a sobering looking into the current HCR bill

[JB3]

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.

That is a total lie. The 'fix' was included in previous versions of the house bill, and will be included in the reconciliation bill of fixes. The plan will add to the deficit, and you can't admit it.

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

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

WRT fines, any piece of legislation like this should be revenue-neutral, i.e. it shouldn't make any difference whether people buy the insurance or pay the fines.

Otherwise those voting for the bill are actually hoping that people will break the law....

 

[Kulindahr]

This reform provides more affordable health care coverage for all.

You really believe that?

Did NASA discover a solid gold asteroid while I wasn't looking, or what?

This bill does nothing to address costs -- not a single thing. And as long as the insurance companies are writing the policies, unless you want to double the deficit in a dew years by making annual deductibles in the <$100 range, there will be nothing affordable about this insurance. What will happen is that people will have things like a nearly-severed thumb, and go to the emergency room for treatment, and have surgery to repair the damage, and after their insurance pays 80% they'll still be stuck with a bill for more than a month's income. Or when their regular doc says they ought to get checked by a neurologist, they'll look at the expense of their 20% of the bill and decide they can't afford it, so on down the line things get worse, and because they have insurance they don't qualify for hospital aid programs, and they end up losing their house... because they had insurance, not that they had a choice.

I have what many people regard as good insurance. And I still have thousands of my share sitting on a VISA card because of what insurance wouldn't cover.

 

[hotatlboi]

That is a total lie. The 'fix' was included in previous versions of the house bill, and will be included in the reconciliation bill of fixes.

Wrong. The reconciliation bill has been posted online, that is not included.

This plan will not add to the deficit, and you can't admit it.

Again, there is no reason the doctor fix HAD to be associated with this reform bill. It is not related. It has been a recurring issue for years and is not related to this reform effort.

 

[hotatlboi]

I have what many people regard as good insurance. And I still have thousands of my share sitting on a VISA card because of what insurance wouldn't cover.

As opposed to having no insurance where you have to pay it all?

This bill does provide more affordable coverage for many people. That's all I said. That's fact.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

No personal tabulations at all. I just googled "Obama's health care revenues" and read what major newspapers in places like NY, Atlanta, LA, and such are saying about the accounting.

 

[JB3]

Wrong. The reconciliation bill has been posted online, that is not included.

This plan will not add to the deficit, and you can't admit it.

Again, there is no reason the doctor fix HAD to be associated with this reform bill. It is not related. It has been a recurring issue for years and is not related to this reform effort.

It is related to the reform effort, considering that it was part of the original bill. Democratic house leaders have admitted that the fix will be included, and that it IS a part of this effort.

 

[hotatlboi]

It is related to the reform effort, considering that it was part of the original bill.

And that's where you are wrong.

It is NOT related to the proposals of reform in any way. It was a separate issue and has been for years.

It was originally included just because it is a health care related issue and this is a health care related bill. There's no reason it had to be.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

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

Because I shouldn't have to. This country was founded to function that way.

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.

I don't care.

Choice is the foundation of freedom. Always has been. This legal precedent will snowball into a monster you won't believe. You evidently have no idea what you're supporting here. But Obama does. You can bet on it.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

Over 200 years of industrial revolution and modernization has taken place since then. We live in a different world now. The way things worked back then doesn't cut it.

OK. Let's try this again. This country was founded on the principle of freedom. What doesn't cut it is to say it's a different world. The concept of freedom doesn't change over time. It's exactly the same thing today as it was a thousand years ago. If society fucks up and "modernizes" itself into a financial corner, that's too fucking bad for society. As long as freedom survives, society will recover.

What we have here is the government bullying the average citizen because it can't bully the insurance industry. Pretty fucking pathetic. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Big business is still fucking us with a jackhammer. Only this time, we can't even choose to run.

 

[NickCole]

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.


This bill gives them the resources.


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.

In one post you make two false claims that, taken together, defy common sense.

You say the government will pay for insurance for those who can't afford it, and that the bill provides "an exception" for those who can't afford it. If the bill will pay for insurance for those who can't afford it, why would this bill exempt those who can't afford it?

Your claims are not true and they even don't make sense.


This bill does NOT pay the private insurance premiums of those who can't afford it. There is no provision in the bill, nor any spending listed in the CBO report that provides for that.

Looking at what IS reported shows how ridiculous your claim is. The fines from people who don't carry insurance is a significant element of what the CBO counts as revenue that'll pay for this health care bill, and you seriously believe there are that many people --enough to generate tens of billions of dollars in fines-- who would rather pay a fine than carry insurance they can afford or the government will pay for if they can't? Please.

