to see it.... sorry

I forgive you.

Ganzta
11 Nov 2009, 09:35pm
I really doubt that the bill will get passed in the senate, considering how most of the conservative democrats in the House voted against the bill.

PotshotPolka
11 Nov 2009, 11:16pm
I really doubt that the bill will get passed in the senate, considering how most of the conservative democrats in the House voted against the bill.

It's going to pass, albeit with changes.

Lordcrazy
12 Nov 2009, 06:21pm
Just like the Constitution...

PotshotPolka
12 Nov 2009, 07:30pm
Just like the Constitution...

Well one's a governing document, the other is legislation, big difference.

Ganzta
12 Nov 2009, 08:06pm
Just like the Constitution...

http://www.steamgamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25459


It's going to pass, albeit with changes.

That's what I meant. There would be no way that the bill will be passed in the Senate without any changes to satisfy the moderate conservatives.

Lordcrazy
14 Nov 2009, 06:39pm
Well one's a governing document, the other is legislation, big difference.

Now i wasn't saying that the Constitution was a bad thing i was just referring to the Constitution because they made a lot of changes to it before they signed it like they are going to do with the House plan! happy now?

PotshotPolka
15 Nov 2009, 12:35pm
Now i wasn't saying that the Constitution was a bad thing i was just referring to the Constitution because they made a lot of changes to it before they signed it like they are going to do with the House plan! happy now?

No, because the reasons behind the changes are far different. The Constitution is how it is because of major compromises, like you know, slavery. The politicking that occurs to push legislation through committees, mainly the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Ways and Means Committee requires usually that the chairmen get certain earmarks or pull in other matters later.

Ms. Blargh
15 Nov 2009, 01:16pm
I think its interesting that the abortion referendum helped it pass in the house vote.

Lordcrazy
15 Nov 2009, 05:44pm
No, because the reasons behind the changes are far different. The Constitution is how it is because of major compromises, like you know, slavery. The politicking that occurs to push legislation through committees, mainly the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Ways and Means Committee requires usually that the chairmen get certain earmarks or pull in other matters later.

I know that i was just referring to the AMOUNT of changes they made not the specifics.

Ganzta
15 Nov 2009, 06:13pm
I know that i was just referring to the AMOUNT of changes they made not the specifics.

The Constitution was drafted in the Constitutional Convention; I don't see how you can make change to a document that did not yet exist. No changes were made to the Constitution except for the 27 Amendments, and those were ratified in the course of over 200 years. Just admit that you were being an idiot when you made that comment and pretty much this entire thread, and stop trying to bullshit your way out.

PotshotPolka
15 Nov 2009, 07:54pm
I think its interesting that the abortion referendum helped it pass in the house vote.


It was fairly drummed up, and the vote was completely party-lined. In the instances where the one Republican and some of the Democrats voted against the party, it was because they were sitting on a district that was more in favor of the opposites ideals, and their seats are worth more to the party than having the vote be a close draw.

Lordcrazy
16 Nov 2009, 08:25pm
The Constitution was drafted in the Constitutional Convention; I don't see how you can make change to a document that did not yet exist. No changes were made to the Constitution except for the 27 Amendments, and those were ratified in the course of over 200 years. Just admit that you were being an idiot when you made that comment and pretty much this entire thread, and stop trying to bullshit your way out.

Ok first of all i was regarding to the first draft of it if you did not know they changed how much slaves were worth in the population and how they Legislative Branch was set up. I do admit i know you were comprehending wrong which version of the Constitution i was referring to.

LegalSmash
18 Nov 2009, 07:09pm
Blargh,

I find it comical that the democrats were forced to include that measure. Its pointless in my opinion, but because our country is knee deep in retards still trying to undo a nearly 40 year old court decision... it will cause a rise in the unwashed masses.

IMHO, they should let the private insurance co's be able to provide abortion freely, that will allow them to have a competitive advantage over the public option.

Red
19 Nov 2009, 09:38am
The democrats want to run this country's economy (further) into the ground to kill capitalism once and for all and blame it on the greedy corporate pigs so they can take over and have even more control.

Keep the poor comfortable and dependent and you'll have a great voter base (liberals), as opposed to trying to make it easier for people to pick themselves up and succeed in life (conservatives) albeit it will be more uncomfortable to be poor, as it should fucking be, that's the whole point to wanting to succeed.

That's all this bill is for.

LegalSmash
19 Nov 2009, 05:10pm
The democrats want to run this country's economy (further) into the ground to kill capitalism once and for all and blame it on the greedy corporate pigs so they can take over and have even more control.

Keep the poor comfortable and dependent and you'll have a great voter base (liberals), as opposed to trying to make it easier for people to pick themselves up and succeed in life (conservatives) albeit it will be more uncomfortable to be poor, as it should fucking be, that's the whole point to wanting to succeed.

That's all this bill is for.

But you do have to address the fact that for the past 60 years the nation has allowed a monopoly to healthcare companies. Splitting territories on their own terms, adjusting rates through outright collusion and denying coverage at will, while never actually returning premium, investment, or providing service to the consumer is a serious issue. There shouldn't be a middleman between a doctor and a patient anymore than there should be between any lawyer and a client.

