deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 20, 2011 14:05:55 GMT -5
rockon, possible your correct. Then again... I was not posting it to get into the possibilities of whether there was a alternative..I really don't know. they were his words, exact..I typed them exactly as written.
I posted it to just show , with all our rhetoric here , there is a real story of how it is or is not effecting people out there, this was just one story, true, to a family that I will never meet who lives about 50 miles from me.
Medical cost are going to go up, no question about it. I have no answer about it, how to solve it. I do know that to keep going after the doctors, the ones in their own practice, there is no more to get from them, if they are as most, participating in medicare, which so many here where I live, South Florida , do. That end is no longer viable.
They may try, this admisistration, Congress, future presidents, congresses but to get water from a stone is not going to work.
I have a very good friend who's daughter just graduated after five years at medical school, still needs to do her internship, pediatrics,. Went to Trinity college in Dublin, thus the five years vs four in US. She owes over $300,000 dollers and until she is accepted to a school for her internship, the loan has to be stsrted to be payed back, in January, and its $2200 per month. Expensive to become a medical Doctor.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jan 20, 2011 14:17:47 GMT -5
I don't? Didn't I say that the devices were paid for by Medicaid, Medicare, the VA and private health insurance? Which part do you disagree with? Those organizations already have payment schedules in place with the healthcare facilities...period. Over time the individual's premium will, as all things do, increase BUT they increase over the size of the pool. Costs like this 2.3% are not directly charged to the individual. Amazing how many people don't understand insurance. If you understand business answer this, how many companies would jump at the chance to increase their market opportunity by 30+ million people at the cost of 2.3%? It's much cheaper than the cost of marketing would be. I guess when medical device companies can't make a profit and start closing their doors we'll have our answer.
I didn't say I wanted an open and honest debate on healthcare reform, I said I wanted and open and honest discussion on the healthcare law. Reform has already happened, the law is in place. I would like to see some of the mis-information surrounding the law itself discussed so the American public can understand what has actually been passed.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jan 20, 2011 14:59:24 GMT -5
Democratic leaders have vowed to prevent a measure to roll back the health care law from even coming to the Senate floor, but Republican leader Mitch McConnell "assured" the public yesterday that he would force a vote on repeal. And there's a reasonable chance that he can pull it off. "The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn't want to vote on this bill," McConnell said in a YouTube video Wednesday. "But I assure you, we will." The chances of McConnell getting a straight up-or-down vote to repeal the law are slim. But Republicans will likely force procedural votes that serve as a proxy of sorts to get their Democratic colleagues on the record. Because any vote that would ultimately lead to repeal would require 60 or even 67 votes, no GOP-led efforts would actually pass the Senate. But Republicans say they'll happily take the consolation prize that comes with an official roll call vote: the ability to force Senate Democrats who are up for re-election to vote again in support of a health care measure that remains unpopular in their home states. There are two things McConnell could do that would all but ensure a vote tied to repealing the law. First, McConnell could withhold any deals or agreements to proceed to any legislation without a guarantee of a repeal vote, effectively throwing sand in the Senate's procedural gears until the law is addressed. Another way to force a vote is for McConnell or any Republican senator to offer a "motion to suspend the rules," essentially asking for a change in Senate rules to require a vote on a repeal amendment. If all members are present, it would take 67 votes to succeed. This was the rule Republican Sen. Tom Coburn used recently to force a vote to ban earmarks after Reid refused to bring the measure to the floor. And there is nothing that prevents any senator from using this strategy. Don Stewart, McConnell's spokesman, says it's unclear how soon the GOP leader will act or what strategy he will use. firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5884821-how-the-gop-could-force-a-repeal-vote-in-the-senate-
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 20, 2011 15:36:46 GMT -5
