Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
arena2004

Healthcare Passed

174 posts in this topic

Today, the US taxpayer will now pay for those that do not work (minorities and illegals), those that claim they work (SEIU based on Union funded taxpayer handouts) and 30 million people + we incorporate Medicare and now we are Socialists.

Greece we are because of Pelosi and Obama and the insurance companies are now agencies of the president.

http://www.csmonitor...-pay-for-reform

"Among other things, it would provide or subsidize health coverage for 32 million currently uninsured people. That’s more than one-tenth of the entire population of the US."

This was not the time for this reform as private sector jobs are critical and priority #1. No BS here as this will not provide REAL jobs and don't pretend otherwise as the Government sector will bankrupt the real middle class (NOT THE UNIONS) and one decade from now a despot will rule this nation (like Obama but with military and no Congress or Senate).

"Higher Medicare taxes on rich peopleIf you are an individual making more than $200,000 a year, or a married couple making more than $250,000 a year, get ready to pay more for your Medicare if health care reform passes.

First of all, your Medicare Part A (that’s hospital insurance) tax rate would be increased by 0.9 percent, to 2.35 percent. Second, the bill creates an entirely new tax of 3.8 percent on unearned income (dividends, interest, stuff like that) for people in those same income brackets.

The good news is that this would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2013. And it is a big money raiser, truth be told. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this would bring in $210 billion between 2013 and 2019.

New tax on expensive health insurance

They used to call this the “Cadillac tax,” but it’s been pared back enough so it might better be called the “Chevy with leather and A/C” tax.

The health care bill would impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans that cost more than $10,200 annually for individual coverage, or $27,500 annually for family coverage. The tax in question would be 40 percent of the cost of the plan that exceeds those dollar thresholds.

This tax would not kick in until 2018. The JCT figures it would bring in around $32 billion in its first two years.

Fees on health care industries

The Obama administration figures it is only fair to slap some fees on health care industries, since they’d be getting lots of new customers if health care reform passes. So after negotiations with some big sectors, the White House struck a number of deals.

  • Drug manufacturers would pay the US a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019.
  • Health insurers would pay $47 billion over the same period.
  • Medical device manufacturers would pay a 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any of their wares, beginning Jan. 1, 2013.

The tanning tax

OK, it’s not a big money raiser, but we could not resist mentioning that health care reform would establish a tax of 10 percent on indoor tanning services. (Outdoor tanning services remain untaxed, of course.) This would raise $2.7 billion between 2010 and 2019.

Medicare cuts

Government payments to Medicare Advantage – plans run by private insurers that are an alternative to traditional Medicare – would be reduced by $132 billion over 10 years under the health care reform bill. (Those plans now get around 14 percent more per person than traditional Medicare does.)

Medicare payments for home health care would also be reduced by $40 billion over 10 years. And cuts in certain payments to hospitals would raise another $22 billion by 2019."

psssst... the edit was to include the link communist scum.

Edited by arena2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you said "forget the rhetoric." did you "forget" "forget the rhetoric"?

and since when do "minorities" get lumped in with "illegals", and since when do you know if they work or not? so, what you're saying is that white people that can afford health care should have health care and everyone else can die, or are you saying that all white people should have health care regardless of whether they work?

I'm confused by that first sentence.

I'm not a believer in government spending on anything, but I find it ironic people have such a problem with this spending, but not the Iraq spending. both are most likely just watching money go down the swirl. I would guess Iraq spending is equal to or more (and that's what's on the record, not whatever mystery money was given away) to this. and what's the end result? the second we walk it devolves into the situation it was before... so we get the decision of spending more to keep it stable, or giving up and wasting the money completely.

if we get called and go broke, this sure as hell won't help, but it won't be the only reason. everyone's got their pet projects. liberals got health care, conservatives have pointless nation building while ignoring the countries actual enemies (wait, I thought that was a liberal trait... what gives?) :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points there Max.

The trouble is, as always that those who tout charity to everyone are ok by it when it does not affect them.

Be it illegal immigration to affirmative action. Once those people who champion these ideals fall victim to extra taxes or to one of their own being refused entry to college because of the color of their skin will they realize the gravity of what they call "an even playing field"

These people are normally from the northeastern part of the US where illegal immigration is about as common as an honest politician.

In other words, "it's ok to vote for 'reform' until it affects me"

These people are what is commonly known as moral hypocrites.

