Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic > Healthcare Reform

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Healthcare Reform Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
04-02-2010 08:26 AM
jupiterboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by yj-genral View Post
well i figured as much... it wasnt very descriptive either so i had a suspicion that it might be scued...

anyways, i personally think that no matter what legislation is proposed in the house or senate, that each voting member should be required to read it personally (and not one of their assistants) before they are allowed to vote on it. HC bill or any other bill for that matter...

but then when would they have time to wave at the crowd and sip their brandy in private...
It would seem reasonable, but if you have ever been on the hill you know that each house or senate member has to juggle being present for votes with attending committee meetings because it all happens simultaneously. One person may have to attend a critical meeting relating to defense, which means they don’t show up for vote. Another might skip a meeting and vote in exchange for another person to vote at another time. The whips keep track of it all and they attempt to get work done this way. Even in this impossible situation, many will take the time to talk with you if you simply show up at their office at a good time. Having readers is not a luxury. Having said that, they probably should spend more time in session, but the people in the home states don’t seem to like that much either as they demand near constant hand holding.
04-01-2010 10:47 AM
yj-genral well i figured as much... it wasnt very descriptive either so i had a suspicion that it might be scued...

anyways, i personally think that no matter what legislation is proposed in the house or senate, that each voting member should be required to read it personally (and not one of their assistants) before they are allowed to vote on it. HC bill or any other bill for that matter...

but then when would they have time to wave at the crowd and sip their brandy in private...
03-31-2010 02:10 PM
Geoff@Bestop
Quote:
Originally Posted by yj-genral View Post
i was emailed the following this morning, i havent read the healthcare bill front to back nor can i back anything said in the following with links or facts... just thought i would throw this out there because i believe atleast some of it has warrant.
From Snopes.com:
Quote:
Origins:

This line-item criticism of a proposed Congressional health care reform bill originally circulated anonymously in mid-2009; it was not cast as a letter to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana nor did it become attributed to a Dr. Stephen E. Frazer of Indianapolis until several months later.

This item references an older version of the health care reform bill, not the version actually passed by the House of Representatives in November 2009 (although they share many common elements).

Many of the claims this item makes about health care reform legislation are erroneous.
03-31-2010 12:51 PM
yj-genral i was emailed the following this morning, i havent read the healthcare bill front to back nor can i back anything said in the following with links or facts... just thought i would throw this out there because i believe atleast some of it has warrant.

Quote:
Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!
Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!
Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!
Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!
(Papers please!)
Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.
(Time for more cash and carry)Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).
Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!
Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)
Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.
Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!)
Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)
Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.
Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.
Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)
Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees ANDtheir families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)
Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.)
Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
(Like always)
Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.
(I guess so they can 'deduct' their fees)Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)
Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)
Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)
Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!)
Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)
Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)
Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Fraser, MD






03-30-2010 09:06 AM
cavediverjc Looks like CNN is finally coming around.

YouTube - Jack Cafferty Rips Obama on Failed Openness Pledge: 'Just Another Lie Told for Political Expediency'
03-28-2010 02:05 PM
mowbizz
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucky cheese View Post
A man was told by his friends that he looked bad. He replied but I feel good. So this went on and on. Everybody he saw told him, man you look bad. He always said, but I feel good. So he decided to go see a doctor. With the new healthcare there was a 3 month wait for an appointment. When he finally gets to see the MD he says doc, everybody tells me I look bad, but I feel good! The doc says, well we will have to go to the advanced medical analysis system to determine what your problem is. The man asks, you mean run a battery of tests such as blood ,MRI and x-ray. No the doc says, we have taken all the phrases used by patients to describe their ailments put them in a computer and it will tell us what your exact diagnosis is. Lets see your friends say you look bad but you say you feel good. so we will shorten it down to ,look bad-feel good. Ok I'll scroll down and see what the diagnosis is.
look bad-feel bad
look good-feel good
look bad-feel good. Ah here we go! I found the diagnosis! The man asks, what is it doc, cancer? aids? blackplague? The doc says no none of those. Look at the computer diagnosis, look bad-feel good, your a VAGINA!