Democratic leaders have vowed to prevent a measure to roll back the health care law from even coming to the Senate floor, but Republican leader Mitch McConnell "assured" the public yesterday that he would force a vote on repeal. And there's a reasonable chance that he can pull it off. "The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn't want to vote on this bill," McConnell said in a YouTube video Wednesday. "But I assure you, we will." The chances of McConnell getting a straight up-or-down vote to repeal the law are slim. But Republicans will likely force procedural votes that serve as a proxy of sorts to get their Democratic colleagues on the record. Because any vote that would ultimately lead to repeal would require 60 or even 67 votes, no GOP-led efforts would actually pass the Senate. But Republicans say they'll happily take the consolation prize that comes with an official roll call vote: the ability to force Senate Democrats who are up for re-election to vote again in support of a health care measure that remains unpopular in their home states. There are two things McConnell could do that would all but ensure a vote tied to repealing the law. First, McConnell could withhold any deals or agreements to proceed to any legislation without a guarantee of a repeal vote, effectively throwing sand in the Senate's procedural gears until the law is addressed. Another way to force a vote is for McConnell or any Republican senator to offer a "motion to suspend the rules," essentially asking for a change in Senate rules to require a vote on a repeal amendment. If all members are present, it would take 67 votes to succeed. This was the rule Republican Sen. Tom Coburn used recently to force a vote to ban earmarks after Reid refused to bring the measure to the floor. And there is nothing that prevents any senator from using this strategy. Don Stewart, McConnell's spokesman, says it's unclear how soon the GOP leader will act or what strategy he will use. firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/20/5884821-how-the-gop-could-force-a-repeal-vote-in-the-senate-As I said earlier, P.I, it is for the politics , thats all. Spend time on this for 2012, and the problems of the country , still there , but effort would be spent here, and yes, I believe it would be the over riding thing on their minds. back to the same thing. Possible you feel they should be doing that, so important, even though nothing will be passed, repealed under the current set up. After 2012 it may be a different story but they don't want to wait for that to see what could be done and even though they know they can't repeal it, to argue it for the political, thats what is important to them. Your a smart guy P. I , I read your posts, is this what you think? They, the Pubs, should be doing? Your happy with that intention , if what I say is correct? No way they can repeal for two years but this is were attention should be placed? I feel we have such problems, cut spending, reform taxes, Obama looking at laws to do away with to help businesses and on and on yet effort going in NOW, not next year for the election, but NOW on something that isn't going to change if at all till after the election in 2012 if then, depending on the 2012 election. They want to tweak, improve, modify where needed, work togerher on that, would need Bi Partison to do that, fine, ok with me, but they won't do that as it would give legitimancy to the bill so if not that, then let it go I say for now. They made their point with the house vote, politics, ok , I am a realist , but back to the same old same old. What i relly want to do is go back tot he day , put the uniform on again and go there and put them through their paces, kick some butt and shape em up and get them doing what you and I use to do , straighten a little attatude adjustment so they can do their mission. Not going to happen but that's what i would love to see, some tail kicking and physical hurt if needed to get their ass 's straightened out, all of them. Looks like not going to happen so for two years..same BS going on, and the problems we have..same old , same old.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 20, 2011 19:18:51 GMT -5
The GOP's Health-Care Repeal KabukiIn a move that, with any justice, would enshrine the notion of “Kabuki Democracy” in the nation’s consciousness, the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives engineered an entirely symbolic 245 to 189 vote to “repeal and replace” the Obama administration’s health-care reform plan with unnamed and so far secret “free-market solutions” to control health costs and expand coverage. Nancy Pelosi’s House majority passed fully 300 bills that, as David Weigel reports, “never got anywhere in the Senate,” and that was under a supermajority of the same party. Now all of a sudden one meaningless bill is bottled up and it’s a national emergency. Still, it will sound just great on Fox News… More: www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-20/health-care-repeal-vote-is-republican-kabuki/
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 20, 2011 19:29:51 GMT -5
