Healthcare Passes 219-212

• tk421

  

  Cleveland Buck wrote: People will now be less likely to be forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills. Instead they will be forced in bankruptcy because they won't take home enough of their pay to cover their bills.
  
  We are not the richest country in the world. We live like we are because we have a credit card that we thought had no limit. People don't have any clue how bad things will be when we find out their was a limit.

  Now we can face bankruptcy from the IRS penalizing people for not wanting to carry insurance.
• ManO'War

  

  That's what is wrong with this country...nobody wants to pay their own way anymore. We've become a nation of free loaders who think that everything should be given to them.
• bigmanbt

  Government will only work for it's own benefit. Been proven throughout history. It's amazing how much we are like Ancient Rome when it fell. So many similarities (people wanting security more than liberty, devaluing the currency, over expansion of the empire, etc.).
• tk421

  

  ManO'War wrote: That's what is wrong with this country...nobody wants to pay their own way anymore. We've become a nation of free loaders who think that everything should be given to them.

  That's the "progressive" way. The public is too stupid to realize, and we no longer have any ethical news agencies who will report on these facts(Except the evil Faux News). It's all rosy and well in la la land. You'd think they had cured cancer or something the way the democrats are acting in D.C.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: http://factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/
  

  It’s government-run health care.
  
  Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn’t. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so. There would be increased government regulation of the insurance industry, however, to require companies to cover preexisting conditions, for example. These “government-run” claims have also included heavy criticism of health care in the U.K., such as the outrageous assertion by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that seniors would be “too old” to qualify for artificial joints and pacemakers in the U.K. The majority of those getting joint replacements and pacemakers in the U.K. are, not surprisingly, seniors.

  This is basically saying that the democratic leadership is incrementing legislation to get to their ideal goal, which is single payer.
  It is correct in stating that the bill doesn't come right out and publicly saying it. The plan is to take 10, 15, 20, 25 years to get what they eventually want.
  
  You guys seem to forget that just two short years ago, Obama publicly said this and deemed himself as a big proponent of it. I do not believe for one second that he has magically changed his mind.
  What he has magically done is deflect his intent.
  
  
  
  And President Obama is not the only powerful democrat who commits to utilizing the plan. Others include Rahm Emmanuel, Waxman, Kerry, and so on.
  
  I mean, the words are plain and simple. This is their strategy.
• majorspark

  

  Sage wrote: I don't see "everything" as a civil right, but health care is definitely one of them. Sorry, we're all human beings, and living in the richest country in the history of the world, I think we can afford this. Tens of millions of people are one ambulance away from bankruptcy.
  
  Like I said, once your tears turn into ass cancer, I think you'll be pleased with the new system.

  Last I checked one of our rights under the second amendment was the right to keep and bare arms. Many can't afford a Colt AR-15 or a Glock sidearm. Many also can't afford the ammunition to accompany these weapons. Tens of millions are just one hearse ride from the grave.
  
  Why should so many be denied the right to protect themselves just cause they can't afford it. I think we can afford to provide these arms to those in need. We are the richest nation in history. Actually we should just require all Americans to bare arms. If they don't we can make them pay a fine at tax time. This will ensure all Americans can defend themselves and will not have to rely on their neighbors.
  
  I think you will like this new system too. When a group of thugs show up at your door meaning you harm.
• 2quik4u

  

  Lawrence O' Donnell talking about taxes in the bill starts at 8:20
  
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35982317#35982317
• HitsRus

  

  Pretty obvious that this bill was just a foot in the door...and even at that is expected to cost 100 billion a year.
• bigmanbt

  majorspark wrote:

  Sage wrote: I don't see "everything" as a civil right, but health care is definitely one of them. Sorry, we're all human beings, and living in the richest country in the history of the world, I think we can afford this. Tens of millions of people are one ambulance away from bankruptcy.
  
  Like I said, once your tears turn into ass cancer, I think you'll be pleased with the new system.

  Last I checked one of our rights under the second amendment was the right to keep and bare arms. Many can't afford a Colt AR-15 or a Glock sidearm. Many also can't afford the ammunition to accompany these weapons. Tens of millions are just one hearse ride from the grave.
  
  Why should so many be denied the right to protect themselves just cause they can't afford it. I think we can afford to provide these arms to those in need. We are the richest nation in history. Actually we should just require all Americans to bare arms. If they don't we can make them pay a fine at tax time. This will ensure all Americans can defend themselves and will not have to rely on their neighbors.
  
  I think you will like this new system too. When a group of thugs show up at your door meaning you harm.