Illegal immigration is barely noticeable in the northern states. Therefore it is the "in thing" to be seen as giving illegals amnesty.

Once these prats realize that their taxes will increase substatially will they realize that what they deem as "the right thing to do" isn't so cool.

Nothing pisses me off more than when people support and lobby for policies that (they think) will not affect them.

It's easy to talk the talk, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty. Walking the walk is a completely different matter.

"oh but that's different" is a common comment. I call that a cop out.

Try living in a state where illegal immigration is a massive problem (or free loaders for health care) then these ivy league c0ck svckers might learn a thing or two, let alone being a victim of illegal immigrant crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you said "forget the rhetoric." did you "forget" "forget the rhetoric"?

and since when do "minorities" get lumped in with "illegals", and since when do you know if they work or not? so, what you're saying is that white people that can afford health care should have health care and everyone else can die, or are you saying that all white people should have health care regardless of whether they work?

I'm confused by that first sentence.

I'm not a believer in government spending on anything, but I find it ironic people have such a problem with this spending, but not the Iraq spending. both are most likely just watching money go down the swirl. I would guess Iraq spending is equal to or more (and that's what's on the record, not whatever mystery money was given away) to this. and what's the end result? the second we walk it devolves into the situation it was before... so we get the decision of spending more to keep it stable, or giving up and wasting the money completely.

if we get called and go broke, this sure as hell won't help, but it won't be the only reason. everyone's got their pet projects. liberals got health care, conservatives have pointless nation building while ignoring the countries actual enemies (wait, I thought that was a liberal trait... what gives?) :lol:

I just want to point out the fallacy of "we could pay for everyone's healthcare if it wasn't for Iraq." The entire defense budget since 2003 has fluctuated between 4 and 5 percent of GDP, and is roughly 25 percent of the federal budget. (By comparison, during the Vietnam War, defense spending fluctuated between about 7 and 10 percent of GDP.) Healthcare spending is about 17 percent of GDP, and rising.

The same goes for this or that congressman's pet projects. Much as we all hate pork spending, all in it's more or less a rounding error on the federal budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on the fence about the Health Care bill until I read this thread. If it is Socialism style health care then that is a good thing! Then I saw what was actually in the bill and I was less supportive. I am still glad it passed but it does not go nearly far enough, Watching the cons rail against it is certainly amusing though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah ..govt will fix everything ... they've done a remarkable job so far...... my kids, their kids ... they're fvcked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on the fence about the Health Care bill until I read this thread. If it is Socialism style health care then that is a good thing! Then I saw what was actually in the bill and I was less supportive. I am still glad it passed but it does not go nearly far enough, Watching the cons rail against it is certainly amusing though.

That's 'cause you are a certifiable LOON.

Does it cover plastic surgery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't post here much but I have to say this health care bill is the scariest thing congress has done in my lifetime.

The jokers need to be thrown out.

Big government will be the death of us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was on the fence about the Health Care bill until I read this thread. If it is Socialism style health care then that is a good thing! Then I saw what was actually in the bill and I was less supportive. I am still glad it passed but it does not go nearly far enough

I agree it doesn't go far enough.

But it's a step in the right direction and hopefully we can catch-up with the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it doesn't go far enough.

But it's a step in the right direction and hopefully we can catch-up with the rest of the world.

We'll catch up all right, with Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, countries with the socialized health care systems you want, and who very well might default on their debt. It would be nice if you were willing to put up your house and other personal property as collateral, but somehow I doubt it.

One benefit though would be that we'll have pornstars with better boob jobs since you'll be seeing a lot more plastic surgeons that don't want to, in effect, be government employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll catch up all right, with Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, countries with the socialized health care systems you want, and who very well might default on their debt.

Yeah, because US is already a debt free nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, because US is already a debt free nation.

Nice illogical counter-argument. We're already in debt, so what's the problem of running it up four fold. Remind me never to loan you any money.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't post here much but I have to say this health care bill is the scariest thing congress has done in my lifetime.

The jokers need to be thrown out.

Big government will be the death of us

this is the scariest thing? really? You've been alive for how many wars? how many hundreds of thousands of young men and women has our country sent off to die in your lifetime and none of that was as scary to you as when the time the government said "insurance companies have to behave like insurance companies and oh yeah we are going to give help to 32 million people".

