Healthcare reform

[Rex Kickass]

Hooray for government entitlements. This is essentially the Democrat playbook for the last 80 years. The Democrats just orgasmed today (you saw the snow in Washington) over finally getting control of YOUR body. That's the motherload of all entitlements right there.

 

So by getting private insurers access to a larger market in four years without any public insurance program anywhere, exactly where did the government get control over your body? And when do I get my microchip?

[bmags]

Balta said it,

 

but again, you can either call the taxes bad idea, or call it unfunded, but you can't say that it's both unfunded and their tax ideas are bad ideas.

 

As balta said, I'm a bigger fan of the cadillac plans because it's a more consistent string of revenue in addition to it being a cost saving measure in itself.

[Cknolls]

While we don't know what specifically will pass:

1) The senate bill is funded by a tax of "cadillac" health care plans

2) The house bill is a tax on high income brackets.

 

 

And the Cadillac plan tax is not indexed to inflation so it will ensnare more people every year with lower priced health plans........Waits for the union carve out of the cadillac plan tax........

[HuskyCaucasian]

Can someone explain to me how it's unconstitutional?

Abortion Compromise Unconstitutional? Key House Members Raise Objection

 

Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY)--co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucuse--say they're not sold. They say the new compromise is possibly unconstitutional, and that they and other pro-choice House members could still reject it.

A

s

the Co-Chair

s

of the Congre

s

s

ional Pro-Choice Caucu

s

, we have

s

eriou

s

re

s

ervation

s

about the abortion provi

s

ion included in the U.

S

.

S

enate'

s

health care bill. Thi

s

provi

s

ion i

s

not only offen

s

ive to people who believe in choice, but

it i

s

al

s

o po

s

s

ibly uncon

s

titutional

. A

s

we have maintained throughout thi

s

proce

s

s

, health care reform

s

hould not be mi

s

u

s

ed to ta

k

e away acce

s

s

to health care. The more than 190-member Caucu

s

will review thi

s

language carefully a

s

we move forward on health care reform.

 

So, having recently re-read through the Constitution for the first time in a long time, i think it could be fairly argued that the much pleaded for Public option is far more "unconstitutional" than restricting where federal money goes.

[mr_genius]

Can someone explain to me how it's unconstitutional?

Abortion Compromise Unconstitutional? Key House Members Raise Objection

 

 

 

So, having recently re-read through the Constitution for the first time in a long time, i think it could be fairly argued that the much pleaded for Public option is far more "unconstitutional" than restricting where federal money goes.

 

there's no way they are going to get federal funds for abortions. at least not on the up an up. maybe through loop holes in the legislation.

[southsider2k5]

there's no way they are going to get federal funds for abortions. at least not on the up an up. maybe through loop holes in the legislation.

 

That is how it was planned all along. I have no doubt there will be a way around it, even if legislation seems anti-abortion.

[Texsox]

I have mixed feelings on this. I think either way it finally is settled, I will be ok with it. I tend more towards making funds available, but have some misgivings about advocating abortion as birth control.

[Balta1701]

That is how it was planned all along. I have no doubt there will be a way around it, even if legislation seems anti-abortion.

This law will be unambiguously more restrictive than the previous laws were, especially hitting poor women.

[kapkomet]

So by getting private insurers access to a larger market in four years without any public insurance program anywhere, exactly where did the government get control over your body? And when do I get my microchip?

The whole damn bill is a public option, it's just not called that. (Co-Ops, hi)

 

[kapkomet]

Balta said it,

 

but again, you can either call the taxes bad idea, or call it unfunded, but you can't say that it's both unfunded and their tax ideas are bad ideas.

 

As balta said, I'm a bigger fan of the cadillac plans because it's a more consistent string of revenue in addition to it being a cost saving measure in itself.

The taxes collected (as specified by this bill) will not cover a pimple on an elephant's ass regarding the costs of this bill.

[Balta1701]

The whole damn bill is a public option, it's just not called that. (Co-Ops, hi)

 

They didn't put those silly co-ops in either. It'd be nice if you'd actually argue against the extant bill.

[Balta1701]

The taxes collected (as specified by this bill) will not cover a pimple on an elephant's ass regarding the costs of this bill.

Except...every analysis by the CBO, every non-partisan analysis, and pretty much everything coming out of anywhere that can add says the opposite. It's a free country so you do continue to have the freedom to insist that 2+2 = 3, but the last 8 years proved pretty well what happens when you try to govern based on that premisis.

 

Like I said...you're basically arguing that the U.S. is guaranteed to go bankrupt in 20 years no matter what we do. In that case, we may as well give people health insurance and try to free up small businesses and the poor to get out of the disastrous individual market, since you've assumed bankruptcy is inevitable either way.

[StrangeSox]

Just for you, Kap:

 

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?"

[kapkomet]

Except...every analysis by the CBO, every non-partisan analysis, and pretty much everything coming out of anywhere that can add says the opposite. It's a free country so you do continue to have the freedom to insist that 2+2 = 3, but the last 8 years proved pretty well what happens when you try to govern based on that premisis.

