a sobering looking into the current HCR bill

[NickCole]

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.

If they've been widely publicized then you must be very familiar with them.

Go ahead, list the revenue components and how much they're supposed to generate.

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

Unless those "revenues" don't actually materialize.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

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 latest excuse in a long string of them. Do you get your talking points directly from the WH or what?

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

Sorry. I'm all googled out. I've seen vague promises. I don't take them at their word on anything because they've already told so many whoppers.

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.

Massive resistance is massive resistance. A government that ignores the will of the people is simply out of touch
arrogant and out of control.

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

That's not my problem Obama should have thought of that before he said he wasn't going to support a bill with a mandate and without a public option during his campaign. That was the major difference between his position on healthcare and Clinton's position. He knew what he was doing. I expect you to hold him to his word. You shouldn't ask me (A random person) how to make the bill he promised work. You should ask him to fix it and find a way to make it the bill he promised. You support him. Therefore, your credibility is only as good as his and your insistence on defending the mandate he said wasn't going to be there in the first place is preposterous. It's not on me.

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.

Not delusional at all. You just don't have any grasp on the level of corruption that we're evidently dealing with. Again, that's your problem.

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.

Did you not read my post? They'll find a way. You can believe that or not. If you believe they're snakes, then take that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. They're not going to lose. They will make massive profits one way or another. And poor people who don't have time, energy or money to sit around scheming all day won't have a clue or a prayer. Nothing will change except for the fact that the grip of the corporations and the government will tighten on the average person. You're the deluded one.

So government should never do anything because nothing it has done has ever worked?

You're not even going to argue with me that it won't work?

Seriously? This is so absurd I don't even know where to begin.

I can guess. You'll begin exactly the way you just did. By attempting to defeat an argument by stating that it's absurd without actually countering it. Is that about right?

The government servers in an oversight role in many other industries and does so quite successfully.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Look below the surface of any of that and you'll find more filth than you ever knew existed. And no. I won't give you examples. I've wasted enough time with you. For someone who talks about the ignorance of others, you could take a gold medal in the Ignorance Olympics.

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

Unfortunately, you stated that you were aiming it at any progressive person who opposes Obama. I'm a progressive (Moderate) and I'm a person so I took it a bit personally.

I also noticed that you chopped off the part of my post that is very inconvenient to your argument but that's OK. I put it in this post too. Unfortunately, people do remember campaign promises.

 

[hotatlboi]

You're right, this will end up adding to the deficit.

No, he's not. It's as simple as that.

 

[hotatlboi]

The latest excuse in a long string of them. Do you get your talking points directly from the WH or what?

Excuse? It was an observation on the lack of relevant knowledge regarding this bill that your post displayed.

Sorry. I'm all googled out.

Then I'll make the same suggestion to you that I made to Kuli. Please inform yourself.

If you don't even have the basic relevant information on what the topic of discussion is, then this is all just hot air.

 

[NickCole]

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

Allow people not covered by private insurance to buy into medicare, the congressional/federal plan, or medicaid on a means-tested premium base. If you did that instead of mandated private insurance and subsidies, that would probably provide much needed funds to the two public programs, allow everyone with a precondition an insurance program, and since it would be means-tested, there would be a point at which people would look at private insurance as an option when it was affordable for them.

 

[NickCole]

No, he's not. It's as simple as that.

Prove it.

Show us the revenue sources and how much they'll generate.

You said it's been widely publicized so surely you must know.

 

[hotatlboi]

Allow people not covered by private insurance to buy into medicare, the congressional/federal plan, or medicaid on a means-tested premium base. If you did that instead of mandated private insurance and subsidies, that would probably provide much needed funds to the two public programs, allow everyone with a precondition an insurance program, and since it would be means-tested, there would be a point at which people would look at private insurance as an option when it was affordable for them.

That doesn't solve the core issue. If you do not HAVE to buy into any insurance program, but the insurance companies (or medicare et al) HAD to cover you if you chose to, then you could just go without insurance until you became seriously ill or really needed it.

