The W
Views: 100230707
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.10.14 1019
The W - Current Events & Politics - Health Care Passes
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
(159 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (36 total)
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 22 min.
Last activity: 20 min.
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.54
So, I want to believe that the right thing just happened here. It sounds great for people who were getting screwed over by insurance companies and can't get treatment, but other than that I'm not totally sure what this does to someone like me or if it even helps people who just lost their jobs.

I work for a large retailer that has fairly solid health care. It does go up every year, but I have never had much of a problem as long as I see in network doctors and such. We hear a lot about how this will help the poor and how it will screw the rich, but I'm kind of wondering now if the insurance companies do an end around and get their lost money from people who already have fair to decent health insurance. I also didn't notice anything about this bill controlling pricing, but maybe that is in there somewhere.

I don't think this bill will turn out to be the evil that opponents make it out to be, but I hope it isn't full of loopholes that can just be exploited down the road.

... and so it begins

Promote this thread!
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
http://www.reuters.com/​article/​idUSN1914020220100319

This link details what the bill will actually do, on a year by year basis.


(edited by CRZ on 22.3.10 1622)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.86
Not nearly as good and effective as the Dems say it is and not the evil socialist take over 1/6 of the economy pro-abortion bill that the Reps say.

And from what I hear, suits will be filed by states like Nebraska by Wednesday.



Perception is reality
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 24 min.
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.51
(deleted by CRZ on 22.3.10 1729)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.82
    Originally posted by lotjx
    I guess they got tired of the Catholic choice using Pro-life to increase the stock of children for the priest to molest.
You know what....it's just easier for me to delete your entire post. Never mind.



lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 24 min.
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.51
So, you kept the one part you didn't like for people to view. Yet, you deleted the rest which was not even close to being offensive. Please, I don't want to hear your lecture, its your board and your rules. I understand that, but please don't pretend this anything, but a temper tantrum.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 486 days
Last activity: 486 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.20
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Not nearly as good and effective as the Dems say it is and not the evil socialist take over 1/6 of the economy pro-abortion bill that the Reps say.

    And from what I hear, suits will be filed by states like Nebraska by Wednesday.






5-4 this gets thrown out in the Supreme Court (barring sudden vacancies), which will lead to Obama to threaten to pack the court in the same manner Roosevelt threatened when many of his New Deal packages were ruled unconstitutional.
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 805 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.27


Just remember that the numbers there are the reconciliation numbers and not the numbers in the actual passed bill and there are some pretty significant differences.


For me personally, leaving out anything and everything I might say about the politics, morality, legality, or economics of the bill, I can safely say I absolutely hate it because it is going to mean 3 new doctors and a new physical therapist for us. If, as expected, my wife loses her health insurance in the very near future, I'd like to go back to what we had previously which was a high deductible policy with an FHSA. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be allowed anymore under the current bill and there's no way we can afford a lower deductible policy and pay for me to work on finishing my teacher certification. As far as I can tell, that means going the MI(chigan)Child and Medicaid route for the next 2+ years. Once we make that decision, my daughters will have to find a new ophthalmologist because their current one does not and will not accept Medicaid patients. My wife and I will have to find a new family doctor because our current ones do not and will not accept Medicaid patients. I'll have to find a different orthopedic surgeon to do the surgery on my other knee because my current one, who did the surgery from which I'm currently recovering, does not and will not accept Medicaid patients. Finally, I'll also have to find a new physical therapist to replace the one with whom I've been working to rehab my right knee because he does not and will not accept Medicaid patients.

I might be able to maintain the relationship with our family doctors if I agree to pay cash for everything. However, I know that I'll need to find a new ophthalmologist for the girls, a new orthopedic surgeon, and a new physical therapist for me because they absolutely will not see you as a patient under any circumstances if you are on Medicaid. (Yes, I've already checked. ) The end result for us is a significant decrease in the quality of our health care and a significant increase in the cost.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered








Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!

Since last post: 1106 days
Last activity: 243 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.98
(deleted by CRZ on 22.3.10 2352)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
Increase taxes.
Tax companies if a single person gets subsidized insurance.
"penalties" for those who don't buy approved insurance.
Increase 'fees' (taxes) on drug companies, insurance companies, and medical device manufacturers.
Tax people because they have good insurance (except Obama's big labor donors, they're exempt)

And hey, did you know that if you get subsidized insurance, your employer gets fined?

How long do you think you'll keep your job when your employer finds out you qualify for and get subsidized insurance?
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by redsoxnation

    5-4 this gets thrown out in the Supreme Court (barring sudden vacancies), which will lead to Obama to threaten to pack the court in the same manner Roosevelt threatened when many of his New Deal packages were ruled unconstitutional.


I have no idea what the likelihood is that the Court could declare the law unconstitutional, but there's no way that any President, of either party, is going to repeat the court-packing idea for a long, long time to come.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.56
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      Originally posted by redsoxnation

      5-4 this gets thrown out in the Supreme Court (barring sudden vacancies), which will lead to Obama to threaten to pack the court in the same manner Roosevelt threatened when many of his New Deal packages were ruled unconstitutional.


    I have no idea what the likelihood is that the Court could declare the law unconstitutional, but there's no way that any President, of either party, is going to repeat the court-packing idea for a long, long time to come.


And look, how many times does justice candidate X stand to tilt the court to the left or right and after they are in they totally confound everyone by not following chalk.

This whole issue interests me because I guess I never thought healthcare (or the idea that we needed to make insurance and coverage more egalitarian and reasonable) would turn into an issue like abortion. I.e. facts just don't matter for either side.

(edited by DrDirt on 23.3.10 0208)


Perception is reality
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 17 hours
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Not nearly as good and effective as the Dems say it is and not the evil socialist take over 1/6 of the economy pro-abortion bill that the Reps say.