The GOP's Health Care Plan: Blame the LawyersDo Republicans really have a plan for fixing the health care system? They've insisted, even as they've pushed to repeal last year's health care reform law, that they have some new ideas for reducing health care costs and expanding access to the uninsured. So far, though, the Republicans' new ideas look a lot like their old ones. On Thursday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the new GOP chairman of the House judiciary committee, will hold a hearing entitled, "Medical Liability Reform—Cutting Costs, Spurring Investment, Creating Jobs." Judging from Smith's comments, and the subject of the hearing, one of the Republicans' big ideas for fixing the health care system is simply to keep people from suing the doctors who injured them. Better known as "tort reform," such proposals are Republicans' one and only health care policy. They have been offering this same proposal now for about two decades, often as their sole contribution to the national debate over what should be done to help rein in medical spending. More: motherjones.com/mojo/2011/01/gop-health-care-tort-reform
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jan 20, 2011 20:06:05 GMT -5
Actually I think McConnell has a point, its time for representatives to go on the record. Reid should recognize that until this is settled McConnell and the pubs will refuse to do anything related to jobs or the economy so I think the right thing to do would be to break the bill into it's component parts and hold a vote to get everyone on the record. Here are a few items they can tick off right from the start:
1) Do you support the repeal of the component allowing parents to keep kids on their insurance plan until age 26? 2) Do you support the repeal of the component that closes the Medicare donut hole? 3) Do you support the repeal of tax breaks to small businesses who purchase healthcare for their employees? 4) Do you support the repeal of the component that removes the pre-existing condition clause? 5) Do you support the repeal of the component that prevents insurance companies from dropping your policy if you become sick? 6) Do you support the repeal of components that will reduce the deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years? 7) Do you support the repeal of the component that states that illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid? 8) Do you support the repeal of the component that separates private premium funds from taxpayer funds insuring that taxpayer money isn't used to fund abortions? 9) Do you support the repeal of the component that states that no health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage? 10) Do you support the component that makes it illegal for illegal immigrants to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money? 11) Do you support the repeal of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance knowing that doing so will drastically drive up premium costs for those who want to remain insured?
IMO, votes on these individual components should be held as soon as possible to get this subject put to bed. I would prefer to see the house and senate working on the recommendations of the debt commission to get our fiscal house in order instead of keeping healthcare front and center for the next 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 20, 2011 20:11:47 GMT -5
The GOP's 5 Most Absurd Lies About Health-Care Reform, DebunkedNow is the time to brush up on the facts about health-care reform so we can keep the latest crop of Republican lies from taking hold. Lie #1: Health-care reform will kill jobs. Lie #2: Health-care reform will bankrupt the country. Lie #3: Health-care reform will mean the introduction of 'death panels.' Lie #4: Health-care reform will cut Medicare payments. Lie #5: 'Mandate' is a dirty word. DETAILS: www.alternet.org/economy/149598/the_gop%27s_5_most_absurd_lies_about_health-care_reform%2C_debunked/?page=entire
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jan 20, 2011 20:13:58 GMT -5
Honestly I don't know why this wasn't or couldn't be added. I've read that it won't reduce cost by more than a few percentage points but why not add it. I'm sick of these adds that run at night "If you or a loved one have died from mesothelioma call ....." If you died but still have the ability to call you probably don't need the money.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 20, 2011 20:45:39 GMT -5
Tort reform is not the only proposal from Republicans, they complete comprehensive plan, actually I think there was more than one. And direct tort payments are small, but defensive medicine is quite a high added cost.
And as for if the health care bill will cost jobs, I think the 1099 provision alone will cost jobs.
And if the law is so darn good, why are they handing out exemptions for certain companies, it shouldn't be up to a bureaucratic who does and does not have to abide by a law.