 

Like I said...you're basically arguing that the U.S. is guaranteed to go bankrupt in 20 years no matter what we do. In that case, we may as well give people health insurance and try to free up small businesses and the poor to get out of the disastrous individual market, since you've assumed bankruptcy is inevitable either way.

 

I have medicare and social security to back up my reality, not the phony bulls*** that Congress tells the CBO the bill is going to be.

[kapkomet]

 

They didn't put those silly co-ops in either. It'd be nice if you'd actually argue against the extant bill.

 

 

Yes, they did. They have a "market exchange" - hi co-ops. You can call it whatever you'd like.

[kapkomet]

...Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges would have the option of signing up for privately owned, nonprofit nationwide plans overseen by the same federal agency office...

 

Sounds like co-ops to me.

[StrangeSox]

What's wrong with co-ops?

[Balta1701]

I have medicare and social security to back up my reality, not the phony bulls*** that Congress tells the CBO the bill is going to be.

Which are, of course, 2 of the most wildly successful government programs ever, and the only reason either of them have any potential problems is the fact that Medicare isn't aggressive enough and thus it faces a large deficit once health care becomes 50% of our economy. But we've been over that.

[kapkomet]

Which are, of course, 2 of the most wildly successful government programs ever, and the only reason either of them have any potential problems is the fact that Medicare isn't aggressive enough and thus it faces a large deficit once health care becomes 50% of our economy. But we've been over that.

 

 

LMAO. Wildly successful. $50 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion in unfunded obligations... and that's wildly successful. So, I guess this "health care plan" is going to be even more wildly successful. What a f***ed up definition of "wildly successful". We all need to keep sucking on that government teat.

[Balta1701]

LMAO. Wildly successful. $50 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion in unfunded obligations... and that's wildly successful. So, I guess this "health care plan" is going to be even more wildly successful. What a f***ed up definition of "wildly successful". We all need to keep sucking on that government teat.

Seriously...this is just sad. You oppose every single effort to bring those costs under control and then rail about how they're unfunded liabilities. You oppose every effort to fund them and then scream about how bad they are. You rail against how much this plan costs when every single independent analysis says it cuts costs, saves the government money, and at least begins to bend the curve to cut into that giant future liability. You scream about that funding gap and then oppose adding things that would bring it under control, like a public option or hell Medicare-for-all. You scream about how inefficient the government system is and then ignore the fact that we pay 3x per capita what the average OECD country does for health care or blame it on the government while every other state where the government runs things it winds up costing vastly less. It's just flat out incoherent. You hate the plan, you hate government, and you refuse to accept any math, numbers, or statistics that say the government could ever do anything right. There's no logic, no argument, just anger.

 

And yes, they've been wildly successful. They've taken the segment of our population that was mired in poverty, the elderly, and given them decent lives. I'm going to steal this graph from the Hoover institution of all places to prove it. The 1960's-1970's trends here are the great society at work.

 

[kapkomet]

If you want this country to survive, you have to get off of the government entitlements. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh, because that's the only way you know how to look at things. You've been suckered into the part of the population that says government is the only thing that can fix your way to anything that life throws at us as a country. At what point does it stop? That's what has made this country the most economically thriving country in the world was that the government generally stayed the hell out of the way until the last 70+ years (except Reagan - who only solved 65% of the problem and made the other 35% way worse). We WERE different, that is part of it. Liberals don't seem to want to admit that. They are always looking for the next entitlement or handout. Those rich f***ers can handle it! Evil bastards SHOULD pay the lower classes (redistribution of wealth is what we SHOULD be about). That thinking is so wrong. What the hell ever happened to making your own way?

 

Now with all that said, there ARE times when the government should step in. I understand helping people up from difficult issues, and the safety nets. But fix the damn problems with the existing infastructure before you create the biggest entitlement of them all - but hell no, we can't do that, because then the power of the government wouldn't be what it is becoming.

[Cknolls]

This law will be unambiguously more restrictive than the previous laws were, especially hitting poor women.

 

Let me get my hanky out. Learn to keep your legs shut then if you know you can't afford a child.

[Cknolls]

LMAO. Wildly successful. $50 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion in unfunded obligations... and that's wildly successful. So, I guess this "health care plan" is going to be even more wildly successful. What a f***ed up definition of "wildly successful". We all need to keep sucking on that government teat.

 

 

Come on, Kap you mean you are not using SS as your retirement income.

[kapkomet]

Come on, Kap you mean you are not using SS as your retirement income.

 

 

As of right now, I am... which means I'll be living in a cardboard box or working until I'm 90. I had to cash in my retirement.

[kapkomet]

What's wrong with co-ops?

 

 

They are a federally based program. What they are doing without saying this is what they are doing is setting the market so that private insurers will still get the shaft. You all keep talking like all these people that are getting mandated are going to private insurers. That's not what is going to happen because there's no profit in these policies. No profit, no private insurance. Yea! That's what you want anyway.