Healthcare Passes 219-212

• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: We can cut a lot of spending, not just defense. Though defense is a stupidly large part of our budget. How many of our hundreds of bases are truly needed?

  Not many of them are needed and we should eliminate most of them. That still won't come close to paying for a government take over of 1/6th of our $14 trillion economy.
  
  Hell, it won't come close to paying for our current social spending.

  But this bill isn't a government take over like Canada or some European countries. It merely extends insurance to those without.
• RedBlackAttack

  

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  RedBlackAttack wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: The whole thing is inconsequential because when we are cut off from our Chinese credit card the government won't be able to pay for any of this anyway, let alone the government option they will have to start because all of these insurance providers will be out of business.

  Sorry... I don't subscribe to doomsday scenarios. We could always *shutter* cut our massive defense budget *shutter* to help pay for important social programs, but I know that you were probably in the forefront of the push into Iraq, the subsequent surge, the war in Afghanistan and the subsequent surge there.
  
  If anything is going bankrupt this country, it is our proclivity for occupying lands around the world and our love for the newest, coolest military toys.

  You have no idea what my views are on our defense spending, but that is irrelevant. Why don't you tell me how much of our defense budget to cut and how much that will pay for? Don't bother. If cut out every single cent of defense spending right now we would still run a deficit right now before any of this health care disaster gets added on the tab.
  
  You heard for years on CNN about what the war in Iraq costs, and didn't hear about what anything else costs, so your only reply to someone who opposes your president's takeover of the economy is that we can cut defense spending to pay for it, when that isn't close to being true.
  
  A lot of people are warning about the upcoming downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, not just me. They aren't all doom-and-gloomers. They are people who report on this stuff for a living. You have no idea the consequences if that happens, but you don't care to know. If it was important, Barack would tell you.

  The truth is, this healthcare legislation will be an absolute fraction of healthcare expenditures even when it is fully operational in 2014.
  
  It is predicted that the bill will cost $900 billion over a 10 year period, but you need to look at that number in increments, since that is how it will be paid for.
  
  In 2016, the CBO predicts that this bill (which will then be fully operational), will account for about $160 billion in spending, while the total expenditure for healthcare that year will be around $3.7 trillion (and that was with or without the bill).
  
  So, basically, all of these doomsday scenarios and cries of "communist" are about 4 percent of what we'll pay in healthcare that year and it will potentially cover 30 million new people. I'm not saying that the bill will work perfectly and do exactly what it is predicted by the Administration, but this virtual civil war that has broken out in the country over the last year seems entirely over the top for a bill that encompasses such a tiny fraction of our healthcare costs that were already in place.
  
  Again... If this country goes bankrupt, it won't be because of this bill. You might want to look at other policies over the last decade that have run us into the ground.
  
  Just sayin... And I AM NOT an Obama honk... At all. I have had many problems with some of his policies over the last year and some of my more liberal friends even refuse to discuss politics with me because they think I am too critical. But, this utter outrage and civil unrest that is unlikely to change the average American's life in the least (besides the possible benefits of the bill) is completely over the top and a political play by those who want back in power, imo.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I am opposed to all subsidies. They undermine the market. Public libraries and schools and roads are supposed to be state funded. I am opposed to federal funding for them. I'm also against public schools because of how inefficient and ineffective they are, but that is another discussion.
• I Wear Pants

  ^ This. The one above that one actually.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: We can cut a lot of spending, not just defense. Though defense is a stupidly large part of our budget. How many of our hundreds of bases are truly needed?

  Not many of them are needed and we should eliminate most of them. That still won't come close to paying for a government take over of 1/6th of our $14 trillion economy.
  
  Hell, it won't come close to paying for our current social spending.

  But this bill isn't a government take over like Canada or some European countries. It merely extends insurance to those without.

  It will end up being a takeover. I don't really know how you don't understand that. When these insurance companies are put out of business, who is going to provide the coverage?
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck wrote: I am opposed to all subsidies. They undermine the market. Public libraries and schools and roads are supposed to be state funded. I am opposed to federal funding for them. I'm also against public schools because of how inefficient and ineffective they are, but that is another discussion.

  So why is state funded socialism okay and yet federal funded socialism is an abomination?
  