  Classic. What a great response, honestly. Don't expect to see any progressives acknowledge that it would be exactly the same as healthcare insurance but this was well thought-out. Kudos to you.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I understand it feels good to provide health care for those who don't have it. I am all for helping people. I don't mind a progressive tax rate. I don't even mind a tax rate that the lowest earners get more taxes back than they paid. A small redistribution of income isn't necessarily a horrible thing. The problem is that our whole system is fucked up and has been for a long time, and it gets worse every day.
  
  When the government tries to get in there and help someone they only make things worse. Say you want to give $1 million to homeless people in Cleveland. If you personally do it, you can make sure $1 million gets into their hands. If you give the money to government to do it, you have to take some of the money to pay some bureaucrats bloated wages to pass out the money and you have to set some aside to pay off the Congressman who is against helping them. Now that million dollar is $200,000 into the hands of the homeless. Which is better?
  
  The government will never make anything cheaper for anyone. It's involvement only increases prices. It's called supply and demand. When demand is high, prices are high. If the government forces you to own health insurance, that is a sure way to increase demand. Just like college tuition. When LBJ passed his social programs he started offering government backed student loans. Sounds like a great thing, except now everyone can get a loan and go to college, so the demand for a college education is sky high, so tuition is sky high. People who have health insurance now will pay much much more for it in the near future, at least until their provider goes bankrupt.
  
  It is impossible to bring the bottom level up without bringing everyone else down. If less fortunate people get free health care, everyone else will pay out the ass.
  
  If you feel that is the right thing to do, bring everyone down to the same level, then those are your beliefs and I can't argue with you, that is what you think is right. Most people don't feel that way though, and our elected officials are supposed to represent us, not try to get in there and buy votes so they are set up for the rest of their lives.
• fish82

  

  Sage wrote: We're the richest country in the world guys. I think we can afford it.
  
  Also, love how you're all fiscal conservatives now. I must have missed that call during the Iraq War drum up and the subsequent tax-cuts.

  Let's be honest for a second, shall we? You've missed a lot of calls...figuratively speaking of course.
• bigmanbt

  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
  
  Looks like the states are starting the backlash against this bill. Florida and Virginia are challenging the mandate (fined if not covered) in federal court.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html
  
  Excerpt:
  "Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.
  
  Removing 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. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.
  
  The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less. "
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...................
• bigmanbt

  Cleveland Buck wrote: I understand it feels good to provide health care for those who don't have it. I am all for helping people. I don't mind a progressive tax rate. I don't even mind a tax rate that the lowest earners get more taxes back than they paid. A small redistribution of income isn't necessarily a horrible thing. The problem is that our whole system is fucked up and has been for a long time, and it gets worse every day.
  
  When the government tries to get in there and help someone they only make things worse. Say you want to give $1 million to homeless people in Cleveland. If you personally do it, you can make sure $1 million gets into their hands. If you give the money to government to do it, you have to take some of the money to pay some bureaucrats bloated wages to pass out the money and you have to set some aside to pay off the Congressman who is against helping them. Now that million dollar is $200,000 into the hands of the homeless. Which is better?
  
  The government will never make anything cheaper for anyone. It's involvement only increases prices. It's called supply and demand. When demand is high, prices are high. If the government forces you to own health insurance, that is a sure way to increase demand. Just like college tuition. When LBJ passed his social programs he started offering government backed student loans. Sounds like a great thing, except now everyone can get a loan and go to college, so the demand for a college education is sky high, so tuition is sky high. People who have health insurance now will pay much much more for it in the near future, at least until their provider goes bankrupt.
  
  It is impossible to bring the bottom level up without bringing everyone else down. If less fortunate people get free health care, everyone else will pay out the ass.
  
  If you feel that is the right thing to do, bring everyone down to the same level, then those are your beliefs and I can't argue with you, that is what you think is right. Most people don't feel that way though, and our elected officials are supposed to represent us, not try to get in there and buy votes so they are set up for the rest of their lives.

  I agree for the most part, but even the progressive income tax is a bad idea. It was just a stepping stone for the rest of the progressive agenda. You give them one thing, they take another. It's what they've done for nearly a century now.
• tk421

  

  bigmanbt wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
  
  Looks like the states are starting the backlash against this bill. Florida and Virginia are challenging the mandate (fined if not covered) in federal court.

  I hope more states join the fight. It's about time the federal government had some of it's power taken away and given to the states. If a state wants to enact health care a la Mass., that is their right, but the federal government has no business at all doing so.
• bigmanbt

  tk421 wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
  
  Looks like the states are starting the backlash against this bill. Florida and Virginia are challenging the mandate (fined if not covered) in federal court.

  I hope more states join the fight. It's about time the federal government had some of it's power taken away and given to the states. If a state wants to enact health care a la Mass., that is their right, but the federal government has no business at all doing so.