Bell had this happening and bell was split up into over 100 different smaller companies.

Reality is that "insurance" itself is a pure profit business scam just as profitable as selling heroin.

Sadly, it has to become a political problem because enough people in this country are both too apathetic or too ignorant to deal with it piecemeal.

Also, don't be too quick to bunch all the people complaining as "conservatives"... a great many of them are old people too stupid to realize that medicare IS the government, welfare/medicaid using white trash who are against abortion, and people within the insurance industry itself.

If there were actually any "conservatives" on either side of the aisle, healthcare would be between patient and doctor, and no third party insurer would be able to horn in for the sole purpose of taking from both sides without actually providing a real service.... free market.... remember?

Insurance's existence by itself evidences the degree to which the "health care market" a controlled market and centrally planned by companies who have no incentive to provide additional care for additional payment. At that rate, I'd rather an elected official than a person put in by the three guys who hold 51% of the shares in a company... at least the elected official can go to jail for augmenting his shitty paycheck.

PotshotPolka
19 Nov 2009, 05:35pm
But you do have to address the fact that for the past 60 years the nation has allowed a monopoly to healthcare companies. Splitting territories on their own terms, adjusting rates through outright collusion and denying coverage at will, while never actually returning premium, investment, or providing service to the consumer is a serious issue. There shouldn't be a middleman between a doctor and a patient anymore than there should be between any lawyer and a client.

Bell had this happening and bell was split up into over 100 different smaller companies.

Reality is that "insurance" itself is a pure profit business scam just as profitable as selling heroin.

Sadly, it has to become a political problem because enough people in this country are both too apathetic or too ignorant to deal with it piecemeal.

Also, don't be too quick to bunch all the people complaining as "conservatives"... a great many of them are old people too stupid to realize that medicare IS the government, welfare/medicaid using white trash who are against abortion, and people within the insurance industry itself.

If there were actually any "conservatives" on either side of the aisle, healthcare would be between patient and doctor, and no third party insurer would be able to horn in for the sole purpose of taking from both sides without actually providing a real service.... free market.... remember?

Insurance's existence by itself evidences the degree to which the "health care market" a controlled market and centrally planned by companies who have no incentive to provide additional care for additional payment. At that rate, I'd rather an elected official than a person put in by the three guys who hold 51% of the shares in a company... at least the elected official can go to jail for augmenting his shitty paycheck.

Bell was its own issue in a few ways, also because of the nature of the phone/cable/internet/power business competition can only occur at the regional level.

Insurance is a touchy subject, and its more touchy because it runs into government (cough I mean national interest) because Medicaid and Medicare is growing in cost.

Also there is that little thing about 1/6 of Americans being uninsured, but thats moral issue that I'm not in the mood for being decried for bringing up, or rather dismissing.

LegalSmash
19 Nov 2009, 06:55pm
Bell was its own issue in a few ways, also because of the nature of the phone/cable/internet/power business competition can only occur at the regional level.

Insurance is a touchy subject, and its more touchy because it runs into government (cough I mean national interest) because Medicaid and Medicare is growing in cost.

Also there is that little thing about 1/6 of Americans being uninsured, but thats moral issue that I'm not in the mood for being decried for bringing up, or rather dismissing.

Medicare SHOULD exist, for seniors who served this nation at war. Past that, I don't think it should exist. That program came about in a different time when seniors were veterans of actual wars, not pussyboy baby boomers who insisted on getting an extra firm pair of tits rather than saving money. I have no sympathy for boomers.

I think that medicare should cover the WW2 generation, and that is it.

Caution
19 Nov 2009, 08:17pm
I'm not an expert in this subject...

But isn't Medicare for retired people? So if their retirement sucked, they are paying a buttload for health insurance / dental...right?

PotshotPolka
19 Nov 2009, 10:25pm
Medicare SHOULD exist, for seniors who served this nation at war. Past that, I don't think it should exist. That program came about in a different time when seniors were veterans of actual wars, not pussyboy baby boomers who insisted on getting an extra firm pair of tits rather than saving money. I have no sympathy for boomers.

I think that medicare should cover the WW2 generation, and that is it.

Which would be fine imo, as a compensation due to wartime for lost time and wages for families of casualties, as the GI bill and some other stuff passed helped for the rest.
If people wanted a single payer system I'd be fine with it, granted it were a flat rate with adjustable variables, such as profession, pre-existing conditions, and essentially everything else that doesn't bias upon say... race or age.



If such a thing happened I'd shit bricks, then I'd throw out every assumption I'd made about political theory and politics in the U.S. and start from scratch.

Red
20 Nov 2009, 01:18pm
But you do have to address the fact that for the past 60 years the nation has allowed a monopoly to healthcare companies. Splitting territories on their own terms, adjusting rates through outright collusion and denying coverage at will, while never actually returning premium, investment, or providing service to the consumer is a serious issue. There shouldn't be a middleman between a doctor and a patient anymore than there should be between any lawyer and a client.

I completely agree with you there. Health insurance needs to be more akin to car insurance in terms of pricing/competition.

