The Health Care Bill

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 5:08 pm

A few years ago, GOV reported that SS would begin to "drawdown" funds by 2020. Now, GOV says that it is happening NOW. GOV always has a knack for understating liabilities.
"former director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, thinks Obamacare will bankrupt the U.S. "

â€œRemoving the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years,â€

Rice · Post by **Rice** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:02 pm

ygmir wrote:as I understand our new "law".........it is nothing like what you have up there..............

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

but, I'm sure others here have a better understanding........

I agree that right now we have completely different systems in place..

At one point, my Canadian political leaders forced a change in health care in my province, which eventually encompassed the entire country. I am sure that some people here were not happy with the changes at that time.

I do have a couple of questions:

1. What rights are actually being removed?
2. Which privileges are being revoked?
3. Will this help people without private health coverage?
4. Will those that have good jobs and health coverage lose anything because of this?
5. Is there now a two-tier system? One level of health service for the rich, and another for the less fortunate??

I'm just trying to get my head around this, so please be gentle

Rice

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:45 pm

Rice, that's great that you want to understand all this. Nobody is going to flame you or denigrate you,, don't worry.
There are a couple of things to keep in mind. 50 % of all the lawyers in the world are in America. They later move up [down] to politics. They write innumerable laws to make sure that entry lawyers have a job. Everything that happens in D.C. requires endless litigation. Health isn't the desired end result,,,, only endless litigation.
There really isn't any possibility of a good health care program resulting from all the legal wrangling. All the current programs are completely insolvent. Re-naming them and adding 30 million people isn't going to make $ 50 trillion appear.
MUCH of the current cost of health care is for "paper pushing" and lawsuits / insurance. If those were eliminated, there would be big savings.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:45 pm

1. What rights are actually being removed?

Not so much a removal. It is a principle within our founding documents that is the point of contention. We have always enjoyed rights which are "unalienable" and only given by our "Creator". For the first time in our history, a right has been legislated. By design, the Bill of Rights and our Constitution can only be amended by a majority of the people approving it directly in an electoral process. Congress has never been allowed this authority. If a gubmint gives rights, it can also take them away.

2. Which privileges are being revoked?

Privileges? Historically, our society has never considered privilege as an expectation. We are a society built upon earning respect, hard work for the reward of better quality of life and the liberty to exercise our abilities any way we see fit. We are a country founded upon the principle that all are free to pursue happiness without interference from the gubmint. The pursuit means we might fail also. True liberty means there is no guarantee of success. The gubmint is not allowing its citizens and businesses to suffer the consequences of failing. This creates a society increasingly dependent on the gubmint and even an expectation of gubmint intervention when we fuck up. That is not the American way. We have always been a country of taking risks to further our livelihood. Now the risks are diminished, but so are the rewards. Because increased reward only means the gubmint will take a bigger piece of your pie. It decreases the will to try.

3. Will this help people without private health coverage?

There are already programs that exist for those who truly need healthcare. It is against the law for any emergency room to turn away anyone because of their inability to pay. There are those who cannot provide for themselves and there are programs in place to help them. Then there are those who WILL NOT help themselves. They need to be allowed to suffer the consequences of their own decisions. It is said about 10% of the population is without health insurance. Why should the 80% who are satisfied with their current plans be forced to completely upset what they have for the sake of so few. Just remember one important thing about this law. It is not about healthcare. It is about redistributing wealth and inhibiting individual liberty. Those are very unAmerican.

4. Will those that have good jobs and health coverage lose anything because of this?

That is yet to be seen. But there has been public statements by Caterpillar that this new system will cost them $100,000,000, AT&T $1,000,000,000 and probably several thousand jobs. I guess "good jobs" is a relative idea. My job in particular will probably become less good. As a mobile medical device service. I foresee patients having to travel several miles to come to me rather than the "excessive cost" of me delivering my service to smaller communities. The biggest issue with this law is that the tax begins now while the "benefits" don't kick in until 2014. Just like anything else the gubmint does with money, those funds will be used for other things than healthcare. It makes what Madoff did look like chump change.