  I think we should do away with Amendment 17, the one that gives the right to the people to elect their Senators. When Senators we're elected by the state legislatures, it was a check on federal government power. When we got rid of that, we gave the federal government permission to expand unconditionally. It's no surprise it was one of the integral parts of the Progressive agenda in the early 20th century.
• BCSbunk

  ManO'War wrote: That's what is wrong with this country...nobody wants to pay their own way anymore. We've become a nation of free loaders who think that everything should be given to them.

  Too bad Insurance companies drove medical prices through the roof then denied coverage to the sick. That is the problem you cannot pay for yourself no matter how much you want to if you have a preexisting condition.
  
  This bill is a step in the right direction.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BCSbunk wrote: This bill is a step in the right direction.

  Yes it is. I'm sure you can cite numerous examples of government intervention lowering the prices of a product for the American people.
• jmog

  BCSbunk wrote:
  
  Too bad Insurance companies drove medical prices through the roof then denied coverage to the sick. That is the problem you cannot pay for yourself no matter how much you want to if you have a preexisting condition.
  
  This bill is a step in the right direction.

  Your first statement is so false I don't even know where to start.
  
  You do realize that "for profit" insurance agencies make something like 2-3% profit, meaning they make 2 cents for every dollar they bring in. The other 98% goes to actually paying the medical bills, paying their staff, etc.
  
  An average American company makes 7-10% profit, a good company makes 10-15%, so please stop regurgitating the left wing nut ball rhetoric and actually look this crap up for yourself.
  
  The cost of insurance and health care in this country has been driven up by government ran health care that refuses to pay the whole bill (read medicare/medicaid).
  
  What happens is if I go to the doctor on my private insurance and you go on medicare. Medicare refuses to pay the full amount and only pays about half. Guess who the doctor charges for the rest? Myself and others with our own health insurance.
  
  That is what has driven up health insurance costs, not insurance companies.
  
  Guess what, the House just created millions more on government ran health insurance...private insurance will do nothing but go up.
  
  And please name me one instance where the government stepping in has lowered costs? It didn't for passenger trains 100+ years ago, it jacked up the prices.
  
  No other government ran health insurance plan on the planet (a number of countries have them) has driven prices in that country.
• Bigdogg

  For those of you who claim this will cost you money, here is a place you can find out how much you will pay.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/?hpid=topnews
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Bigdogg wrote: For those of you who claim this will cost you money, here is a place you can find out how much you will pay.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/?hpid=topnews

  No, you can't, unless they take into account the increased demand of health insurance and the insufficient supply of doctors and the insurance companies that go out of business. If they figured that in there, then I would be impressed. Otherwise it is nonsense.
• bigmanbt

  BCSbunk wrote: That is the problem you cannot pay for yourself no matter how much you want to if you have a preexisting condition.
  
  This bill is a step in the right direction.

  That's probably how it should be. Think about it, if you have a pre-existing condition, you are more likely to cost the insurance company more. Why should a company, who already pays income taxes and all other entitlement program taxes, that only makes a 2-3% profit be forced to make bad investments? That's what this healthcare bill does. Then when the insurance companies go bankrupt, big ole government is there to takeover, and government as proven never does things efficiently.
• Little Danny

  

  Jmog is absolutely right. The left has pounded this mantra of "evil insurance" for so long. The culprit is Medicare/Medicaid (ie. the govt.). I often hear the rhetoric of treatment being a doctor and their patient. Do you realize if I were a unwealthy uninsured person and wanted to negotiate my bill with a doctor, he cannot charge me anything less than the Medicare rate? If he charges me anything less than the Medicare rate he could be prosectued by Medicare for Fraud.
  
  This is another example of class warfare being played to the American people in order to fit a certain agenda.
• jmog

  That website of what it will cost you is wrong.
  
  It doesn't take into account if you have a "cadillac" plan.
  
  My employer is VERY generous with health insurance. The "normal" plan that is about a 80/20 is free to employees (aka we pay $0 out of our check) and the upgraded plan that is 100/0 except for co-pays (no deductable at all) of $10-$20 is $100/month for family and $45/month for single.
  
  I will be taxed on having those "cadillac" plans, even if I am a middle class family.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Foolish, foolish Democrats.
  
  Now we get to watch as thousands of doctors withdraw from the Medicare and Medicaid programs (which were already under-paying physicians) because they simply won't be able to handle the additional volume of patients and the less reimbursement they'll be getting.
  
  In the meantime, all of us will be hit with longer waits for physicians -- assuming we can get in at all, because of the millions of new patients that an already stressed system can't handle for primary care.
  
  I'll wait for the inevitable government intervention into all of this, which will very likely make the problem even worse by creating additional mandates that stress the system beyond capacity.