Just thuoght I would put in my 2 cents.
LMAO... but I would change the description of "va-jay-jay" to "look good-feel good"
03-28-2010 07:31 AM
chucky cheese A man was told by his friends that he looked bad. He replied but I feel good. So this went on and on. Everybody he saw told him, man you look bad. He always said, but I feel good. So he decided to go see a doctor. With the new healthcare there was a 3 month wait for an appointment. When he finally gets to see the MD he says doc, everybody tells me I look bad, but I feel good! The doc says, well we will have to go to the advanced medical analysis system to determine what your problem is. The man asks, you mean run a battery of tests such as blood ,MRI and x-ray. No the doc says, we have taken all the phrases used by patients to describe their ailments put them in a computer and it will tell us what your exact diagnosis is. Lets see your friends say you look bad but you say you feel good. so we will shorten it down to ,look bad-feel good. Ok I'll scroll down and see what the diagnosis is.
look bad-feel bad
look good-feel good
look bad-feel good. Ah here we go! I found the diagnosis! The man asks, what is it doc, cancer? aids? blackplague? The doc says no none of those. Look at the computer diagnosis, look bad-feel good, your a VAGINA!

Just thuoght I would put in my 2 cents.
03-27-2010 07:08 PM
skeeter The ObamaCare Writedowns - WSJ.com

Quote:
It's been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or "political.

Perhaps that explains why the Administration is now so touchy. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write that while ObamaCare is great for business, "In the last few days, though, we have seen a couple of companies imply that reform will raise costs for them." In a Thursday interview on CNBC, Mr. Locke said "for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible."

Meanwhile, Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment "appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."

In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don't like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.

On top of AT&T's $1 billion, the writedown wave so far includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million. Verizon has also warned its employees about its new higher health-care costs, and there will be many more in the coming days and weeks.

As Joe Biden might put it, this is a big, er, deal for shareholders and the economy. The consulting firm Towers Watson estimates that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion, unless corporations cut retiree drug benefits when their labor contracts let them.

Meanwhile, John DiStaso of the New Hampshire Union Leader reported this week that ObamaCare could cost the Granite State's major ski resorts as much as $1 million in fines, because they hire large numbers of seasonal workers without offering health benefits. "The choices are pretty clear, either increase prices or cut costs, which could mean hiring fewer workers next winter," he wrote.

The Democratic political calculation with ObamaCare is the proverbial boiling frog: Gradually introduce a health-care entitlement by hiding the true costs, hook the middle class on new subsidies until they become unrepealable, but try to delay the adverse consequences and major new tax hikes so voters don't make the connection between their policy and the economic wreckage. But their bill was such a shoddy, jerry-rigged piece of work that the damage is coming sooner than even some critics expected.
03-27-2010 04:44 PM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff@Bestop View Post
Actually, the only thing I "keep talking about" is that the end-of-the-world talk is out of control. I was merely using examples of previous Republican efforts at health care to point out that it's not some new, horrifying left-wing spectre that just popped up out of nowhere. The desire for this type of health care reform has been around for a long time, left and right sides. And it's just the past few months that we've heard it means the end of The United States.
No, Arguments against socialism at the federal level have been around since FDR threatened to stack the Supreme court in order to force social security through. It is a violation of the law. When we can't hold our own government to the laws which govern them then we cease to be a nation of laws and the government can do anything it wants.
America won't cease to exist but it will cease to be what was intended.
03-27-2010 04:24 PM
Geoff@Bestop
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
You keep talking like republicans were the only ones opposed to this.
Actually, the only thing I "keep talking about" is that the end-of-the-world talk is out of control. I was merely using examples of previous Republican efforts at health care to point out that it's not some new, horrifying left-wing spectre that just popped up out of nowhere. The desire for this type of health care reform has been around for a long time, left and right sides. And it's just the past few months that we've heard it means the end of The United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
...you have to understand that the out of control spending is a major problem.
I wouldn't argue that point at all.
03-27-2010 04:06 PM
skeeter So once again Sarah Palin was actually right, her ankle biters just don't like it...

