a sobering looking into the current HCR bill

[grantt]

kul,

my understanding of Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) is it will transfer billions of dollars away from banking to govt departments as to to whom a student applies with

many jobs will be eliminated from the pvt sector and will make govt even bigger

i'm sure many will think this is good

It is all about CONTROL. The control of the Nation's Healthcare now coupled with the control of our college educations. And we are supposed to pay for all of this as a nation? Next will be CONTROL of all energy in the country. Enough is enough.

 

[Kulindahr]

really thoughtful piece on HCR

read it all to see what the bill will do immediately opposed to what it will not do until 1-4 years from now

That's close to my assessment. I've written several times to DC to say that if they're going to do reform, it should really be reform. So far, no one has even responded.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

MARCIA ANGELL: I would rather see Obama go down fighting for something coherent and practical that the public could mobilize behind, than go down fighting for this amorphous plan that tries to keep the private insurance industry in place.

Obama has wrecked the rest of his presidency. No matter what happens, the people he has alienated with this will not forget it.

 

[grantt]

^ He doesn't care any more. "Full speed ahead" and "Damn the Torpedos".

 

[Kulindahr]

Health care isn't about control. It's about increasing access to health care and curbing industry abuse.

Did you read the last few posts?

The bill as it stands, and more so with the new additions, is about handing record profits to the private insurance industry. That's not curbing abuse, it's feeding it!

 

[hotatlboi]

Did you read the last few posts?

The bill as it stands, and more so with the new additions, is about handing record profits to the private insurance industry. That's not curbing abuse, it's feeding it!

AGAIN, it is curbing abuse.

Insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

Insurance companies will not be able to drop you just for getting sick.

Insurance companies will not be able to jack up rates unreasonable amounts without oversight.

The guarantee of new customers is to offset the substantial new cost increases those provisions will make insurers incur.

Granted it is not as good as competition from a public option would have been, however it makes things decidedly more fair for millions of people compared to what we have now.

 

[NickCole]

oh my, fuck me

as if the pot wasnt sweet enough for pvt insurance companies

Dems sweeten health bill, set showdown Sunday vote

Thursday March 18

WASHINGTON – Historic health care change in the balance, Democrats plowed fresh billions into insurance subsidies for consumers on Thursday and added a $250 rebate for seniors facing high prescription drugs, last-minute sweeteners to sweeping $940 billion legislation headed for a climactic weekend vote.

Anybody who knows seniors on prescription drugs knows $250 is nothing compared to the sky high cost and how often many of them skip doses to save money.

And it's completely unnecessary to burden taxpayers with paying that rebate, a much better solution would have been to allow reimportation. But of course Obama made that deal with Pharma.

 

[NickCole]

AGAIN, it is curbing abuse.

Insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.


Insurance companies will not be able to drop you just for getting sick.

That's great if you can afford the insurance. But if you can't, it doesn't matter that you can't be denied coverage you can't afford to buy.

Insurance companies will not be able to jack up rates unreasonable amounts without oversight.

That's meaningless.

Define "unreasonable amount."

Who's doing the oversight and what are their powers?

Vague government regulation is a kickback to Pharma and big insurance. If this were true health care reform there'd be a mechanism to motivate health care industries to create competitively priced products in exchange for their millions of new customers. There are reasons this HCR doesn't do that, and those reasons can be found in the visitor logs of the White House.

The guarantee of new customers is to offset the substantial new cost increases those provisions will make insurers incur.

Granted it is not as good as competition from a public option would have been, however it makes things decidedly more fair for millions of people compared to what we have now.

It improves the situation for people who've been shut out of private insurance and have the money to pay the premiums that private insurers set. And premiums are going to go up, not down. As will drug prices. The cost of health care, and who is and is not making big profits off it, is a huge part of the problem, and if measures aren't put in place to begin solving it when mandated coverage is made law, it'll never happen. Pharma and big insurance will only become richer and more powerful in Washington as a result of this bill and will pour even more resources into keeping lawmakers in their pocket.

The really amazing thing is Obama has his followers cheering this on. Lambs to the slaughter.

 

[hotatlboi]

That's great if you can afford the insurance. But if you can't, it doesn't matter that you can't be denied coverage you can't afford to buy.

Have you even been paying attention?

This bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for those that can't afford to buy.

That's meaningless.

Define "unreasonable amount."

Who's doing the oversight and what are their powers?

There is a committee that would be setup to review price increases.

Such an approach has already been implemented successfully in 33 states.

If you make it anymore specific in statute people will just claim it is a price control and socialism.

Pharma and big insurance will only become richer

Why is the entire insurance industry opposed to it then? Get real. This bill imposes major cost increases on the insurance companies. Again, providing them more customers is the only fair way to offset that.

The really amazing thing is Obama has his followers cheering this on. Lambs to the slaughter.

On the contrary, it's amazing that any progressive person would oppose this reform which will benefit the health of millions of Americans just because they have to be opposed to anything Obama wants.

 

[Kulindahr]

AGAIN, it is curbing abuse.

Insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

Insurance companies will not be able to drop you just for getting sick.

Insurance companies will not be able to jack up rates unreasonable amounts without oversight.

The guarantee of new customers is to offset the substantial new cost increases those provisions will make insurers incur.

Granted it is not as good as competition from a public option would have been, however it makes things decidedly more fair for millions of people compared to what we have now.

In many states insurance already can't do the latter two.

How is it "more fair" to force people to spend money against their choice? How is it "more fair" to increase the budget deficit by subsidizing those who can't pay? How is it "more fair" to just anoint the companies people complain about as the kings of the game?

This is anti-free market, anti-competition. It is hardly real reform, any more than suddenly requiring every American to have a garage would be "reform" in how we deal with auto theft.

 

[Kulindahr]

This bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for those that can't afford to buy.

Gee, and the email I got from the White House this morning said this bill will slash the budget deficit.

There is a committee that would be setup to review price increases.

Such an approach has already been implemented successfully in 33 states.

Constitutionally, that's where this belongs: the states.

Why is the entire insurance industry opposed to it then? Get real. This bill imposes major cost increases on the insurance companies. Again, providing them more customers is the only fair way to offset that.

Yeah, extortion is always fair, when it benefits one's friends. This is a beautiful example of what George Washington meant when he said that government is force, nothing else: this is men with guns telling people to cough up money for someone else's profit, and oh, BTW, we'll be helping people, too.

Why is it that when a group of citizens decide to run a business that way, they go to prison, but when you slap a flag on it, it's suddenly okay?

 

[hotatlboi]

How is it "more fair" to increase the budget deficit by subsidizing those who can't pay?

Why is it that everyone who opposes this seems to have their facts wrong?

 

[Kulindahr]

This bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for those that can't afford to buy.

How is it "more fair" to increase the budget deficit by subsidizing those who can't pay?

Why is it that everyone who opposes this seems to have their facts wrong?

What facts are wrong? You told it to us up above: the government is throwing in hundreds of billions.

That increases the budget deficit.

 

[hotatlboi]

That increases the budget deficit.

 

[Kulindahr]

No. It doesn't.

It increases the size of the federal budget, certainly.. But appropriations in the health care bill happen to be paid for and therefore do not add to the budget deficit.

The budget deficit is the annual addition of debt to the outstanding national debt.

Do you still not understand the difference?

Uh-huh.

Where are the revenues coming from? Especially the billions more they plan to throw in?

And if they can actually get said revenues, why won't they be used to cut the deficit?

I don't believe this bill, with all its massive subsidies, is revenue-neutral.

 

[palemale]

It is all about CONTROL. The control of the Nation's Healthcare now coupled with the control of our college educations. And we are supposed to pay for all of this as a nation? Next will be CONTROL of all energy in the country. Enough is enough.

You're from Texas. aren't you? Would you have opposed the federal government's program of using tax dollars for rural electrification when most Texans lived without electricity in the 1930s? http://permianhistoricalsociety.org...-basin-of-texas-before-rural-electrification/ I always find it ironic how the loudest complaints about "government control" and "government programs" come from rural, Southern conservatives in light of the fact that that region has always been the most dependent on the federal government for the programs that brought it development and allowed it to come into the 20th Century, albeit 50 years after the rest of the country did. In the absence of federal government largess, the South would have remained an impoverished backwater.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

This bill includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for those that can't afford to buy.

And how does one go about qualifying for these subsidies? Where's the promise you'll qualify for the subsidy if you can't afford insurance?

And finally - Everyone in this cuntry who isn't going to be able to afford insurance is going to have to wade through all this red tape. Believe me. People are not going to feel like anyone is doing them a favor when that gotcha provision (The one that's either already there and no one has noticed yet or that will be added later while no one is paying attention) leaps out at them and they find they don't qualify for the subsidy and they can't afford to buy insurance or pay the fine. What does that mean? Well, I guess it means those people will be criminals.

There is a committee that would be setup to review price increases.

Would that be anything like the thousands of committees that have been set up to make sure the government doesn't make stupid laws that meet with massive public resistance?

You'll have to forgive me if I have no faith in committees set up by these bastards.

If you make it anymore specific in statute people will just claim it is a price control and socialism.

As opposed to what? What is it in it's current state? Because it sure isn't freedom when you can't refuse to participate.

Why is the entire insurance industry opposed to it then?

They aren't. They're pretending. Get it? Pretend you're against something you actually want and everyone else thinks they're winning some valuable prize if it passes. Then, when it turns out to be great for you, nobody can blame you. You were against it, remember?

Really. This is simple shit. The scheming of a child is more complicated.

Get real. This bill imposes major cost increases on the insurance companies.

Which they'll easily maneuver out of. Every such law that is passed is supposed to restrain this industry or that one and guess what? It never works. The usual reason for that is because the people who passed the bills were not in any way sincere in their desire to impose limits on said industries. The other major reason for it is that the kind of control that would be necessary isn't possible. There are always loopholes for industries and companies that have the motive and resources to find them.

Simply - This bill will end up being a burden on the very people you think it's going to help and it will be a boon to the people you believe it will put into check. You watch and see.

Again, providing them more customers is the only fair way to offset that.

Of course!

On the contrary, it's amazing that any progressive person would oppose this reform which will benefit the health of millions of Americans just because they have to be opposed to anything Obama wants.

Maybe you should think about the logic of what you just said -

1. If progressives are opposed to a supposedly progressive president, that would have to mean those millions of progressives aren't really progressives or that one "progressive" president is something other than he claims to be. Which is more likely?

2. My opposition to this bill didn't come from the fact that it's Obama's bill. It came from the fact that I don't like the bill.

3. Further, Obama pledged there would be no mandate in this bill when he ran for office and then turned away from that once he got elected. He did the same thing with the public option promise. Not only were we not supposed to be forced to buy insurance but we also were supposed to have a public option.

The fairness (or not) of the mandate wasn't even supposed to be a matter of whether or not there was a public option. The mandate wasn't supposed to happen at all.


Regardless. Obama himself said the mandate was a bad idea and implied he wouldn't sign a bill that contained a mandate. Blatant lie. Not only that but it's a blatant lie about the single most important part of the bill. The one thing that will have the most profound impact on the people affected by it.

He has also been caught in many other lies and distortions. He has chosen to ignore a vast portion of the public and ram his pet bill through despite massive opposition. Many of the people who are opposed to this voted for Obama. They're not opposed to it because it's his bill. They're opposed to it because it's a terrible bill. And people who have turned on Obama have done so because he has shown himself to be a conniving liar, manipulative, secretive, domineering and generally, no better than Bush.

 

[hotatlboi]

Uh-huh.

Where are the revenues coming from?

You know it might help if you actually informed yourself before discussing this any further.

The revenue components of this bill have been widely publicized.

And if they can actually get said revenues, why won't they be used to cut the deficit?

I think you are still not understanding what "deficit" means. If you get revenues to offset your costs, you don't have a deficit.

 

[hotatlboi]

And how does one go about qualifying for these subsidies?

Again, as the common pattern I'm seeing on here, the people opposed to this just do not have the least bit of information on it.

The qualifications for receiving subsidies have been widely publicized. try google

Would that be anything like the thousands of committees that have been set up to make sure the government doesn't make stupid laws that meet with massive public resistance?

You'll have to forgive me if I have no faith in committees set up by these bastards.

You'll have to forgive me if I judge the "massive public resistance" against this bill as simply based on ignorance and FUD from the Republicans, because that's all I've been seeing, uninformed arguments from those who are opposed, and absurd characterizations from the obstructionists.

As opposed to what? What is it in it's current state? Because it sure isn't freedom when you can't refuse to participate.

Explain to me a way to do preexisting conditions without a mandate? I've yet to hear anything else that could make it work.

They aren't. They're pretending. Get it? Pretend you're against something you actually want and everyone else thinks they're winning some valuable prize if it passes.

This is completely delusional thinking. They are opposed to it plain and simple. They represent big business who usually sides with the Republican party and always oppose any kind of government oversight. This is not any different. Even with the additional customers, they stand to make less profit with this bill when they can no longer deny coverage, jack up rates unreasonably, and spend 30% of every dollar on overhead.

Which they'll easily maneuver out of. Every such law that is passed is supposed to restrain this industry or that one and guess what? It never works. The usual reason for that is because the people who passed the bills were not in any way sincere in their desire to impose limits on said industries. The other major reason for it is that the kind of control that would be necessary isn't possible. There are always loopholes for industries and companies that have the motive and resources to find them.

So government should never do anything because nothing it has done has ever worked? Seriously? This is so absurd I don't even know where to begin. The government servers in an oversight role in many other industries and does so quite successfully.

Maybe you should think about the logic of what you just said

I suspect you were applying my statement to a more general audience than that which it was intended for.

 

[NickCole]

Uh-huh.

Where are the revenues coming from? Especially the billions more they plan to throw in?

And if they can actually get said revenues, why won't they be used to cut the deficit?

I don't believe this bill, with all its massive subsidies, is revenue-neutral.

Not that I expect he will but I'd love if he answered your question - where are the revenues coming from.

Because, as you probably know, it's a hell of an answer.

You're right, this will end up adding to the deficit. (Not that that, in and of itself, is what's wrong with this HCR; IMO what's wrong with it is the same thing that was wrong with Obama's stimulus that cost a trillion plus interest in debt we'll be paying off for years -- it won't do what they're claiming it'll do and in the end it's going to make the situation with health care AND the economy worse.)