The problem I'm referencing is not with people who currently have preexisting conditions, it's people that don't and don't want to buy insurance. Essentially you are giving those people an insurance policy (they can get coverage to pay for medical bills if they need it no matter what) without requiring them to pay for it. The insurance companies (or medicare) would be open to huge risk they are forced to take on from anyone that doesn't have insurance currently. That is simply not a workable solution.

When you buy insurance for something you have to pay for the benefit of deferring risk or passing that risk onto someone else. That's the basic model of how it works. Otherwise costs for the insurer would be way more than they take in.

 

[hotatlboi]

Prove it.

Again, it's obvious you haven't been paying attention.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf

 

[NickCole]

That doesn't solve the core issue. If you do not HAVE to buy into any insurance program, but the insurance companies (or medicare et al) HAD to cover you if you chose to, then you could just go without insurance until you became seriously ill or really needed it.

The problem I'm referencing is not with people who currently have preexisting conditions, it's people that don't and don't want to buy insurance. Essentially you are giving those people an insurance policy (they can get coverage if they need it no matter what) without requiring them to pay for it.

Mandate that everybody has to have coverage but private insurers don't have to take on anybody they don't want to and people who can't afford private insurance prices don't have to buy it. Open up medicare, the congressional/federal plan or medicaid on a means-tested premium base for anybody who for whatever reason can't or doesn't want to get into private insurance. If it's means-tested then there'd be a point when people would look at private insurance as an option when they could afford it.

 

[NickCole]

Again, it's obvious you haven't been paying attention.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11307/Reid_Letter_HR3590.pdf

I've read the CBO report and I know the answer to the question.

You clearly do not, because if you did you would simply answer the question.

Many if not most of the revenue sources are ridiculous and will not generate the revenue needed.

 

[hotatlboi]

Mandate that everybody has to have coverage

If you agree with that in principle, wtf are you even responding to then?

This is the quote you responded to.

Explain to me a way to do preexisting conditions without a mandate?

You haven't given me an answer to that. It seems you agree with me in principle that you have to have a mandate to do preexisting conditions. Whether that is private or medicare is a secondary issue. I agree that a public option would be better but that's beside the point. It seems we agree on this.

My original statement was in response to Edward's post where he took issue with the requirement to buy insurance in general.

 

[hotatlboi]

You clearly do not, because if you did you would simply answer the question.

Huh? I did answer your question. If I had just posted them someone would have asked me where I got them from, so I simply gave the source.

Each is listed in detail in that report.

I have to list them in this post for you to believe I know what they are?

ok.

-excise tax on high end insurance plans
-cost reductions in medicare
-penalty payments by employers who do not provide coverage
-penalty payments by individuals who choose not to buy coverage
-increase in medicare payroll tax
-tax on dividends and other unearned income
-payments by certain insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies

Many if not most of the revenue sources are ridiculous and will not generate the revenue needed.

Evidence for this?

 

[NickCole]

If you agree with that in principle, wtf are you even responding to then?

This is the quote you responded to.



You haven't given me an answer to that. It seems you agree with me in principle that you have to have a mandate to do preexisting conditions. Whether that is private or medicare is a secondary issue. I agree that a public option would be better but that's beside the point. It seems we agree on this.

My original statement was in response to Edward's post where he took issue with the requirement to buy insurance in general.

No a public option is not a secondary issue, it's a primary issue hand in hand with mandated coverage because it's all about cost.

You don't seem to get that cost is the primary problem that health care reform was supposed to address. Obama's flipped it over and pretended the problem is people don't have insurance, but that's not the core problem. The core problem is people can't afford health care costs, including the cost of private insurance and prescription drugs. Forcing them to buy private insurance they can't afford does not solve the problem, especially since there's nothing in his bill that slows the rise of costs.

The public programs can provide coverage at a fraction of the cost because they're not for-profit, no shareholders to pay, no big executive salaries, no million dollar bonuses, no lobbying expenses etc.