The government will decide what treatment can be provided based on economics.
03-27-2010 03:54 PM
jupiterboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
You will hear storys like this coming out of the wood work. Its up to you to make out what is fact and what is fiction.. and where's all those death panels at? Just kidding..just kidding.
My great grandmother was killed by an Obama death panel, shortly after the great flood.

Honestly, technology has surpassed the affordability threshold and private companies can't find legal ground to deny coverage that is statistically not effective. My mom was given two years, and then managed to burn through around 1.3 million in chemo treatment that had almost zero chance of having much effect. People imagine they want to “fight”, but that is all complete bull shit. What they do is burn a huge sum of money on nearly pointless treatments and no one can step in and tell them no. We all know that the graves are full of fighters. There’s just no good solution to reigning in cost, and no equitable way to decide who gets what treatments.
03-27-2010 03:46 PM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilgoretrout844 View Post
You will hear storys like this coming out of the wood work. Its up to you to make out what is fact and what is fiction.. and where's all those death panels at? Just kidding..just kidding.
Why don't you ask Sarah Palin herself?

Quote:
Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

- Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin: Concerning the "Death Panels" | Facebook

Do you really think the government won't decide how much can be spent on a patient? If I remember correctly, medicare is the highest denier of claims and the lowest payer.
03-27-2010 03:09 PM
mowbizz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff@Bestop View Post
MowBizz: It might not get much more simple, but it can get more complicated. Someone is confused.

The Health Care Reform bill has had zero impact on Medicare so far. It was just signed last Tuesday, and the Senate and House are still working on reconciliation (making each version match exactly).

So NOTHING has happened yet.

The only plan for 2010 as far as Medicare goes is to provide $250 checks to close the "donut hole" in medicare drug benefits. (I do not understand that, to be honest).

Most of the bigger impacts of this bill (mandatory insurance) do not take place for a couple of years.

I know...I was just relating this story "according" to the man who was ranting about it to my brother...there well may be other factors involved.
Time will tell all...
03-27-2010 02:59 PM
jupiterboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrible2 View Post
Im with Geoff on this, the healthcare bill may have been signed but I dont think its been put into affect yet, so that story about the U Haul manager is probably due to some other issue or lie.
^right.

That video shows some idealistic thinking, which has clearly been tempered by negotiation and fiscal reality (not that we are close enough to fiscal reality for my taste).

Obama’s biggest mistake, IMO, is his inability to grasp the financial situation. And honestly, I have little concern over the health care bill save that I am glad it is still possible to impose regulations on business.

A child born today has a $41,000 debt, which is simply interest on money already borrowed. Healthcare for anyone that has a net worth of less than a billion will be a fantasy in fairly short order IMO. By the time inflation and taxes really start to roll ideas like expanding the government, or even defending the nation will be out of reach, but then the supreme court just opened the door for foreign governments to openly purchase legislation.

Anyone have an example of any business in America that operates in a market free off intervention? Any product? Anywhere? That is not a product of a socialist system?
03-27-2010 02:53 PM
kilgoretrout844 You will hear storys like this coming out of the wood work. Its up to you to make out what is fact and what is fiction.. and where's all those death panels at? Just kidding..just kidding.
03-27-2010 02:45 PM
terrible2 Im with Geoff on this, the healthcare bill may have been signed but I dont think its been put into affect yet, so that story about the U Haul manager is probably due to some other issue or lie.
03-27-2010 02:41 PM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff@Bestop View Post
Schmo:
I think the rhetoric about this gets way overheated. This health care plan is the mildest one proposed in years. More "liberal" plans have been proposed before. In fact, when the Clinton administration tried to get Health Care through, the Republican response was to propose an alternative. The alternative was almost EXACTLY what just passed.
The republican response? Which republicans and why didn't it pass?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff@Bestop View Post
Republican Mitt Romney signed a mandatory requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it.
Romney was defeated in the primaries largely due to this and it's not working out well for Massachusetts. Rates have increased considerably and it's a major drain on the state budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff@Bestop View Post
In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement.
In what context?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff@Bestop View Post
"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits – two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received – by the George H.W. Bush administration.
You keep talking like republicans were the only ones opposed to this. First, there was bipartisanship in the health care debate. Members from both sides opposed it. Democrats had large enough majorities to pass it easily without republican support.
Second, Republicans aren't uniformly opposed to larger more intrusive government.