  Touche for being consistent in your views though.
• IggyPride00

  

  Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill
  
  This has to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Some people from Redstate apparently discovered this. While that is a dubious source, it does appear that there was some carveout made for staff.
  
  http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: We can cut a lot of spending, not just defense. Though defense is a stupidly large part of our budget. How many of our hundreds of bases are truly needed?

  Not many of them are needed and we should eliminate most of them. That still won't come close to paying for a government take over of 1/6th of our $14 trillion economy.
  
  Hell, it won't come close to paying for our current social spending.

  But this bill isn't a government take over like Canada or some European countries. It merely extends insurance to those without.

  It will end up being a takeover. I don't really know how you don't understand that. When these insurance companies are put out of business, who is going to provide the coverage?

  I doubt the insurance companies will go out of business. Or at least not as quickly as you're assuming.
• FairwoodKing

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: We can cut a lot of spending, not just defense. Though defense is a stupidly large part of our budget. How many of our hundreds of bases are truly needed?

  Not many of them are needed and we should eliminate most of them. That still won't come close to paying for a government take over of 1/6th of our $14 trillion economy.
  
  Hell, it won't come close to paying for our current social spending.

  But this bill isn't a government take over like Canada or some European countries. It merely extends insurance to those without.

  It will end up being a takeover. I don't really know how you don't understand that. When these insurance companies are put out of business, who is going to provide the coverage?

  My insurance company just raised my premiums by 64% and my co-pays by 150%. If it goes out of business, you won't see me crying!
• Cleveland Buck

  

  RedBlackAttack wrote: The truth is, this healthcare legislation will be an absolute fraction of healthcare expenditures even when it is fully operational in 2014.
  
  It is predicted that the bill will cost $900 billion over a 10 year period, but you need to look at that number in increments, since that is how it will be paid for.
  
  In 2016, the CBO predicts that this bill (which will then be fully operational), will account for about $160 billion in spending, while the total expenditure for healthcare that year will be around $3.7 trillion (and that was with or without the bill).
  
  So, basically, all of these doomsday scenarios and cries of "communist" are about 4 percent of what we'll pay in healthcare that year and it will potentially cover 30 million new people. I'm not saying that the bill will work perfectly and do exactly what it is predicted by the Administration, but this virtual civil war that has broken out in the country over the last year seems entirely over the top for a bill that encompasses such a tiny fraction of our healthcare costs that were already in place.
  
  Again... If this country goes bankrupt, it won't be because of this bill. You might want to look at other policies over the last decade that have run us into the ground.
  
  Just sayin... And I AM NOT an Obama honk... At all. I have had many problems with some of his policies over the last year and some of my more liberal friends even refuse to discuss politics with me because they think I am too critical. But, this utter outrage and civil unrest that is unlikely to change the average American's life in the least (besides the possible benefits of the bill) is completely over the top and a political play by those who want back in power, imo.

  1. The CBO never scored this bill. We don't have any idea what they say it will cost yet.
  
  2. Government programs ALWAYS cost significantly more than they are supposed to. Something like 10 times the cost if I remember correctly.
  
  3. This bill is not the health care fix. This was meant to put the private insurance companies out of business so the people can get on a public option that will be added in the future. At that point you can throw your numbers out the window. You are looking at trillions of dollars per year for socialized medicine.
  
  4. You are absolutely right that when we go bankrupt that this bill will not be the sole cause. If you are an alcoholic and your liver is failing, the last drink isn't the one that killed you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have stopped drinking before it got to that point.
  
  5. Neither party represents the people of this country, so I couldn't give a fuck less who is in power. I am just disgusted watching these clowns dig the hole deeper and deeper.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: I am opposed to all subsidies. They undermine the market. Public libraries and schools and roads are supposed to be state funded. I am opposed to federal funding for them. I'm also against public schools because of how inefficient and ineffective they are, but that is another discussion.

  So why is state funded socialism okay and yet federal funded socialism is an abomination?
  
  Touche for being consistent in your views though.

  If my state officials wanted to start a socialist state economy in Ohio I would vote against every one of the mother fuckers, but at least that is where the debate should be had. The state of Ohio doesn't have the power to bankrupt the whole country, only the state. If that is what the people of Ohio want, it is what they deserve. When the federal government screws up, they take us all down with them, whether we supported their ideas or not.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: I doubt the insurance companies will go out of business. Or at least not as quickly as you're assuming.