And on the bankrupting the country the CBO did say that the law would increase the debt, which you have to get into how the CBO score bills vs the debt to understand how this can be possible.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 20, 2011 20:47:54 GMT -5
So Zip and Lakhota, do you NOT support repealing the 1099 legislation that will cause billions of dollars for the millions of corporations to enact? Do you actually believe that creating this HUGE expense on EVERY company (big and small) will NOT kill jobs in this country? The problem with you two is you pick a handful of issues out of a MASSIVE 2000+ page bill to defend it...do you know EVERY SINGLE THING that is included in that bill? Every little fine print rule, hidden fee, additional tax, etc that is in that monstrosity of a bill? Does it take 2000+ pages to fix the 5 major issues listed above? Also...which government programs have EVER reduced the deficit? What government program has EVER taken in as much revenue as they estimated and EVER paid out as little expense as planned? Answer: NONE. Oh, but this one will be totally different..right.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 20, 2011 21:02:38 GMT -5
So Zip and Lakhota, do you NOT support repealing the 1099 legislation that will cause billions of dollars for the millions of corporations to enact? Do you actually believe that creating this HUGE expense on EVERY company (big and small) will NOT kill jobs in this country? The problem with you two is you pick a handful of issues out of a MASSIVE 2000+ page bill to defend it...do you know EVERY SINGLE THING that is included in that bill? Every little fine print rule, hidden fee, additional tax, etc that is in that monstrosity of a bill? Does it take 2000+ pages to fix the 5 major issues listed above? Also...which government programs have EVER reduced the deficit? What government program has EVER taken in as much revenue as they estimated and EVER paid out as little expense as planned? Answer: NONE. Oh, but this one will be totally different..right. Interesting. Here is my guess: You would applaud the CBO numbers IF the numbers favored repeal? But, since they don't, they're just more leftie lies? You could help your case IF you could provide some credible sources to back up your claims. The Forgotten Achievements of Governmentwww.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7Successful Government Programs — A Partial Listcivilizedconversation.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/successful-government-programs-a-partial-list/Successful Government ProgramsFederal Highway Administration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Environmental Protection Agency Tennessee Valley Authority National Park Service Medicaid Medicare National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) Social Security Family & Medical Leave Act National Weather Service Consumer Product Safety Commission Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Government Grants Food & Drug Administration Americans with Disabilities Act Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI bill) Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (another GI bill) Peace Corps European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS or cash for clunkers) Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act Public Broadcasting Public Schools & Universities Public Transportation (it has a lot of faults but a lot of people need it to get around) Public Libraries Fire Department Workers’ Compensation (ex Sate Compensation Insurance Fund of California) Rural Utilities Service Federal Aviation Administration Community Development Block Grant Housing & Urban Development (HUD) It turns out there are a lot of successful government run programs, making this list rather incomplete. www.longlivethemonkey.com/blog/?p=278
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 20, 2011 21:11:15 GMT -5
So Zip and Lakhota, do you NOT support repealing the 1099 legislation that will cause billions of dollars for the millions of corporations to enact? Do you actually believe that creating this HUGE expense on EVERY company (big and small) will NOT kill jobs in this country? The problem with you two is you pick a handful of issues out of a MASSIVE 2000+ page bill to defend it...do you know EVERY SINGLE THING that is included in that bill? Every little fine print rule, hidden fee, additional tax, etc that is in that monstrosity of a bill? Does it take 2000+ pages to fix the 5 major issues listed above? Also...which government programs have EVER reduced the deficit? What government program has EVER taken in as much revenue as they estimated and EVER paid out as little expense as planned? Answer: NONE. Oh, but this one will be totally different..right. Interesting. Here is my guess: You would applaud the CBO numbers IF the numbers favored repeal? But, since they don't, they're just more leftie lies? You could help your case IF you could provide some credible sources to back up your claims. And you would feel the same about the CBO if the numbers were reversed too...although I never trust the CBO numbers because they are always wrong. And I know the effects of the 1099 legislation (are you even familiar with it? I would hope so considering how much you seem to think you know about the bill...although you would have a hard time finding any info on it in left leaning media). I work in Accounting and am involved in the process of enacting this legislation. Our small company of 60 people are budgeting anywhere from $30k-50k for this...and even then it might not be enough. That could be one person's annual salary...or an $800 bonus for every employee. But, no, instead it gets wasted on a stupid provision that will do NOTHING!!! Have you ever dealt with 1099s? They are one of the most worthless forms in existence. And now the government is forcing us to spend even MORE time and MORE money to create a hundred times more of these worthless forms. So you know what we do with the 1099's we receive at our company? Throw them in a box and toss them in a corner. They are worthless!!!!