5. Is there now a two-tier system? One level of health service for the rich, and another for the less fortunate??

If anyone has the best insurance, it is the labor unions. The cost of their healthcare is part of the benefit package. This is why they support this law. It gets the unions off the hook for all the promises made to their membership. Big business likes it because it gets them off the hook to pay these lucrative contracts. Myself? I have to buy my own insurance for $630 per month without the benefit of a "group" policy. Groups of employees get more benefit for less premium than someone such as myself who is basically self employed. I know physicians now who have opted out of public funded healthcare plans. They simply do not reimburse enough to cover expenses. So, yeah when someone can afford to pay out of pocket they will get better care. Put it this way: I cannot imagine a U.S. Senator's daughter being forced to wait for that nasal septal defect repair. But I know in fact my step son waited two years for his in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:01 pm

Trish, I have a question and YOU may be just the person to answer it. Are you aware of the work of Antoine Priore?
The third block down on this page has a good writeup on Priore;
http://www.stealthskater.com/Medical.htm
His work was extremely well documented. The French army and the French AEC are trying to re-create his work.
The Russians pioneered the work that is the successor to Priore's work. In a nutshell, they have built devices that act like the "restore" function on your computer. The body resets itself to a previous, healthy state.
The Russians wanted a device that would repair illness and injury in their cosmonauts. They now build and sell these devices;
http://www.scenar.ru/en/productions/
I was wondering if you have any experience with them?
Dan

Rice · Post by **Rice** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:03 pm

Trishntek wrote: 5. Is there now a two-tier system? One level of health service for the rich, and another for the less fortunate??

Cash is king! I know physicians now who have opted out of public funded healthcare plans. They simply do not reimburse enough to cover expenses. So, yeah when someone can afford to pay out of pocket they will get better care. Put it this way: I cannot imagine a U.S. Senator's daughter being forced to wait for that nasal septal defect repair. But I know in fact my step son waited two years for his in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.

Ohh, boy... I am not saying that the Canadian system we have here is perfect! ...

We experience large delays in getting services like MRI scans, and "elective" surgery's ... It took almost a month for me to get an MRI to find out if I have MS, and the only reason it took that little of time was that I was on the cancellation list (the waiting list was 3 months)...

I am beginning to understand why this particular issue is a hot-point for Americans... Unfortunately, our political systems are very different. Gees, we did not have a Charter of Rights until the early 80's ... Owning a gun is considered a "privilege". Among other things.

I hope to get a basic understanding of the US political system.

Thanks for helping me begin to grasp this amazingly complex issue!!!

Rice

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:07 pm

"I hope to get a basic understanding of the US political system. "
When you do, you will barf nterminably
For you guns are a privilege and driving is a right.
For us guns are a right and driving is a privilege.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:42 pm

cantsit still said, " Are you aware of the work of Antoine Priore? "

I can honestly say I have not heard of this technology. After reading through the account provided, there are some long term concerns not addressed.

If a chicken egg hatches two day earlier, if lentil and asparagus grow substantially larger, then this indicates an alteration in natural growth. That would be definite cause for concern. Especially the affects on subsequent generations. That requires decades of limited real-world data.

I actually do have possession of some very strange "medical" contraptions which we use for sensual play. In the wrong hands they could actually be fatal! All this is anecdotal in reference to Priore's machine. I just see much more information that is NOT given in the article I read than what is claimed to be therapeutic.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:34 pm

All taken together;

we use for sensual play.... could actually be fatal!....
Mistress Trish.....The Annihilator
I used to go up to Ventura to hang out a bit at the Channel Islands Marina for some fresh air. Now, I'm afraid to go near.

Rice · Post by **Rice** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:36 pm

can't sit still wrote:"I hope to get a basic understanding of the US political system. "
When you do, you will barf nterminably
For you guns are a privilege and driving is a right.
For us guns are a right and driving is a privilege.

Ha ha ... I did say "Hope".

I think both our governments want us to believe that everything is a privilege and that we don't really have rights... But I am afraid though, that that line of thought may inspire some conspiracy theories!

As far as driving goes, we may agree on the fact that some people should not be given the opportunity to drive! Rights or not, if you cannot do it safely, why should you be allowed to do it at all...