  How are they going to stay in business? They now have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, which means they will be paying out a lot more money, which means they either have to raise premiums dramatically or fold.
  
  By forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine, and the fine is less than insurance premiums are, people will just pay the fine until they get sick, at which point the insurance companies have to accept them with their pre-existing condition. So soon the only people paying premiums are people that the company is paying out money for. Either those premiums will be insanely high, or the company will fold.
  
  It is impossible for an insurance company to stay in business now.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  FairwoodKing wrote: My insurance company just raised my premiums by 64% and my co-pays by 150%. If it goes out of business, you won't see me crying!

  No I won't. I'll see you waiting 4 months for your doctor's appointment.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: So you don't think that providing health care to children with "pre-existing conditions" that were denied care is important?

  Sure I do. I don't know what that has to do with the federal government.

  What does it have to do with?

  The constitution defines who has the power to deal with this situation.

  And who deals with it when they don't?

  Are you saying we should go outside the constitution?
  
  What makes you think the government in Washington is any more moral and compassionate than the governments in Columbus, Albany, Sacramento, and all 50 of the states. Do you believe that private individuals, local, and state governments would turn away from caring for a helpless child?
  
  The best solutions come from those closest to the problem. Empowering a massive federal bureaucracy from Washington to manage these issues for all 300 million of us is not the solution.
• RedBlackAttack

  

  Cleveland Buck wrote:1. The CBO never scored this bill. We don't have any idea what they say it will cost yet.

  The CBO has not given a detailed analysis of the predicted year-by-year expenditure. You are right about that. They have publicly stated that the bill's total cost, over 10 years, is expected to be about $940 billion.
  
  That pretty much guarantees that their detailed estimate is not going to include a single year of over $200 billion in spending, a fraction of what we already paid in healthcare.
  
  http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/88429472.html
  

  Cleveland Buck wrote:2. Government programs ALWAYS cost significantly more than they are supposed to. Something like 10 times the cost if I remember correctly.

  There is a good chance that this may end up being the case. However, for the time being, all we have to go by are the CBO estimates. You can't just multiply its number by 10 and call it a day. That is pure speculation based on past legislation, not this particular bill and it would be unfair to criticize the government for costs that aren't predicted by the most reliable, unbiased predictor... Not that they always get everything right, but they are more accurate than just a blind guess by people that probably haven't even studied the bill page-by-page.
  

  Cleveland Buck wrote:3. This bill is not the health care fix. This was meant to put the private insurance companies out of business so the people can get on a public option that will be added in the future. At that point you can throw your numbers out the window. You are looking at trillions of dollars per year for socialized medicine.

  I haven't read the entire bill, but what I have looked at gives me no indication that this is an attempt to dismember the current system completely and have complete universal healthcare. In fact, there are some believe that the insurance companies are smiling about this bill due to the number of new customers that they will have and no public option to compete with them.
  
  Regardless, yours is just speculation on how the dominos may fall. You are looking 10 steps ahead in an attempt to have the Obama Administration live up to the '1984 scenario' that many on the right have been pushing forward since the day of the inauguration.
  
  I don't look at these people as evil tyrants who are trying to control and destroy our lives. I saw a system that was clearly broken and a man that lived up to his campaign promise by trying to reform what is a very complicated and controversial issue.
  
  If, 5-10 years from now, this bill has proven to do the things which you have predicted, I will be the first person to come to you and admit that you were right. However, with the way this legislation was treated by the right, it almost has to be a catastrophe, because if it does what the administration says it will do and people are happy that they are no longer being capped or thrown off of their insurance coverage by a broken system, it will be trouble for all of those who advanced these doomsday scenarios.
  
  I just hope you are rooting for the bill to work and not gladly anticipating a failure for an 'I told you so' moment.
  

  Cleveland Buck wrote:4. You are absolutely right that when we go bankrupt that this bill will not be the sole cause. If you are an alcoholic and your liver is failing, the last drink isn't the one that killed you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have stopped drinking before it got to that point.

  Sure... We can all agree that there have been mistakes on both sides that have contributed to the problems that we are facing. Some of Clinton's policies were catastrophic to the country, so I hope that you don't just think that I am sitting back, blaming Bush II for everything.
  
  That said, I don't remember outrage when tax cuts were proposed while we were sending money -- hand over fist -- to fight two wars. Hell... I don't remember any tea party organizations rushing Congress and verbally assaulting congressmen while sending death threats via TWITTER to Bush II after he pimped the first bailout.
  