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 20, 2011 21:13:47 GMT -5
With all the discussion, what is being forgotten is the purpose of the Bill ..there was a reason for it and part of The reason is what happened here for this daughter of a person living about fifty miles from me , would be what would happen for so many others in all the states of our land, from maine to Alaska, Hawaii to Flirida and all in between...needs some changes , tweaking , what doesn't but the udea is to me aso important as it may effect me and mine some day and you and yours another ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Derrick Wells , 43, of Lake worth said the new law helped save his 21 year -old dauuhter, who suffered from kidney failure. He pointed to the to a provision to keep children up to age 26 on their insurence plans.
"The cost of a kidney transplant and Kidney treatmentwould be in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollers, something that I couldn' bear", he said.
"I wouldn't have be able to have it covered . She would just be lost. It's really , really heartbreaking but at the same time it gives me a spirit of optimism that something's been done to help."
Thanks to the new law, he said, his daughters thrice weekly dialysis and the kidney transplant she needs are covered . If her condition persists beyond 26, she won't be precluded from getting other coverage because if a pre exhisting health problem.
Nothing more, just one story out of millions but to me it says a lot. There was a need for the bill, in my opinion. If it needs to be tweaked, improved, modified , then it should be looked at. I see one political side just attacking because it wasn't their program, they are useing it to attempt to get rid of one party over looking the fact that there are real people like Mr. Wells out there, a good many who belong to their own party. Let them go to those people and say . "Real sorry to hear of you and your daughters misfortune, I really am, but I have to tell you, it's the breaks of the game , it's life, she will have to die." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If your bored reading this one I could have searched out another, or another , or another or.... the illness may have been different, a son instead of a daughter. Younger , older...but the story the same, with out the bills passage ...the person involved, no treatment...limited treatment..in many cases ....they would worsen, they too would die.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 20, 2011 21:16:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 20, 2011 21:20:00 GMT -5
Here is an example of how the righties use the CBO: Michele Bachmann dismisses CBO then uses CBO numbers within 60 seconds (Video)The moment occurred in a debate between Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) on Sean Hannity's show last night. When challenged on the deficit Weiner pointed out that Bachmann will soon be voting to increase the debt by $1.2 trillion with her health care reform vote. At the (8:00) mark in the video to the left, Bachmann calls those CBO numbers "fake", but then at the (8:57) mark produces a chart which purports to prove deficits increased under President Obama. When Weiner asks for the source behind the chart Bachmann is forced to admit that it comes from the same CBO she just slammed. www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/michele-bachmann-dismisses-cbo-then-uses-cbo-numbers-within-60-seconds-video
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 20, 2011 21:20:47 GMT -5
With all the discussion, what is being forgotten is the purpose of the Bill ..there was a reason for it and part of The reason is what happened here for this daughter of a person living about fifty miles from me , would be what would happen for so many others in all the states of our land, from maine to Alaska, Hawaii to Flirida and all in between...needs some changes , tweaking , what doesn't but the udea is to me aso important as it may effect me and mine some day and you and yours another ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Derrick Wells , 43, of Lake worth said the new law helped save his 21 year -old dauuhter, who suffered from kidney failure. He pointed to the to a provision to keep children up to age 26 on their insurence plans. "The cost of a kidney transplant and Kidney treatmentwould be in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollers, something that I couldn' bear", he said. "I wouldn't have be able to have it covered . She would just be lost. It's really , really heartbreaking but at the same time it gives me a spirit of optimism that something's been done to help." Thanks to the new law, he said, his daughters thrice weekly dialysis and the kidney transplant she needs are covered . If her condition persists beyond 26, she won't be precluded from getting other coverage because if a pre exhisting health problem. Nothing more, just one story out of millions but to me it says a lot. There was a need for the bill, in my opinion. If it needs to be tweaked, improved, modified , then it should be looked at. I see one political side just attacking because it wasn't their program, they are useing it to attempt to get rid of one party over looking the fact that there are real people like Mr. Wells out there, a good many who belong to their own party. Let them go to those people and say . "Real sorry to hear of you and your daughters misfortune, I really am, but I have to tell you, it's the breaks of the game , it's life, she will have to die." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If your bored reading this one I could have searched out another, or another , or another or.... the illness may have been different, a son instead of a daughter. Younger , older...but the story the same, with out the bills passage ...the person involved, no treatment...limited treatment..in many cases ....they would worsen, they too would die. Or someday that daughter would die, or you and yours or me and mine, because government rationing meant the person had to wait six months or eight months to even be seen by a specialist.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jan 20, 2011 21:26:49 GMT -5
Government rationing? Are you talking about the mythical "death panels"...? Can you be more specific and provide some credible backup?