Rice

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:42 pm

Stretch, the difference between the U.S. constitution and most others is that ; Many of our rights are assigned as "GOD GIVEN" If GOD assigned them, the state can't very well take them away.... theoretically, that is.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:46 pm

Some states have told the fed GOV to go to hell in regards to gun control,, even going so far as to prescribe fines for ATF officers who break state Firearm laws. Now, Napoiltano says that states will do the same for the health care bill.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... 4158452001

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:35 pm

Trishntek wrote:1. What rights are actually being removed?

Not so much a removal. It is a principle within our founding documents that is the point of contention. We have always enjoyed rights which are "unalienable" and only given by our "Creator". For the first time in our history, a right has been legislated. By design, the Bill of Rights and our Constitution can only be amended by a majority of the people approving it directly in an electoral process. Congress has never been allowed this authority. If a gubmint gives rights, it can also take them away.

2. Which privileges are being revoked?

Privileges? Historically, our society has never considered privilege as an expectation. We are a society built upon earning respect, hard work for the reward of better quality of life and the liberty to exercise our abilities any way we see fit. We are a country founded upon the principle that all are free to pursue happiness without interference from the gubmint. The pursuit means we might fail also. True liberty means there is no guarantee of success. The gubmint is not allowing its citizens and businesses to suffer the consequences of failing. This creates a society increasingly dependent on the gubmint and even an expectation of gubmint intervention when we fuck up. That is not the American way. We have always been a country of taking risks to further our livelihood. Now the risks are diminished, but so are the rewards. Because increased reward only means the gubmint will take a bigger piece of your pie. It decreases the will to try.

3. Will this help people without private health coverage?

There are already programs that exist for those who truly need healthcare. It is against the law for any emergency room to turn away anyone because of their inability to pay. There are those who cannot provide for themselves and there are programs in place to help them. Then there are those who WILL NOT help themselves. They need to be allowed to suffer the consequences of their own decisions. It is said about 10% of the population is without health insurance. Why should the 80% who are satisfied with their current plans be forced to completely upset what they have for the sake of so few. Just remember one important thing about this law. It is not about healthcare. It is about redistributing wealth and inhibiting individual liberty. Those are very unAmerican.

4. Will those that have good jobs and health coverage lose anything because of this?

That is yet to be seen. But there has been public statements by Caterpillar that this new system will cost them $100,000,000, AT&T $1,000,000,000 and probably several thousand jobs. I guess "good jobs" is a relative idea. My job in particular will probably become less good. As a mobile medical device service. I foresee patients having to travel several miles to come to me rather than the "excessive cost" of me delivering my service to smaller communities. The biggest issue with this law is that the tax begins now while the "benefits" don't kick in until 2014. Just like anything else the gubmint does with money, those funds will be used for other things than healthcare. It makes what Madoff did look like chump change.

5. Is there now a two-tier system? One level of health service for the rich, and another for the less fortunate??

If anyone has the best insurance, it is the labor unions. The cost of their healthcare is part of the benefit package. This is why they support this law. It gets the unions off the hook for all the promises made to their membership. Big business likes it because it gets them off the hook to pay these lucrative contracts. Myself? I have to buy my own insurance for $630 per month without the benefit of a "group" policy. Groups of employees get more benefit for less premium than someone such as myself who is basically self employed. I know physicians now who have opted out of public funded healthcare plans. They simply do not reimburse enough to cover expenses. So, yeah when someone can afford to pay out of pocket they will get better care. Put it this way: I cannot imagine a U.S. Senator's daughter being forced to wait for that nasal septal defect repair. But I know in fact my step son waited two years for his in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.

Okay, you're just talking out your ass here. One: "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" is the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Two: the first ten amendments to the constitution are all pieces of legislation that guarantee rights. That's why they're called the BILL OF RIGHTS. And you clearly don't understand the difference between amendments and legislation. Legislation requires a majority of the elected representatives in both houses of congress. Amendments require two-thirds of both houses plus ratification by three-fourths of the states. Each state has their own method for ratification laid out in their own constitutions, and most have the state legislature vote on ratification. Federal legislation is put to popular vote under almost no circumstances. If people like you would be voting, I can see why.

Go lay down. The grown-ups are talking.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 4:42 pm

feeling cranky, Ranger?.........