  Now, a bill that is expected to take up about 4 percent of the healthcare expenditures in 2016 has driven all of these doomsdayers to descend on Washington and act as though this piece of legislation will be the cause for the downfall of the country as we know it.
  
  It is frankly baffling, especially with everything else that our government has gotten away with in the last 30 years. I think it has more to do with their dislike for Obama and a frustration for losing nearly all power after being so accustomed to calling the shots on important issues.
  

  Cleveland Buck wrote:5. Neither party represents the people of this country, so I couldn't give a fuck less who is in power. I am just disgusted watching these clowns dig the hole deeper and deeper.

  We agree.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: I am opposed to all subsidies. They undermine the market. Public libraries and schools and roads are supposed to be state funded. I am opposed to federal funding for them. I'm also against public schools because of how inefficient and ineffective they are, but that is another discussion.

  So why is state funded socialism okay and yet federal funded socialism is an abomination?
  
  Touche for being consistent in your views though.

  Because the constitution restricts the federal government to those powers strictly enumerated. The constitution is a legal document governing the union between the sovereign states and the federal government. In this document the sovereign states relinquished some of their rightful powers as sovereign states to form the union, but they only did so if the federal government limited itself to the powers enumerated in the constitution.
  
  Under the 10th amendment the rest are left to the states.
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
  
  Socialism is not restricted by the constitution. The delegation of who has the power to implement it is.
• RedBlackAttack

  

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: I am opposed to all subsidies. They undermine the market. Public libraries and schools and roads are supposed to be state funded. I am opposed to federal funding for them. I'm also against public schools because of how inefficient and ineffective they are, but that is another discussion.

  So why is state funded socialism okay and yet federal funded socialism is an abomination?
  
  Touche for being consistent in your views though.

  Because the constitution restricts the federal government to those powers strictly enumerated. The constitution is a legal document governing the union between the sovereign states and the federal government. In this document the sovereign states relinquished some of their rightful powers as sovereign states to form the union, but they only did so if the federal government limited itself to the powers enumerated in the constitution.
  
  Under the 10th amendment the rest are left to the states.
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
  
  Socialism is not restricted by the constitution. The delegation of who has the power to implement it is.

  It is amazing what is considered 'socialism' by those that would critique the current administration in today's political climate. I would hate to hear what these people would have said about Nixon's health care reform proposal. It would have been brutal... Or not, being that he was a beloved conservative figure.
• RedBlackAttack

  

  And, btw, I just happened across a brand new article by David Frum that pretty much re-affirms everything that I have been saying.
  

  Conservatives and Republicans on Sunday suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.
  
  It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for Barack Obama's healthcare vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:
  
  (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.
  
  (2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.
  
  So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:
  
  A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.
  
  At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
  
  Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
  
  This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
  
  Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
  
  Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.
  
  No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25-year-olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?
  
  We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
  
  There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?
  
  I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
  
  So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

  http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/22/david-frum-obama-hands-republicans-their-waterloo.aspx
  
  This plan isn't an extreme piece of legislation in comparison to other reform packages that have been offered up by politicians in the past. By refusing to even engage in a meaningful dialogue and trying to actually get a piece of legislation out of congress that represented both sides of the aisle, the extremists on the right decided that it was better to paint Obama as Hitler and hope that the bill didn't pass.
  
  Now that it has, they have painted themselves into a corner, because they need the bill to fail the way that they predicted (which is almost impossible with some of the ludicrous things that have been said in the past year about the plan) or they will look like fear mongers.
  
  Heaven forbid this thing actually works to improve healthcare, which ironically would be the best thing for the country, because it will go against all of their talking points for the past year that this bill will be the end of the US as we know it.
  
  I don't care who is in power... I just want to see good policy put into place. However, I never understood their approach to this thing. There really was no meaningful debate.
• Footwedge

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  RedBlackAttack wrote: The way I understand the bill, there will be several important aspects that will go into effect immediately.
  
  There are certain aspects that will go into effect immediately.

  Oh good. I was afraid it would take years for premiums to skyrocket as a result of this debacle.
  

  *HMOs will not be allowed to put caps on healthcare claims.

  Have to raise premiums to make up for this.
  