People need to stop being so dramatic, it's exceptionally polarizing. I understand that people are against entitlements and are against handouts, but why people make such statements like yours is just baffling. But you can be against this bill and still keep a stable head and stop pretending the roof is on fire. This reform is so watered down it ends up being a small collection of basic common sense reforms that should have been there from the start. I wonder if people screamed this much when there as a mandate to have auto insurance, I guess that was different because it was the state telling you to do it instead of the federal government :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if people screamed this much when there as a mandate to have auto insurance, I guess that was different because it was the state telling you to do it instead of the federal government :rolleyes:

You only need auto insurance if you decide to buy a car. Obamacare makes you purchase health insurance if you decide to breathe. Also, the only insurance in most states that you are required to buy is liability insurance, which is designed to provide compensation to third parties that you run your car into.

These are just two important distinctions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only need auto insurance if you decide to buy a car. Obamacare makes you purchase health insurance if you decide to breathe. Also, the only insurance in most states that you are required to buy is liability insurance, which is designed to provide compensation to third parties that you run your car into.

These are just two important distinctions.

True but also in this country everyone has access to emergency room care that they get regardless if they have insurance or not. Unless people are willing to sign a "do not help in case of emergency" waiver I don't think it's the end of the world and the final socialism straw that breaks the capitalist donkey's back to make them pay into the collective pot.

Everyone has to pay for public schools, even if they don't use them, everyone has to pay for our national defense even if they don't agree with it, everyone has to pay for Medicare even if they aren't old or disabled etc... Our budget is riddled with projects that we have to pay for regardless if we choose or are able to agree with it or not.

Edited by squishyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice illogical counter-argument. We're already in debt, so what's the problem of running it up four fold. Remind me never to loan you any money.

You opened the door by your false implications that these countries went into debt because of their healthcare. I just pointed out we are in debt without it.

Sorry if you were confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but also in this country everyone has access to emergency room care that they get regardless if they have insurance or not. Unless people are willing to sign a "do not help in case of emergency" waiver I don't think it's the end of the world and the final socialism straw that breaks the capitalist donkey's back to make them pay into the collective pot.

Everyone has to pay for public schools, even if they don't use them, everyone has to pay for our national defense even if they don't agree with it, everyone has to pay for Medicare even if they aren't old or disabled etc... Our budget is riddled with projects that we have to pay for regardless if we choose or are able to agree with it or not.

No, this won't be the end of the world in of itself, although it will cause much damage to future generations that have to pay for it. (OT: I find most people that call the other party "dictators", "fascists", etc. haven't had the chance to hang out in a real fascist dictatorship, but that's a story for another day).

But still, you're, in effect, arguing that because the government spends money on certain things, it's ok for it to make YOU personally buy something you otherwise might not. Your emergency room scenario also doesn't hold water. If you don't have insurance and have to go to an emergency room you still get a bill. Most of the people who can't/won't pay it, will be the one's that will defy the mandatory insurance purchase anyway (people on public assistance, homeless people, the severely mentally ill, etc.).

I'm generally not opposed to some sort of "big government" approach to health care. Basically, most Americans, conservative and liberal alike, want quality health care, and want someone else to pay for it, be it an insurance company or the government. If that's what people want, that's the way it's gotta be. Everything I have been able to observe though tells me that, in the long run, unless there is significant rationing, such a system is unsustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You opened the door by your false implications that these countries went into debt because of their healthcare. I just pointed out we are in debt without it.

Sorry if you were confused.

When a large amount of GDP is used by the government to pay for health care it is a contributing cause to a nation's debt. Health care is also tied up to another main cause, unsustainable generous pension benefits to public employees.

And again this is the equiavalent of, well I've already got $20,000 in credit card debt, so what's the big deal if I finance the purchase of a new Mazeratti.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this won't be the end of the world in of itself, although it will cause much damage to future generations that have to pay for it. (OT: I find most people that call the other party "dictators", "fascists", etc. haven't had the chance to hang out in a real fascist dictatorship, but that's a story for another day).

But still, you're, in effect, arguing that because the government spends money on certain things, it's ok for it to make YOU personally buy something you otherwise might not. Your emergency room scenario also doesn't hold water. If you don't have insurance and have to go to an emergency room you still get a bill. Most of the people who can't/won't pay it, will be the one's that will defy the mandatory insurance purchase anyway (people on public assistance, homeless people, the severely mentally ill, etc.).