Actually, Obamacare is far from perfect. Watering it down was the only way to get passage. In truth, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans should have tried to help make it the best it could be - but they didn't. So, we're sort of stuck with a camel instead of a thoroughbred horse.
I hope Republicans are successful at repealing Obamacare! I really do! It will be an ugly process, and then they must answer to the American people!
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 20, 2011 22:34:27 GMT -5
www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/Tax/us_tax_Prescriptionforchangefilled_033010.pdf$60 bn of fees levied on the insurance industry by 2018, and a percent of premiums thereafter [approx $14bn a year] - paid entirely by the consumer. $3bn a year fees on the pharma industry - paid entirely by the consumer 2.3% excise tax on medical devices beginning in 2013 - paid entirely by the consumer Here's a chance to educate yourself on a topic. Take advantage. [/size] From page 15 - This is going to be a disaster. The privately insured will end up further subsidizing the uninsured. None of this should lead anyone to believe that the government will be any more efficient at controlling or decreasing medical costs than what we've already seen from the implementation of Medicare and then the subsequent shoving of HMO's down our throats.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 20, 2011 22:48:28 GMT -5
With all the discussion, what is being forgotten is the purpose of the Bill ..there was a reason for it and part of The reason is what happened here for this daughter of a person living about fifty miles from me , would be what would happen for so many others in all the states of our land, from maine to Alaska, Hawaii to Flirida and all in between...needs some changes , tweaking , what doesn't but the udea is to me aso important as it may effect me and mine some day and you and yours another ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Derrick Wells , 43, of Lake worth said the new law helped save his 21 year -old dauuhter, who suffered from kidney failure. He pointed to the to a provision to keep children up to age 26 on their insurence plans. "The cost of a kidney transplant and Kidney treatmentwould be in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollers, something that I couldn' bear", he said. "I wouldn't have be able to have it covered . She would just be lost. It's really , really heartbreaking but at the same time it gives me a spirit of optimism that something's been done to help." Thanks to the new law, he said, his daughters thrice weekly dialysis and the kidney transplant she needs are covered . If her condition persists beyond 26, she won't be precluded from getting other coverage because if a pre exhisting health problem. Nothing more, just one story out of millions but to me it says a lot. There was a need for the bill, in my opinion. If it needs to be tweaked, improved, modified , then it should be looked at. I see one political side just attacking because it wasn't their program, they are useing it to attempt to get rid of one party over looking the fact that there are real people like Mr. Wells out there, a good many who belong to their own party. Let them go to those people and say . "Real sorry to hear of you and your daughters misfortune, I really am, but I have to tell you, it's the breaks of the game , it's life, she will have to die." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If your bored reading this one I could have searched out another, or another , or another or.... the illness may have been different, a son instead of a daughter. Younger , older...but the story the same, with out the bills passage ...the person involved, no treatment...limited treatment..in many cases ....they would worsen, they too would die. Or someday that daughter would die, or you and yours or me and mine, because government rationing meant the person had to wait six months or eight months to even be seen by a specialist. Can't think along what might be...that is just fortune telling..and if you want to go along with that type of thinking we could explore the Doctors will be there but you will find do the costs of insurence more and more companies have stopped offering or , thus patient has to pay most costs, if offering, have cut their share paid on it to the bone, which is tarting to happen now or as Wal Mart has been found , been that way for a loooobnnngg time..their big employee benefit program has been resources to let the employee know which government programs are available to help out their employees who have trouble in health care, heating, cooling , eating.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 20, 2011 22:53:31 GMT -5
Government rationing? Are you talking about the mythical "death panels"...? Can you be more specific and provide some credible backup? Actually, Obamacare is far from perfect. Watering it down was the only way to get passage. In truth, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans should have tried to help make it the best it could be - but they didn't. So, we're sort of stuck with a camel instead of a thoroughbred horse. as I have said , correct way to handle is take what it is and bi partison look at and tweak but it is not the on the others side to agenda. The above little story, that is real..that is what it is about..any of us tomorrow instead of having fun here be like that father, just like that...I wonder if so if we see them back here still knocking the program. Any one want to give a answer? Anyone? I hope Republicans are successful at repealing Obamacare! I really do! It will be an ugly process, and then they must answer to the American people!