      And from what I hear, suits will be filed by states like Nebraska by Wednesday.






    5-4 this gets thrown out in the Supreme Court (barring sudden vacancies), which will lead to Obama to threaten to pack the court in the same manner Roosevelt threatened when many of his New Deal packages were ruled unconstitutional.


I'm not really buying that they would overturn this. But we'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

I think it's funny to see a state like Tennessee say "we refuse to comply with this national healthcare" while at the same time saying "don't touch our Medicare!"

Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 458 days
Last activity: 419 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.39
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Not nearly as good and effective as the Dems say it is and not the evil socialist take over 1/6 of the economy pro-abortion bill that the Reps say.

      And from what I hear, suits will be filed by states like Nebraska by Wednesday.






    5-4 this gets thrown out in the Supreme Court (barring sudden vacancies), which will lead to Obama to threaten to pack the court in the same manner Roosevelt threatened when many of his New Deal packages were ruled unconstitutional.

I haven't been paying attention. What exactly is supposed to be unconstitutional about this?
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 24 min.
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.44
1. Forcing the states to pay for it

2. Forcing the citizens to buy into the health care plans.

It is mainly mute due to the Federal Supremacy Law. The out maybe medical marijuana laws which states have opted out of instead going by federal law. It would be the irony of ironies to repeal it. I also would question if it gets repealed would car and home insurance laws go away as well or are the states going to claim its ok, because we can screw around with our citizens better then the Feds.? Its hypocritical on a lot of fronts. Its more of a way to keep the debate going into the election while wasting tax payer dollars that could be used to pay for the plan. I think this will backfire since people hate lawyers more then they do politicians. Obama can't pack the courts, it would be suicide even though the court was backed by the GOP for years now thanks to death. I also think by May people are going to get sick of this debate and once they see what it does, I don't think a lot of people will want it gone.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.56
Briefly, Medicare is okay because it falls under federal taxing authority and is public.

The healthcare legislation passed and signed by now is said to not be a tax but a penalty for not buying in and the other biggie is forcing people to purchase from a private company. Ironically this argument essentially says if the public option had been part of this that would have been constitutional.

Home and especially car insurance aren't the same. You don't have to have car insurance unless you are going to drive and driving isn't mandated or a right. Same for home ownership. I know that sounds pissy but that is the argument.



Perception is reality
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 22 min.
Last activity: 20 min.
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.40
The thing that I never understood about health care is this.

Person A and Person B go in to have the same procedure done.

Person A has insurance, Person B does not.

The procedure costs $500, but Person A's insurance company has an agreement with the facility that it is only going to cost $350.

Person B has no insurance, therefore no agreement and has to pay the whole $500.

If $350 is enough to cover all the costs across the board, why double whack the poor shmuck with no insurance?

What am I missing here?

Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 232 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.72
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    The thing that I never understood about health care is this.

    Person A and Person B go in to have the same procedure done.

    Person A has insurance, Person B does not.

    The procedure costs $500, but Person A's insurance company has an agreement with the facility that it is only going to cost $350.

    Person B has no insurance, therefore no agreement and has to pay the whole $500.

    If $350 is enough to cover all the costs across the board, why double whack the poor shmuck with no insurance?

    What am I missing here?




Basically the insurance company is going to be driving more patients to that facility over time, allowing them to gain a certain measure of purchasing power, while the "poor shmuck" will likely be a one & done type transaction leaving the patient with little leverage with which to negotiate a lower rate.

Kind of like how a company will get a better rate from Staples than you or I would by simply walking into one as a basic consumer.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.56
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
    The thing that I never understood about health care is this.

    Person A and Person B go in to have the same procedure done.

    Person A has insurance, Person B does not.

    The procedure costs $500, but Person A's insurance company has an agreement with the facility that it is only going to cost $350.

    Person B has no insurance, therefore no agreement and has to pay the whole $500.

    If $350 is enough to cover all the costs across the board, why double whack the poor shmuck with no insurance?

    What am I missing here?




Not always true. Out here if you pay cash (no insurance to deal with) it can be substantially cheaper for some procedures.

One wacky thought to throw out. What is everyone and I mean everyone stopped their health insurance? What would that so to costs and the system. I am not saying do it as it's nuts but what if?

(edited by DrDirt on 23.3.10 1552)


Perception is reality
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by DrDirt

    One wacky thought to throw out. What is everyone and I mean everyone stopped their health insurance? What would that so to costs and the system. I am not saying do it as it's nuts but what if?



Well, a lot of people would be unable to pay for the care that they need. For things that are not a matter of life and death--say, physical therapy or psychotherapy--they would simply do without. But for emergency care and matters of life or death, they'd get the care and the bill would be unpaid. (And, of course, some of those untreated problems would eventually turn into emergencies.) Lots of people would go into bankruptcy, and hospitals would have to raise their rates on those who can afford to pay to make up the difference. This is something that already happens with people who have no (or insufficient) insurance or who get their insurance canceled when they get sick, but it would happen on a greater scale. At some point, the system would probably break down, and either we'd need to have some sort of systemic overhaul (if we're assuming that we still won't buy insurance, then that probably means some kind of non-profit, government-subsidized care) or else hospitals and doctors would abandon the policy of not turning away emergency patients, and those without insurance would be left to die.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Lech Kaczynski
Next thread: FCC can't regulate the itnernet.
Previous thread: Ann Coulter Raisin' A Ruckus in Canada
(159 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
It's about more than ego or the statistic potential to actually win. it's about every citizen having an equal voice and a choice. Jello Biafra (of the Dead Kennedy's) once said that a Democrat is on the inside what a Republican is on the outside.
- OndaGrande, Good News for Republicans? (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Health Care PassesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.22 seconds.