Also there is NOT "an exception for people who cannot afford to pay." It doesn't make sense in the real world, but with your claim that the government will pay for those who can't afford it, it's just a nutcase claim.

But hey, if you believe you can substantiate those two claims, please post the language in the bill or the CBO report or link to a site that supports what you say. I would love to see what you interpret that way.

Furthermore the final bill does not give the Fed or anybody else the power to block unreasonable rate hikes as Obama promised it would, so those who can barely afford it will fall out of being able to afford it whenever the insurance company decides to raise rates.

There will literally be millions of Americans who cannot afford to buy private insurance and will be forced to pay a fine and will still not have health care coverage.

 

[NickCole]

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.

All the CBO report does is take the data given to it by Congress and report on how the numbers add up.

If, for instance, Congress says they're going to impose an excise tax starting in 2019 then the CBO includes that as revenue, but that doesn't mean Congress will enact that tax. Or even if Congress does enact that tax, the CBO can give its best prediction about how the economy will go in the next nine years but that's a long time out and when you're talking specifics like that the prediction gets randomer and randomer.

 

[NickCole]

It really helps to read the bill before you debate about what's in it

The information you requested is in subsection (e)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c111FCJk17:e432000:

That link leads to a blank page.

Appropriate.

 

[chuck10x]

What are you referring to specifically?


This health care bill does not add to the deficit.

The Health Care Bill does not add to the FEDERAL deficit,Your right on this.
However, You will be Taxed on the STATE level.
MEDICAID and MEDICARE are another matter, And their budget is being cut to offset the costs and make it deficit neutral.

 

[JB3]

And that's where you are wrong.

It is NOT related to the proposals of reform in any way. It was a separate issue and has been for years.

It was originally included just because it is a health care related issue and this is a health care related bill. There's no reason it had to be.

Wrong. Just plain wrong. It was intimately related to reform because the way doctors were being paid in medicare was completely screwed up. THAT was one of the problems with healthcare, and it was one of the many things meant to be addressed.

 

[hotatlboi]

You say the government will pay for insurance for those who can't afford it, and that the bill provides "an exception" for those who can't afford it. If the bill will pay for insurance for those who can't afford it, why would this bill exempt those who can't afford it?

I'm not going to continue debating with you as long as you keep bringing such profound ignorance to the table.

This bill does not provide "free health care", even though we've seen that incorrect suggestion from the opposition. It provides "affordable health care" to more people than ever.

The way it does this is through health care subsidies. If, after receiving those subsidies that are available someone still cannot afford to cover the cost of insurance, they are except from the mandate.

There is no contradiction to this at all. Now please, educate yourself about what is in the damn bill. Otherwise you just make yourself look silly with these kinds of statements.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wrong. Just plain wrong. It was intimately related to reform because the way doctors were being paid in medicare was completely screwed up. THAT was one of the problems with healthcare, and it was one of the many things meant to be addressed.

You two are oth right, you're just coming from different perspectives.

Unfortunately for you, Droid, the important perspective on this is what I'll call "procedural". In that sense, the doctor/Medicare element is unrelated, because it has been a recurring stand-alone item.

What is important is that they condemned millions of people who depend on Medicare to now suffer the outrageous slings and arrows of the for-profit insurance companies.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not going to continue debating with you as long as you keep bringing such profound ignorance to the table.

This bill does not provide "free health care", even though we've seen that incorrect suggestion from the opposition. It provides "affordable health care" to more people than ever.

The way it does this is through health care subsidies. If, after receiving those subsidies that are available someone still cannot afford to cover the cost of insurance, they are except from the mandate.

There is no contradiction to this at all. Now please, educate yourself about what is in the damn bill. Otherwise you just make yourself look silly with these kinds of statements.

And what about the people who can, according to the government, afford it, but can't afford to use it? What happens when the insurance companies sock them with annual deductibles of $2500 per person in the household?

There are so many holes in the coverage of this plan I doubt that even five of the alleged thirty million people this is supposed to help ever benefit from it.

 

[NickCole]

Not my fault. This was before I realized that the links expired, about the same time as the other links.

But, as always, it's wonderful to see how your personality has not failed to be so characteristically nasty this time around.

Once again, those who bothered to read the bill found out that you were wrong.

If you were right then post it again through another source. Or copy and paste the provision and post the key words needed to pull up the info in that link.

But you won't. Because you're wrong and whatever provision you post I'll show you how you're wrong.

Oh and sweetie you have not read that bill and that hotboiwhatever sure hasn't. I've read most of it and I know damn well you could never wade through that arcane language and endless references to other provisions in other bills that require constantly looking up those and understanding what they say.