  *It will give immediate relief to those with serious illnesses that have pre-existing conditions.
  
  *There will be immediate relief for children with pre-existing conditions.

  Give immediate relief? Is it going to cure their condition? I'm not surprised that Barack would claim to heal the sick.
  

  *Children will be covered until the age of 26.

  Covered by what? What if their parents don't have insurance? Will Barack put them on his?
  

  *Small business will get immediate tax credits to help them provide for their employees.

  The businesses that take advantage of this will drive up demand, as well as the cost of insurance. Good job keeping prices down.
  

  *Insurance companies will be forced to cover preventive care that could offset disease or illness.

  Add some more $$$ onto that premium.
  

  *There will be an appeals process for those that think they were wrongly denied care by their health insurer.

  They have that right now. It's called a lawsuit.
  

  *Seniors will receive an extra $250 to help pay for expensive medicine.

  Seniors are getting $250 to go toward their medicine? Guess how much the cost of their medicine just went up overnight?
  

  So... the author of that article considers these factors literally inconsequential?

  The whole thing is inconsequential because when we are cut off from our Chinese credit card the government won't be able to pay for any of this anyway, let alone the government option they will have to start because all of these insurance providers will be out of business.

  Good responses ro every point...except the last one. The insurance companies will thrive with this legislation.
• QuakerOats

  The THEFT of your Freedom continues .....
  
  With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.
  Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
  The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.
  1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)
  2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).
  3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
  4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
  5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
  6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
  You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
  7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))
  8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
  9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
  10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
  11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
  12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
  13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
  14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
  15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
  16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
  The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
  17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
  18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
  19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
  That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
  20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
  
  http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote:

  RedBlackAttack wrote: The way I understand the bill, there will be several important aspects that will go into effect immediately.
  
  There are certain aspects that will go into effect immediately.

  Oh good. I was afraid it would take years for premiums to skyrocket as a result of this debacle.
  

  *HMOs will not be allowed to put caps on healthcare claims.

  Have to raise premiums to make up for this.
  

  *It will give immediate relief to those with serious illnesses that have pre-existing conditions.
  
  *There will be immediate relief for children with pre-existing conditions.

  Give immediate relief? Is it going to cure their condition? I'm not surprised that Barack would claim to heal the sick.
  

  *Children will be covered until the age of 26.

  Covered by what? What if their parents don't have insurance? Will Barack put them on his?
  

  *Small business will get immediate tax credits to help them provide for their employees.

  The businesses that take advantage of this will drive up demand, as well as the cost of insurance. Good job keeping prices down.
  

  *Insurance companies will be forced to cover preventive care that could offset disease or illness.

  Add some more $$$ onto that premium.
  

  *There will be an appeals process for those that think they were wrongly denied care by their health insurer.

  They have that right now. It's called a lawsuit.
  

  *Seniors will receive an extra $250 to help pay for expensive medicine.

  Seniors are getting $250 to go toward their medicine? Guess how much the cost of their medicine just went up overnight?
  

  So... the author of that article considers these factors literally inconsequential?

  The whole thing is inconsequential because when we are cut off from our Chinese credit card the government won't be able to pay for any of this anyway, let alone the government option they will have to start because all of these insurance providers will be out of business.

  Good responses ro every point...except the last one. The insurance companies will thrive with this legislation.

  The only way for them to thrive is to jack up premiums so high that no one can afford them.
• fish82

  

  Bam continues to do a super job keeping his "5 Days" promise..... :rolleyes:
  
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/23/flashback_obama_promises_public_5_days_to_view_bills_before_he_signs_them.html
• CenterBHSFan

  

  fish82 wrote: Bam continues to do a super job keeping his "5 Days" promise..... :rolleyes:
  
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/23/flashback_obama_promises_public_5_days_to_view_bills_before_he_signs_them.html

  Just like his plans on single payer, he really really really meant it at the time, but woke up one day and just magically changed his mind :dodgy:
  
  But then again, maybe there was some top-secret national crises that we don't know about that threatened our security if he would have waited....
• Shane Falco

  My $2500 savings and my raise, due to my employer saving 3000%, is about to start!
  
  OH GLORIOUS DAY!! I'm gonna be rich I tell ya, rich!!
• QuakerOats

  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63181
  
  “The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform…”
  
  
  Note the word, "ENFORCER".
  
  More ............................... change we can believe in ..................