Even if you don't care about the rule of law. Even if you don't care about the protection from an out of control government the limitations on the fed provide, you have to understand that the out of control spending is a major problem.
CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP - Washington Times

Quote:
President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

"An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying."

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.

That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.
03-27-2010 12:37 PM
Geoff@Bestop Schmo:
I think the rhetoric about this gets way overheated. This health care plan is the mildest one proposed in years. More "liberal" plans have been proposed before. In fact, when the Clinton administration tried to get Health Care through, the Republican response was to propose an alternative. The alternative was almost EXACTLY what just passed.

Republican Mitt Romney signed a mandatory requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits – two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received – by the George H.W. Bush administration.
03-27-2010 12:24 PM
Schmo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff@Bestop View Post
The big part of this bill that is getting people a bit worked up is the mandatory insurance requirement. A couple of paragraphs to try and explain that. Again, I'm not arguing in favor of these things, just trying to state them a bit more concisely and accurately than just calling it "socialism."

This is the point I keep wrestling with. Unfortunately, it does appear as if this may lead to more government control and by the sound of some of what we've heard from the Left, the plan is for the gov't to take over healthcare and this is just the beginining. But I'm still curious as to if this current bill provides the gov't with the control that folks are worried about or if this is a foothold that will easily lead to more gov't control in the future. And I'm still trying to figure out which is worse, having everybody forced to pay for insurance or having to pay for those that don't pay for their own insurance everytime they show up at the ER.
03-27-2010 12:17 PM
Geoff@Bestop The big part of this bill that is getting people a bit worked up is the mandatory insurance requirement. A couple of paragraphs to try and explain that. Again, I'm not arguing in favor of these things, just trying to state them a bit more concisely and accurately than just calling it "socialism."

Quote:
Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.
03-27-2010 12:12 PM
Geoff@Bestop
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowbizz View Post
He said he had been covered then WAS TOLD BY THE HOSPITAL THAT NOW, UNDER THE NEW BILL, HE/SHE IS NOT COVERED!! Can't get more simple than this...
MowBizz: It might not get much more simple, but it can get more complicated. Someone is confused.

The Health Care Reform bill has had zero impact on Medicare so far. It was just signed last Tuesday, and the Senate and House are still working on reconciliation (making each version match exactly).

So NOTHING has happened yet.

The only plan for 2010 as far as Medicare goes is to provide $250 checks to close the "donut hole" in medicare drug benefits. (I do not understand that, to be honest).

Most of the bigger impacts of this bill (mandatory insurance) do not take place for a couple of years.
03-27-2010 11:41 AM
cavediverjc
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
Hahahaha........now THAT'S funny!! 24 seconds in, he makes reference to providing healthcare to every citizen by the end of his FIRST term as President. As if there is a CHANCE he'll get re-elected for a second.
03-27-2010 11:34 AM
mowbizz
Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiterboy View Post
So when did this happen? BTW, this is third hand rather than personal experience, and why is this on his medicare? Wouldn’t she have it?
This was yesterday. My brother was inside with the guy and I was outside waiting for him to get the UHaul...first hand experience!
You're asking other questions I have no idea about. This is from the owner of the Uhaul place that was ranting to my brother...simple enough isn't it?