But this bill sure as shit isn't addressing that.

PotshotPolka
20 Nov 2009, 01:24pm
There's a vote tomorrow in the senate that will decide whether or not the Republicans will be able to use a filibuster.

LegalSmash
20 Nov 2009, 10:31pm
I’ll address this in parts… I wrote a good amount but sadly the god forsaken Vista decided it was a good time to BSOD on me:

Red: you are completely right, this bill addresses NOTHING of what it needs to because EVERYONE in both houses of congress is packed up to the gills in healthcare money from PACs, the AMA, or some other interested party. I seriously doubt there is an honest guy in that entire place, and so long as this is the status quo there will always be problems, always be obstructions to Americans getting any real healthcare.
I’ll address pricing, choice, and theory in separate parts to make this more understandable to people reading that unfamiliar with this issue:
Here’s part I:
My biggest issue with medical health insurance is that it should not exist. There was a time in this country where a person saved money in case they were injured. Apparently, toasters and dildos are more important than being fiscally responsible in our day and age. The reality is that doctors should be paid a fair amount for their service, and patients should actually receive that service. Insurance gets in between the two parties to take money from both sides, and contribute nothing to the proceedings.
I’m not a doctor, but I’ll explain it in another way: I’m a lawyer, you need legal assistance. Before insurance, you would go to me when you had a problem, and I would listen to your problem, advise you regarding your problem, and either fix your problem, or do a good job trying. I would tell you the bill prior to work and you would either agree to pay, or disagree and not take the service… it was a provider/customer relation. I got my full agreed price and you got my full attention.

Inject insurance, the middleman, and you have this scenario: You have a problem, but rather than just talking to a lawyer, you have to go through your insurance, who will decide if your case is necessary to deal with, and if they deem it not, they wont pay for it. On top of this, they don’t pay the lawyer his full price, and they require he talk to 5 other clients in the space of time he would otherwise spend dealing with you. This unfortunately results in shitty service for all, financially strapped, irresponsible professionals, and a badly served public… but a REALLY profitable insurance sector.
Add to this the groups that DON’T have insurance, who go to the emergency room, and are charged full price that the insurance says is the proper price to charge… the debt they can’t pay is “written off”, which in the end is turned into a raised premium for everyone WITH insurance.
Put it in terms of medicine. Instead of going to a doctor, you go to your insurer to do ANYTHING, and despite some treatment PREVENTING a disease that will cost more in the long run, they would rather be cheap up front and pay out the ass later.
The reality with this bill is that for five years, regardless of what it does LATER, it will allow for the status quo to continue. THAT is what I find most appalling. I’d rather a federal option that can effectively act as a baseline price that ALL insurers have to compete against and in that manner keep the insurance companies who wish to remain competitive as honest as the incumbent government at the time will allow them to be.

II: We need a preventative healthcare model, rather than a reactionary one. Illness is cheaper to treat when it is caught early… and when doctors diagnose with professionalism, rather than with fear of lawsuit… and NO, tort reform is not the answer, its TRAINING DOCTORS BETTER. Nowadays, an MD gets out of med school with a Google pocket diagnosing computer and a white coat… that’s about it. LAWYERS get more training in practical application in this day and age, and that is SAD, because we are not the ones tinkering with people’s organs. Doctors should be allowed to practice preventative medicine, and the government should make incentives and penalties for appropriate behavior, just like they do with crimes, taxes, and everything else the states and fed regulate under their authority. Now, before the paultards go nuts, realize that I’m not saying lowjack everyone, but by all means, charge obese people a surtax for being fat fucks. Charge Chili’s a tax for making a 3400 calorie milkshake and then putting it on special on the children’s menu. Tax the makers of high fructose corn syrup in the manner you tax cigarette manufacturers… because while tobacco is dangerous to use in its natural form, its not engineered with the purpose of being addictive and making you want MORE… that comes later… but corn syrup is literally an appetite causing substance… its why you ALWAYS want more mcdonalds…. Tax THOSE guys to fund this… and yes, tax the wealthiest bracket more… I said it. Bush dropped the taxes PAST Reagan levels, in a failed attempt at trickle down, and the only thing it achieved was giving the wealthy manufacturers of luxury items who put their bases outside of the US more money… when you make 1 Million a year or more personal income you don’t drive a ford explorer…because you don’t want to drive a piece of shit car with bad mileage. You may drive a Toyota, but its not the car that Jimbo and Dave made in Michigan. The prevailing tax rate on the highest earners in WWII was 92 % of the income that means you keep 8% of ALL you income… right now, its barely at 36%. It can go to Reagan 39% levels without a problem…. Similarly, we can get money out of cosmetic and lap-banding procedures by taxing them… people don’t NEED new tits unless breast cancer was involved. If a person who buys a mustang has to pay a tax for it, then the father that wants to buy his hideous daughter a new look can afford another 1.5 % if it will allow someone with a REAL health problem to be healthy and cost us less as a nation in the long run.

Lastly… Red: Car insurance is JUST as big a fraud market as medical insurance… here is a better idea… lets just be fucking careful, healthyminded, and financially responsible…. Then there is no need for the shit.