You and I do not agree because my position is if there's no public option the mandated coverage is a cruel burden to place on Americans without the resources to pay for it. Just because private insurers have to accept customers with pre-existing conditions does not mean they have to provide coverage at a price the customer can afford. And then you add a fine on people who can't afford to buy insurance and that's just adding insult to injury. One of the things I was trying to suss out from you regarding the revenue that's going to pay for this is the CBO --as directed by the legislation proposed-- has fines collected from employers and individuals who don't have insurance coverage listed as revenue that'll pay for this health care reform bill. It's just insane, and revealing, that as part of health care reform they expect to collect so much in fines from uninsured Americans that they can list it as a significant source of revenue for the government.

 

[hotatlboi]

Forcing them to buy private insurance they can't afford

For christs sake, pay attention.

Yet again, your opposition to this is driven by ignorance.

This bill PAYS for their insurance if they can't afford it. That is the NO 1 reason the bill costs so much.

without the resources to pay for it

This bill gives them the resources.

add a fine on people who can't afford to buy insurance

Completely wrong yet again. There is an exception for people who cannot afford to pay. The fine is simply for people who choose not to purchase it (i.e. they do not want to be a part of the system or whatever).

Can anyone give me a reasoned opposition to this not resulting from ignorance? Anyone? Because I have yet to see it in this thread.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

Excuse? It was an observation on the lack of relevant knowledge regarding this bill that your post displayed.

I'm sorry. I don't have the energy to read a 2,000 page bill, of which half is probably written in slippery legalese. Additionally, the man started the bill with a lie. How am I supposed to believe the government (under him or anyone else) will live up to anything it says in this bill? Once your credibility is trashed, that's that. You're a filthy liar.

If you don't even have the basic relevant information on what the topic of discussion is, then this is all just hot air.

I know everything I need to know. I know I can't choose not to participate and I'll be fined if I don't. That's enough for me. None of the rest matters if I have no choice. I'm not going to read the rest of it and magically fall in love with it. I want nothing to do with it. I don't care what's in it. So fuck off. That's what you morons aren't getting. Many of the people opposed to it don't give a shit what's in it. We don't fucking want it. Period.

 

[hotatlboi]

I don't have the energy to read a 2,000 page bill

Oh please don't give me that. You can get a general understanding of the major components in a few pages.

I know I can't choose not to participate and I'll be fined if I don't. That's enough for me.

Fair enough. But if you want an every man for himself society, why don't you move to a deserted island or something?

This reform provides more affordable health care coverage for all. You will get sick someday and need health care. If you want to be reckless and forego insurance, the rest of us will be asked to pick up the tab, unless you would just volunteer to die.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Yes, they've been publicized -- the trick of cutting things out of the bill that would make it a net negative, so they can pass them separately in order to claim this bill helps the deficit; including money as revenue that's supposed to be saved for the future of a different program; cutting existing Medicare benefits....

In other words -- they're lying.

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

I quite understand what deficit means: it means spending more than you take in. And that's what this bill will do, if you use honest accounting and wise up to the gimmicks.

 

[hotatlboi]

Yes, they've been publicized -- the trick of cutting things out of the bill that would make it a net negative, so they can pass them separately in order to claim this bill helps the deficit; including money as revenue that's supposed to be saved for the future of a different program; cutting existing Medicare benefits....

In other words -- they're lying.

I quite understand what deficit means: it means spending more than you take in. And that's what this bill will do, if you use honest accounting and wise up to the gimmicks.

What are you referring to specifically?

The only one I can think of that was mentioned was the "doctor fix" for not cutting payments, however that's something that has been passed incrementally for years, even under Bush. It had nothing to do with this health care reform.

This health care bill does not add to the deficit.

 

[Kulindahr]

Allow people not covered by private insurance to buy into medicare, the congressional/federal plan, or medicaid on a means-tested premium base. If you did that instead of mandated private insurance and subsidies, that would probably provide much needed funds to the two public programs, allow everyone with a precondition an insurance program, and since it would be means-tested, there would be a point at which people would look at private insurance as an option when it was affordable for them.

That would do it.

 

[JB3]

Care to enlighten us on your own personal tabulation scheme?

For both sides of the aisle, the CBO is about as good as it gets. It's been that way for decades.

Unless congress fools them by cutting stuff out only to add it back in later. Which is exactly what they've done:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2

This bill will add to the deficit. And, as anyone that's been paying attention knows, costs for medicare are only going to keep going up.