He said he had been covered then WAS TOLD BY THE HOSPITAL THAT NOW, UNDER THE NEW BILL, HE/SHE IS NOT COVERED!! Can't get more simple than this...
03-27-2010 10:50 AM
jupiterboy From Reuters:

Quote:
There are no cuts to the traditional Medicare benefit. The lion's share of spending cuts are in Medicare Advantage -- a program that uses private firms such as Humana and UnitedHealth Group to deliver Medicare benefits. Many of these providers offer extra coverage and some of those extras could be dropped as Medicare Advantage subsidies are bought more in line with the cost of traditional Medicare benefits. Medicare Advantage payment rates will be frozen in 2011 and then gradually reduced giving companies time to adjust to the changes.
Sound like what may have happened is that a privatized supplemental to medicare changed coverage because a government subsidy was reduced. That is a reduction in socialism.
03-27-2010 10:42 AM
skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiterboy View Post
Give me a link or something on this.
Here ya go.

YouTube - Obama Single Payer Strategy State Power
03-27-2010 10:41 AM
jupiterboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowbizz View Post
Here's a real world "repercussion" from personal experience.
My brother went to a small U Haul guy who runs a car repair shop with the rental business on the side...just he and his son. He started ranting to my brother...
He takes his wife in for a weekly treatment under his medicare (he and she are both over 70) and the day after the obanmacare bill was signed, was his his wife's scheduled treatment.
When they walked into the hospital, as they had been doing for some time, they were abruptly informed that her treatment was NO LONGER COVERED UNDER THE NEW HEALTHCARE BILL!
That's it! He now has to pay full price for her treatment or go without...WTF??

If this is how obammycare is going to "take care of us all" I don't get it...

Let's hear your real world repercussions....
So when did this happen? BTW, this is third hand rather than personal experience, and why is this on his medicare? Wouldn’t she have it?
03-27-2010 10:05 AM
mowbizz Here's a real world "repercussion" from personal experience.
My brother went to a small U Haul guy who runs a car repair shop with the rental business on the side...just he and his son. He started ranting to my brother...
He takes his wife in for a weekly treatment under his medicare (he and she are both over 70) and the day after the obanmacare bill was signed, was his his wife's scheduled treatment.
When they walked into the hospital, as they had been doing for some time, they were abruptly informed that her treatment was NO LONGER COVERED UNDER THE NEW HEALTHCARE BILL!
That's it! He now has to pay full price for her treatment or go without...WTF??

If this is how obammycare is going to "take care of us all" I don't get it...

Let's hear your real world repercussions....
03-27-2010 09:49 AM
jupiterboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by s3nt3nc3d View Post
You said he went without it because he couldn't afford it, right? I'm in the same boat as him so I can explain what it means...

It means that he is now required to have health insurance...the government will provide him with "affordable" plans to choose from and he will be forced to purchase one or pay a very large "fine" (read: tax) at the end of the year. If he couldn't afford it before, he's quite possibly screwed now, because now he has no choice but to either pay for a plan or pay the "fine"...which last I'd read was somewhere around $1000/yr.
What I have read is that the requirement will only be an issue if you make more than $45,000 a year. Honestly, if a person is bringing in that much I don’t want to pay for them to crash ER. Let them make an appointment and see a doctor.

And in regards to free-market capitalism, I have a hard time finding a product or service that is not tied into a subsidy or corporate socialism of some sort. Farming, for example, is a highly socialized industry—but then food supply can be viewed as an issue of national security. Free market capitalism is an idea that has no real world analog—it just doesn’t exist.
03-27-2010 09:16 AM
s3nt3nc3d
Quote:
Originally Posted by aenima540 View Post
So I don't know exactly how this bill works, but from what i've heard is those without health insurance now have it? If that's how it works I assume it effects my parents by them having to pay more, but also I have some friends one of my best friends actually does not have health insurance because they can't afford it, so if this means that if he gets hurt or really really sick he can now get helped, I am all for it.
You said he went without it because he couldn't afford it, right? I'm in the same boat as him so I can explain what it means...

It means that he is now required to have health insurance...the government will provide him with "affordable" plans to choose from and he will be forced to purchase one or pay a very large "fine" (read: tax) at the end of the year. If he couldn't afford it before, he's quite possibly screwed now, because now he has no choice but to either pay for a plan or pay the "fine"...which last I'd read was somewhere around $1000/yr.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC