Healthcare Passed

[Devils731]

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.

Right, so comparing health insurance to car insurance isn't a good comparison.

[squishyx]

Right, so comparing health insurance to car insurance isn't a good comparison.

I'm not comparing their coverage, I'm comparing the national panic over their mandates that they now both have.

[Devils731]

I'm not comparing their coverage, I'm comparing the national panic over their mandates that they now both have.

Everything is all wrapped up together, you can't compare one piece of something to another while ignoring the whole.

[squishyx]

Everything is all wrapped up together, you can't compare one piece of something to another while ignoring the whole.

Insurance companies can no longer deny people who have a pre-existing condition, that's basically the only provision that allows people to do what you said people can't do with car insurance. Ie. only buy basic quality health insurance, and then "jump up" to good coverage when they need it.

You really think that's what everyone is worked up over? Somehow all the hoopla associated with this would just go away if it didn't have that restriction?

[Devils731]

Insurance companies can no longer deny people who have a pre-existing condition, that's basically the only provision that allows people to do what you said people can't do with car insurance. Ie. only buy basic quality health insurance, and then "jump up" to good coverage when they need it.

You really think that's what everyone is worked up over? Somehow all the hoopla associated with this would just go away if it didn't have that restriction?

Squish, we're pointing out various reasons your car insurance comparison doesn't work. This and the fact that you don't have to buy car insurance are pretty big difference between the two. I might as well compare health insurance and apples, since I feel like I'm required to buy both and the gov't in involved in some fashion. All the rest of what you're writing is moot on this point because it doesn't have to do with the fallacy of comparing car and health insurance.

[squishyx]

Squish, we're pointing out various reasons your car insurance comparison doesn't work. This and the fact that you don't have to buy car insurance are pretty big difference between the two. I might as well compare health insurance and apples, since I feel like I'm required to buy both and the gov't in involved in some fashion. All the rest of what you're writing is moot on this point because it doesn't have to do with the fallacy of comparing car and health insurance.

Well I disagree with you, I think they are comparable even if they are different in certain respects. IMO they are a lot closer to each other then say, health insurance to apples.

Edited March 22, 2010 by squishyx

[Jimmy Leeds]

My God, does he EVER give up when he's been TOOLED?

[squishyx]

My God, does he EVER give up when he's been TOOLED?

[MantaRay]

My God, does he EVER give up when he's been TOOLED?

So speaks the epitome of "tooled".

[Devilish34]

Everything is all wrapped up together, you can't compare one piece of something to another while ignoring the whole.

It hasn't stopped him before why would it now ?

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

[squishyx]

It hasn't stopped him before why would it now ?

Oh spare me. People on both sides of the fence here have made comparisons to things that don't map over 100% to each other. Health insurance and Car insurance are pretty fricken close in the grand scheme of things.

FFS Loulam has a thread labled "Wal-Mart Vs.Obama's HealthCare Plan" I don't see any of you ion there correcting him about an obviously flawed comparison, and while I *think* his thread is in jest I'm honestly not sure.

Selective critics.

[Devilish34]

Well I disagree with you, I think they are comparable even if they are different in certain respects. IMO they are a lot closer to each other then say, health insurance to apples.

How is requiring someone to have automotive liability insurance the same? Maybe employers with 50 or more employees should be required to offer auto ins to their employees. Or better yet have the tax payer pay for it if you can't.

This is not a HC reform bill that was passed

Oh spare me. People on both sides of the fence here have made comparisons to things that don't map over 100% to each other. Health insurance and Car insurance are pretty fricken close in the grand scheme of things.

FFS Loulam has a thread labled "Wal-Mart Vs.Obama's HealthCare Plan" I don't see any of you ion there correcting him about an obviously flawed comparison, and while I *think* his thread is in jest I'm honestly not sure.

Selective critics.

I usually don't read his posts

[oofrostonoo]

I'm not totally into the idea of forcing people to buy health care or giving them a fine; and then subsidizing people who can't afford it.

This seems like a big give-a-way to private insurance companies.

Would have much rather seen a non-profit health insurance company established that would be able to provide people with a low cost basic health option. I have a problem with the profit motive getting in the way of people and health care; too much of a conflict of interest. That's the problem as I see it.

Stopping companies from dropping sick people, or denying benefits to kids with pre-existing conditions seems like the right thing to do.

I hope this bill evolves into something else, but there is a lot of good that come out of this I hope.

[squishyx]

How is requiring someone to have automotive liability insurance the same? Maybe employers with 50 or more employees should be required to offer auto ins to their employees. Or better yet have the tax payer pay for it if you can't.

This is not a HC reform bill that was passed

I hate that we get insurance through our employers, to me that makes no sense. So I don't agree with taxes on businesses that don't offer it, we should be getting away employer based systems as long as their are affordable alternatives.

However when I was addressing Msweets post I was referring to the mandate on having insurance. If you want to say the mandate is different because you don't need to have a car fine, but addressing other parts of the bill entirely is pointless. I'm a good driver in my relatively (compared to say you) short career. I've never been the cause of an accident nor ever received a point on my license, why should I have to buy insurance to own a car? Because some actuary figured out a while ago that if they didn't require everyone to buy insurance we would be bankrupting / jailing millions of Americans if and when they did screw up. That same logic transfers to the health insurance mandate where it's better to make everyone insured if you are going to offer a giant safety net that says we will take care of you in an emergency.

I usually don't read his posts

Touché salesman

Edited March 22, 2010 by squishyx

[devilsfan26]

I'm not totally into the idea of forcing people to buy health care or giving them a fine; and then subsidizing people who can't afford it.

This seems like a big give-a-way to private insurance companies.

Indeed, that's exactly what this bill was destined to be from the start.

[Devilish34]

I hate that we get insurance through our employers, to me that makes no sense. So I don't agree with taxes on businesses that don't offer it, we should be getting away employer based systems as long as their are affordable alternatives.

However when I was addressing Msweets post I was referring to the mandate on having insurance. If you want to say the mandate is different because you don't need to have a car fine, but addressing other parts of the bill entirely is pointless. I'm a good driver in my relatively (compared to say you) short career. I've never been the cause of an accident nor ever received a point on my license, why should I have to buy insurance to own a car? Because some actuary figured out a while ago that if they didn't require everyone to buy insurance we would be bankrupting / jailing millions of Americans if and when they did screw up. That same logic transfers to the health insurance mandate where it's better to make everyone insured if you are going to offer a giant safety net that says we will take care of you in an emergency.

Your reaching

Touché salesman

[arena2004]

Sometimes Faux will push the limit and I do have a hard time agreeing with a few of these points as I like Krauthammer but he's off here:

Healthcare

"This is definitely not change you can believe in. The opinion polls are saying so. Obama's approval ratings have plunged while the Republicans have rebounded from dispirited defeat in 2008, re-energised over what they regard as a threat to the US economy.

There is a threat. The shadow looming over America is debt, greater than any time in the nation's history. The current federal budget deficit, $US1.4 trillion ($A1.52 trillion), is unprecedented. So, too, is the accumulated budget deficit of $US7.5 trillion, and rising. Total US debt, public and private, is equal to about 380 per cent of GDP. It is creating a pervading unease.

Debt and health care are interwoven. The latest issue of America's most prestigious medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, contains an article ominously titled, ''The Spectre of Financial Armageddon - Health Care and Federal Debt in the United States''.

It says: ''The United States has a substantial, growing structural deficit, much of which reflects current and projected increases in federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. This federal health care spending amounted to 5 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 20 per cent of federal outlays in 2009 and is forecast to reach 12 per cent of the GDP by 2050.

''Health care spending is thus a key driver of long-term debt . . . [and] our structural deficits place us on a path of debt growth that is unsustainable, largely because of health-care programs. The sooner we start to rein in health-care spending, the less painful the changes may be . . . ''

:-}

[El Diablo]

I just hope the next time a republican administration pushes thru a polarizing, extremely unpopular, life changing bill in the shadow of the night art modell style, people will understand...

[DevilMinder]

This is about to do to our insurance premiums what the damn Credit card "reform" did to our rates and fees.

[Daniel]

Sometimes Faux will push the limit and I do have a hard time agreeing with a few of these points as I like Krauthammer but he's off here:

Healthcare

"This is definitely not change you can believe in. The opinion polls are saying so. Obama's approval ratings have plunged while the Republicans have rebounded from dispirited defeat in 2008, re-energised over what they regard as a threat to the US economy.

There is a threat. The shadow looming over America is debt, greater than any time in the nation's history. The current federal budget deficit, $US1.4 trillion ($A1.52 trillion), is unprecedented. So, too, is the accumulated budget deficit of $US7.5 trillion, and rising. Total US debt, public and private, is equal to about 380 per cent of GDP. It is creating a pervading unease.

Debt and health care are interwoven. The latest issue of America's most prestigious medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, contains an article ominously titled, ''The Spectre of Financial Armageddon - Health Care and Federal Debt in the United States''.

It says: ''The United States has a substantial, growing structural deficit, much of which reflects current and projected increases in federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid. This federal health care spending amounted to 5 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 20 per cent of federal outlays in 2009 and is forecast to reach 12 per cent of the GDP by 2050.

''Health care spending is thus a key driver of long-term debt . . . [and] our structural deficits place us on a path of debt growth that is unsustainable, largely because of health-care programs. The sooner we start to rein in health-care spending, the less painful the changes may be . . . ''

:-}

Public debt is NOT at its highest than at any time in the nation's history if you're using the correct measure, which is as a percentage of GDP. We're nowhere near WWII spending levels at the current moment, although might be 10 to 15 years down the road unless very painful choices are made.

[Devilish34]

This is about to do to our insurance premiums what the damn Credit card "reform" did to our rates and fees.

That was another joke that got passed

[arena2004]

Kraughthanner

I've always respected Kraouthainner but for him to just say on MSNBC that "Socialisim has it's merits" pisses me off!

We're F'ed, next is Scaredborough to call out how great a "Socialist Experiment for once can be good as we need to crack a few eggs to make a ham sandwich".

[njdevils783]

So happy I'm in med school. Yea so happy...

[squishyx]

I just hope the next time a republican administration pushes thru a polarizing, extremely unpopular, life changing bill in the shadow of the night art modell style, people will understand...

Polarizing I'll give you, and even life changing (all though we probably disagree on whether we think it's a positive or negative change).

But extremely unpopular? I take issue with that because I think a big reason for this bills "unpopularity" is that people just don't know what's in it. They have been debating for 17 months now and really not much has changed so I'm not sure you can fault the process. When you break down the actual elements of the bill, it's quite popular...

src

[oofrostonoo]

When people are explained what the details of the plan are they are in favor.

When people are ignorant of the facts and just go along with the new media's narrative, numbers are lower.

WHY IS THAT?