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 20, 2011 22:53:53 GMT -5
[/size]
Ever do any research on HMO's? Government forced in the early 70's as the answer to control out of control costs from the introduction of Medicare.
You trade control for a lower price. Same thing in government controlled systems.
If you need links, it's an admission that you've never studied government run health care systems. Of course, it's not referred to as rationing but in the UK they've determined that women only need their annual exams once every 5 years.
Sure, their incidents of cancer are higher and their 5 year survival rates are lower as a result but their health care is "free".
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 20, 2011 22:56:54 GMT -5
Government rationing? Are you talking about the mythical "death panels"...? Can you be more specific and provide some credible backup? Actually, Obamacare is far from perfect. Watering it down was the only way to get passage. In truth, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans should have tried to help make it the best it could be - but they didn't. So, we're sort of stuck with a camel instead of a thoroughbred horse. I hope Republicans are successful at repealing Obamacare! I really do! It will be an ugly process, and then they must answer to the American people!Unfortunatly the little story above is real and could happen to any of us tomorrow, 1/2/3 and if it did, I wonder if the one who is here knocking the program today would be be back here in a week or so still coming up with the same story, the same complaints? Anyone think? Anyone?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 20, 2011 23:33:32 GMT -5
We can blame Nixon on the creation of the great and wonderful HMO
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jan 20, 2011 23:47:31 GMT -5
A quick google could give you the answer but since you ask, the exemption can be applied for annually by anyone and deals ONLY with the the annual cap placed on some lower cost health insurance plans. Beginning in 2014 all exemptions will expire and at the same time annual caps will be removed from all plans.
Government programs typically aren't designed to reduce the deficit however those programs that raise as much as they spend are considered revenue neutral, those that take in more than the pay out are considered revenue positive. An example of a revenue positive program, other than the new healthcare law, is social security which has to date brought in more than it has paid out. Unfortunately idiots in Washington have religiously used the surplus to pay for revenue negative programs thus putting social security in the position it now faces. Personally I would welcome a completely balanced budget. You want to spend, either decrease spending elsewhere or have the cajones to raise taxes. Worst case, if they have to run a deficit it should never be larger than the amount Americans are willing to finance. In WWII Americans bought over $185.7 billion in war bonds, in 2010 dollars that exceeds $2.3 trillion. The answers are there you just have to look beyond the republicans and democrats to find them.
Both sides of the aisle support either repealing or modifying the 1099 requirement. Even Obama has offered to work with republicans to 'tweek' the requirement.