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:51 pm

Context,,,, my friend context. The founding documents were first mentioned and were assumed the indirect article of the "unalienable" and "Creator" referenced.

You are correct about the Bill of Rights being legislated. As the Document says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. that make them less valid." They were wise enough to know you cannot possibly list all the rights individuals possess. The Continental Congress was made up of people who gave a shit and knew what tyranny is all about. At least admit they sacrificed to be a part of that elected body and were motivated by independence versus dependence. I apologize for my inaccurate statements

I grew up in Wyoming where the majority of the people had to ratify a constitutional amendment. And yes it is a 3/4 majority of the States. For the Canadian who asked the question, I thought "majority of the people" was a prudent use of words which would satisfy his curiosity. Point being, Congress cannot create a right outside the Constitution. To amend the Bill of Rights requires more than a hair thin majority of Congress. And if it is not an amendment to the constitution, it is not a legitimate right in the context of their celebrations.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:09 pm

Ranger Genius said, " If people like you would be voting, I can see why."

You lose the debate when you find it necessary to wallow in personal offense.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:08 pm

It's possible that mandatory health insurance will mean mandatory vaccinations;
http://www.youronlineinsurance.com/heal ... /#commentd

fuck that shit. There is NO END to the stories of tainted vaccine and serious reactions.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:51 pm

can't sit still wrote:It's possible that mandatory health insurance will mean mandatory vaccinations;
http://www.youronlineinsurance.com/heal ... /#commentd

fuck that shit. There is NO END to the stories of tainted vaccine and serious reactions.

No end of exaggerated, overblown, or simply fabricated stories. Correct. THE RISKS OF INOCULATIONS ARE FAR, FAR LESS THAN THE BENEFITS. SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET YOUR KIDS THEIR SHOTS YOU DIMWITTED BINT.

feeling cranky, Ranger?.........

Yes. Quite.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:02 pm

just sayin'........it might help.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:12 pm

Sorry, ignorant fools regurgitating the horseshit they hear on Fox News makes me cranky. No amount of medication can fix that. Well, maybe Thorazine would do the trick.

I'll re-ask the kanuck's questions:

What rights are you losing?
What privileges are being taken away?
Will this help those without private health coverage? (Here's a hint: the answer is yes)

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:48 pm

Ranger genius, you imagine yourself,, difficult to ignore.

Sillly wabit

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:29 pm

I feel there's no simple explanation for what the bill is, or, what it does......

as evidenced by it's 2700 pages.......if it were simple and straight forward, it'd be one page..........as it's most voracious supporters propose it's impact and effect.

magicmarty · Post by **magicmarty** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:09 pm

Medical care is not simple and straight froward. It is highly complex. The fact is that insurance companies can no longer terminate folks because they are sick or deny coverage to folks due to pre existing conditions are not personal rights being trampled,,,they are long overdue good ideas. Including more people so that the pool contains healthy folks as well as old guys like me so that the pool is greater and risk spread is a concept that even the insurance companies understand and support.

Sorry, YG, one page just can't do it. It is a complex subject and requires legislation that covers, as well as possible, the multitude of human conditions. I have medicare and it really works just fine. I've not heard many folks who want to opt out of it when they are eligible for coverage. I have NEVER had a problem seeing my MD of my choice or having his decisions relating to my care second guessed by Medicare. I have had first hand experience where such interference has occurred with private insurance coverage by others in my family

So, let's give it a chance. Let's get informed about what it really says. Then let's talk about the substantive issues and not what Ranger G points out are the inflamatory and totally false claims that the talk radio and Fox News guys advertise. As Sargent Friday used to say, "just the facts, Mam"

Peace

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:48 am

I guess I was using some hyperbole, just for effect.

Of course, it's complicated, and, needs more than one page.
And, I do think healthcare can be handled much better than it is.
I understand your medicare, and, that it works well. And, I'm glad for that.
But, I've also heard horror stories related to same.
As with all human endeavours, some stuff goes wrong, at times.

When boiled down, I resent the compulsory parts............but, I also feel, if you don't provide your own avenue for healthcare, insurance or whatever, then, it's not on the public dime to do so.

more the self reliant idea, for me.

could the time, for some brilliant entrepreneur to come forward, and create an insurance company, that makes small, (but necessary) profit,
be neigh?
Could that company, take the nation by storm, with reasonable rates and coverage?