I'm generally not opposed to some sort of "big government" approach to health care. Basically, most Americans, conservative and liberal alike, want quality health care, and want someone else to pay for it, be it an insurance company or the government. If that's what people want, that's the way it's gotta be. Everything I have been able to observe though tells me that, in the long run, unless there is significant rationing, such a system is unsustainable.

My point isn't that it's ok to pile on one giant entitlement program after another. My point was the very first thing you said in your response(that I bolded). The car insurance thing is about perspective, I think it's safe to say most people own cars and have to get liability on it. In this country we have a safety net that people but have not been paying for it. Either remove the safety net, or make everyone who has access to it pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a large amount of GDP is used by the government to pay for health care it is a contributing cause to a nation's debt. Health care is also tied up to another main cause, unsustainable generous pension benefits to public employees.

And again this is the equiavalent of, well I've already got $20,000 in credit card debt, so what's the big deal if I finance the purchase of a new Mazeratti.

The United States has been in debt since we became a country. And for better or for worse we have seemingly been able to build a great prosperous nation despite running in the red ink for the last ~250 years. I'm for fiscal responsibility but you can not compare a individual's debt to a countries in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point isn't that it's ok to pile on one giant entitlement program after another. My point was the very first thing you said in your response(that I bolded). The car insurance thing is about perspective, I think it's safe to say most people own cars and have to get liability on it. In this country we have a safety net that people but have not been paying for it. Either remove the safety net, or make everyone who has access to it pay for it.

Can I buy the cheapest car insurance and then when an accident happens switch up to the best coverage plan after the fact but use the better plan to pay for the accident? The car insurance comparison isn't really a good fit.

The United States has been in debt since we became a country. And for better or for worse we have seemingly been able to build a great prosperous nation despite running in the red ink for the last ~250 years. I'm for fiscal responsibility but you can not compare a individual's debt to a countries in this regard.

Some debt is fine, too much debt is a problem. The US isn't at too much debt right now, by my estimation, but has too many underfunded programs that makes too much debt in the future a very real possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point isn't that it's ok to pile on one giant entitlement program after another. My point was the very first thing you said in your response(that I bolded). The car insurance thing is about perspective, I think it's safe to say most people own cars and have to get liability on it. In this country we have a safety net that people but have not been paying for it. Either remove the safety net, or make everyone who has access to it pay for it.

Did you bold the wrong thing, cause I don't really follow what you're responding to, considering that I was kind of agreeing with you on a particular point.

And your claim that most people choose to have a car and thus have to buy insurance is still not a good analogy. When one purchases a car, they have to put their insurance premiums into the equation. If I can't afford the insurance, I won't buy a car and will take the bus. Or perhaps I'll buy a more affordable car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you bold the wrong thing, cause I don't really follow what you're responding to, considering that I was kind of agreeing with you on a particular point.

And your claim that most people choose to have a car and thus have to buy insurance is still not a good analogy. When one purchases a car, they have to put their insurance premiums into the equation. If I can't afford the insurance, I won't buy a car and will take the bus. Or perhaps I'll buy a more affordable car.

My OP was that Msweet was overreacting by saying this is the biggest abuse of congressional power he has ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some debt is fine, too much debt is a problem. The US isn't at too much debt right now, by my estimation, but has too many underfunded programs that makes too much debt in the future a very real possibility.

+1.

Also, I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you when a nation's public debt is too big. Public debt was significantly greater than 100 percent of GDP during WWII, but spending for "total war" eventually comes to an end. Now, generous public funding of people's healthcare and retirement is supposed to continue into perpetuity. In the long run this is unsustainable, and is why I fully expect not to receive a dime of social security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I buy the cheapest car insurance and then when an accident happens switch up to the best coverage plan after the fact but use the better plan to pay for the accident? The car insurance comparison isn't really a good fit.

You can't compare people's medical injures to car accidents. Car's don't get cancer, they don't get paralyzed, they don't need expensive medications for the rest of their lives, they don't get transplants. People need continuous treatment and cars don't. So no, you can't just bump your car's coverage up last second, on the other hand if you are a person you absolutely should not be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition that probably had no control over. If you are saying their is potential for fraud fine, let's figure out ways to address it not punish the guy with leukemia who can't get covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0