IMO, doing nothing wasn't an option. The bill is now law and as with any laws can be changed or modified. To repeal it just because of it's size is silly. Yes it's over 2000 pages long so what, what is the maximum number of pages that are necessary when reforming 1/6 of the US economy?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 21, 2011 1:43:39 GMT -5
"In WWII Americans bought over $185.7 billion in war bonds, in 2010 dollars that exceeds $2.3 trillion. The answers are there you just have to look beyond the republicans and democrats to find them. " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The cost of WW2 for the US, saw it very recently, in fact all our wars including Revelutionary on downward or up as you want to call it, was 4 trillion plus a bit. Not sure if in todays $ or then. I am guessing it would be todays value, 4 trillion in their dollers translated to today would be just to much to consider and your figure of citizens buying 2.3 trillion in todays $ leaving a deficit of 1.7 trillion, makes sense. They stopped raising taxes for wars and interventions after Korea, Truman had excise taxes 10% on luxury goods, perfumes, cosmetics at that time and other goods. After that they figured war $ spent are a different kind of money I guess, deficiets were different deficits. Blame the citizens? Were expected to march on Washington, gather outside Congress, the White House, start to chant, "We're at War , raise out taxes, Were at War raise..." ?? mmmmm
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jan 21, 2011 9:06:01 GMT -5
It would be hard to convince me that most federal government programs are absolutely essential or operated efficiently otherwise we would not be running an endless budget deficit. It is also difficult to understand how our new health insurance reform bill based on CBO projections can cost us almost a trillion dollars over ten years and reduce the budget deficit by 143 billion over ten years. I think from what I have heard these projections are based on the creation of many service jobs in and related to the health care industry. Service jobs are equivalent to overhead in any other business. While some are important to many will sink the boat. We have get past the mind set that we can ship our manufacturing jobs out of the country and create more service jobs here. It just won't work and our endless budget problems prove it. Even if there are some suggestions in this bill that would improve our national health care like more preventative care and electronic record keeping that would actually that would reduce our national costs and improve efficiencies these things don't and shouldn't cost a trillion dollars to implement. We have to draw a line and do the things to improve our health care with out borrowing more money to do it otherwise our children will be sending interest checks to China instead of taking care of their children's health and education. We could do more for our national health care cost starting today with NO BILL and NO COST if we as individuals just were a little more conscious of our diet and exercise. Bottom (no pun intended) line is we have become fat and lazy and just want the government to come up with an easy fix regardless of the cost is to our children's future instead of just addressing the real problem.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jan 21, 2011 9:36:28 GMT -5
The reason the CBO can score a bill and make it look so good is because they have to score what is in the bill itself including all the "smoke and mirrors". Outsourcing manufacturing jobs, trade deficits, increasing debt are largely symptoms of the problem and should to a large extend be ignored. It really is not a problem if you outsource jobs somewhere where they can be done better (better usually just meaning cheaper) if you replace the jobs with with other jobs.
The real mind set we need to get away from is that government can create private sector jobs ,they can't, but what they can do is make the US a place where business wants to locate and expand by reducing taxes and regulations across the board.
It is my contention that eliminating the corporate and personal income tax would be a good first step to making the US more competitive. Corporate income tax is really paid by the consumers in the price of the products,so why not move it to a federal sales tax, in this way Chinese products would start to pay this tax as well, increasing there cost relative to domestic products.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 21, 2011 9:37:01 GMT -5
>>Both sides of the aisle support either repealing or modifying the 1099 requirement. Even Obama has offered to work with republicans to 'tweek' the requirement. <<
Yes, and even with all that support to change it, THREE times it has come up to be taken out of the bill and THREE times the Dems have shot it down.
Maybe if they actually knew what was in the bill BEFORE they voted for it then this wouldn't even be an issue right now.
So now companies have to work on the fact that this piece of the bill will be active next year so they have to spend the money and resources now to prepare for it. This is why the Dems are anti-business...something "could" happen, but maybe it won't - it will be expensive and it is costing businesses RIGHT NOW but the Dems don't care about leaving such a ridiculous, meaningless, and expensive item swaying in the wind while they stand around pulling their puds.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jan 21, 2011 10:00:54 GMT -5
I hate to even start on the moral side of this equation and I know there is lots of hypocrisies on both sides of the isle but these people who claim to shed tears hearing a story about how someone couldn't get free health care but yet defend the right to kill a new born baby just don't make any more sense to me then when they want more programs that provide free health benefits but don't make the connection that higher debt will inhibit our countries ability to provide essential services in the future or that they want more jobs but have no problem throwing more regulation and taxes on our businesses that will make them less competitive with our trading partners. It's called we want our cake and we want to eat it right now too. We need to cut back spending and make common sense improvements that do not cause us to borrow more money. It can be done but not with the approach in the current law.
|
|