Perhaps.

One of the things, if I understand the new bill, that I like, is the ability for insurance companies to compete across state lines, unimpeded.
Competition, can be a great equalizer. IMHO.

To me, the other side of that, would be people being prudent with their demands for care:
How many get a cut or bruise, fever or sprained ankle, and run to the E.R., or doctor, when, really, it'd be easily handled at home? We all know those folks.

Jeeze, I'm rambling.........sorry, I can't seem to condense my thoughts on this very well........

(hahahaa, *laughing at self* 2700 pages of thoughts)

magicmarty · Post by **magicmarty** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:33 am

For sure, your heart is in the right place. Self reliance is really important, I agree, but sometimes bad stuff happens to good self reliant folks too.

I think that I am stepping out of the Health Care Bill board and getting back to those subjects that are much more fun.

Final word, it is not a perfect bill by a long shot, but it is at least a start. A single payer plan modeled after Medicare would be far simpler and far less costly. And while Medicare is far from perfect, it works rather well for most of us. Try it, you'll like it.

Cheers

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:36 am

good call, I'll hope to live long enough to try medicare.........

and, I'd agree, the medicare model may well be better than what they have done.
which, begs the question:

why didn't they do that?

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:28 am

They didn't do it because of violent, irrational opposition. They tried for far too long to do this in a legitimately bipartisan way, before finally sacking up and just passing it.
People who go to the doctor too often cost the system a lot less than people who wait until it's a sufficient crisis that the emergency room will be obligated to treat them (because they don't have insurance and can't afford an office visit), then don't pay for it.
Everyone pays income taxes, and everyone accepts that there are things you can do to reduce or eliminate your tax burden (like charitable contributions). How, apart from the way it's expressed, is that different from the compulsory insurance provisions? Is that system tantamount to compulsory charity?

(And look up "begs the question." It doesn't mean what you think it means. I know, almost everyone misuses it, but it still bothers me. And now you'll have a chance to be needlessly pedantic when you hear someone else make the same mistake.)

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:57 am

I am now enlightened, and, thank you for that........no more BTQ's for me.....

I might propose, if, you look at public opinion, pretty evenly split for and against, and, congressional support, pretty much evenly split, it would seem, to make sense a big majority couldn't be had, bipartisan wise.
I don't see that as bad. It means, there are two ways of looking at things.
But, what I do see as wrong, is, passing it the way they did......as if a majority approved.

yeah, it is arguable as to when to go to the doc, and for what......but, I know, what I said applies a lot........I've seen it so often, where, someone gets hurt, runs to the E.R., sits for hours, and, gets a band aid and sent home......How much, overall, does that cost? lost time, etc.
So many of those issues could be handled by yourself, with a little knowledge and basic first aid supplies.

yeah, I do feel most of "income tax" is compulsory charity, and programs I totally reject.
not all, mind you. In a limited sense, I know we need a federal gov. and it does take money

I just don't like the far reaching arms the gov. has developed......
and this just grows them more.

And, I do agree healthcare needs to be changed from what it is, but, I'm not sure this bill is the answer.

I don't trust congress........

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:06 am

magicmarty wrote:For sure, your heart is in the right place. Self reliance is really important, I agree, but sometimes bad stuff happens to good self reliant folks too.

I think that I am stepping out of the Health Care Bill board and getting back to those subjects that are much more fun.

Final word, it is not a perfect bill by a long shot, but it is at least a start. A single payer plan modeled after Medicare would be far simpler and far less costly. And while Medicare is far from perfect, it works rather well for most of us. Try it, you'll like it.

Cheers

I, too am weary of this conversation. Just one major point here. Health care facilities which are most dependent on public programs cannot keep their doors open! The reimbursements do not cover expenses! And Medicare might work for the patient, but the program is $32,000,000,000,000 in the red. Is that sustainable? I think not and I am not hoping for change or changing for hope on that one.

Post by **Elderberry** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:08 am

Some points of view are just not worthy of debate - so why waste the time?

JK

Trishntek wrote:Ranger Genius said, " If people like you would be voting, I can see why."

You lose the debate when you find it necessary to wallow in personal offense.