House passes health care reform bill; Vote garners only one Republican

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
So you are happy at being forced to pay for something or risk being heavily fined and possibly jailed (don't know if that last bit is true)?

YES!

If it means that everyone that milks the system has to get coverage as well, YES!

This is one where the responsible get screwed, folks. There are those that have no problem passing on the bill to the rest of us. Blame them for this, but it's the only way out of it.

If someone wants to live and take care of themselves, go for it! If someone wants to kill themselves, have at it!! But I don't want to be punished for their decisions.

reply to post by tommy_boy


But it doesn't mean those that milk the system will have to pay in now. I am sure the Dems put in things to cover the entitlement loving base that doesn't want to work to pay for anything around here.

The people who don't pay in now for the most part won't pay in under the new plan. They will get government subsidies paid for by your taxes to cover their share. Welcome to the collective my friend.

reply to post by whatukno


You don't care what they do, as long as they do something.

So you don't believe you will be forced to purchase health insurance or face a hefty fine?

I know people like you think that anytime a Republican says anything bad about a Democrat sponsored bill they think its a scare tactic.

I don't hold it against you, I'm sure you will change your mind if you end up getting fined.

reply to post by HotSauce


Hot sauce, that's an excellent point. I'm going to check the bill out and see if that's the case. There is the whole "entitlement side of the argument that needs to be looked at, and your right, if there are offsets, then the mandate is for not.

reply to post by tommy_boy

If it means that everyone that milks the system has to get coverage as well, YES!

Aren't most of the people milking the system the ones that the government pays insurance for?

Just take the example of a woman on welfare who has 4 kids. Why not have 5? The government pays for it.

IMO, milking is being done by those insured, those uninsured, and those billing the insured and uninsured.

reply to post by tommy_boy


I'm glad you are happy that you have someone tell you how to live.

Must be a huge relief for you to relinquish some personal responsibility.

All I want to know is do they have the details on the public option?

The bill has ppassed, so no point in arguing against it now.

How will the public option be dished out? It better be damned cheap, or ill just continue to not carry any insurance.

I want it to be like medicare where you just bring the card and not have to be billed or pay up front. I better not be #ing denied either cuz I work at Wall-Mart and frankly I do not enjoy their health care options. and do not consider myself so wealthy thhat a $500 deductible, added to at least 30$ a month, plus $20 co-pay per visit is worth it when I physcially have spent less than 100$ a year for when I do become ill.

If I had insurance in the last five years that I have worked, I actually would have paid over 5 times more than what I actually spent on any health related issues in those five years. That public option better be damn cheap.

PS, you already pay a lot of things where you can be imprisoned or otherwise severely disciplined foor not paying.

Property taxes anyonne? Income taxes?

I say if we get enoug peope to switch to the public option, then we can ban the privatization of any health companies and the entire system will be under the taxpayer's control instead of the special interest of autocratic organizations which funnel the earning into unethical business practices and umbrella corps worldwide.

The next step will be to take bback the Fed. Yall ready for it; its gonna be one helluva fight!!!

The money will remain the same, including name, with the exception of the following: Printer currency will no longer read "Federal Reserve Note". Instead it will say "American Treasury Note" or something of that mattter.

reply to post by DYepes

I say if we get enoug peope to switch to the public option, then we can ban the privatization of any health companies and the entire system will be under the taxpayer's control instead of the special interest of autocratic organizations which funnel the earning into unethical business practices and umbrella corps worldwide.

Sounds reasonable. But if everybody switches to public option how does that put it in taxpayer control?

From what I have seen from these bills there are no or very little mechanisms to control cost. Basically the bill says we will save here and we will save here. But all of those savings may never materialize, leaving the taxpayers with a bigger bill.

I see no where that the taxpayer can control anything. The power will still be in the hands of a select few.

reply to post by Bored To Tears


Whose relinquishing anything? I have a great job, great benefits, no debt. No one's telling me how to live but my wife LOL

But I do know I pay a crapload of taxes because of people that don't take personal responsibility for themselves.

Not everything is an attack on Freedom, and SOME things do require sacrifice.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by tommy_boy]

Originally posted by jam321
I see no where that the taxpayer can control anything. The power will still be in the hands of a select few.

Therein lies the rub, Jam...

Whether the private sector owns it or the government owns it, WE still can't control it. So where do you go?

I say the "Lesser of 2 Evils" approach.

Private companies have shareholders. They NEED to turn profits. That is incompatible with the decisions that sometimes need to be made in order to save a life. sometimes, 200K for treatments over time is NOT profitable. I ask you which of the 2 evils is more likely to side with the individual? The government that at times is WAYY TOO entitlement-driven (I'll grant that), or the For-Profit company that pretty much is part of a monopoly?


We NEED to err on the side of life here, not balance sheets.

reply to post by tommy_boy


Force all because of one.

Its not an attack on Freedom and I never said that, it is an attack on the wallet though.

Enjoy the "free" health care while you can. From expireance I can tell you that you won't enjoy it for long.

reply to post by Bored To Tears


Don't think anyone with a logical brain thinks it's free. Those that abuse the system do think that however. But again, I pay for my health insurance. I enjoy that. I also know that I just re-enrolled for next year, and my premiums shot up, and my coverage shot down.

And you didn't say that verbatim. But you did say:

I'm glad you are happy that you have someone tell you how to live.

The implication is the same IMO.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by tommy_boy

 

If it means that everyone that milks the system has to get coverage as well, YES!

Aren't most of the people milking the system the ones that the government pays insurance for?

Just take the example of a woman on welfare who has 4 kids. Why not have 5? The government pays for it.

IMO, milking is being done by those insured, those uninsured, and those billing the insured and uninsured.

Exactly! We will still be paying for those who are on government funded ins. plans & we will still be paying for those who don't pay their medical bills. The only difference is now those unpaid medical bills will fall under the public option which the TAXPAYERS will foot the bill for.

So how is this an improvement on the current sytem or reform? IMO, it's not.

Reform would be capping the "mark-up" on medical procedures.

Reform would be the ins. companies having to compete for our business outside of our employer's choice. (edit to add, I know one of these bills had something like this, but since so many different bills have been floating about, who knows for sure if it's in that 1,900 page monster)

Reform would be limiting malpractice lawsuit amounts.

Reform would be going after the wide-spread fraud.

Any number of things would reduce actual out-of-pocket costs to the consumers but instead we get a bloated, taxpayer nightmare. Um, thanks, but no thanks.


[edit on 8/11/2009 by lynn112]

reply to post by tommy_boy


Take that quote anyway you wish.

10 people will take it 10 differant ways.

No one would need help if aspirin wasn't 8$ a pill. What store does your hospital go to, to buy meds?

Why do so many run to the government, the medical industry will just get to rape more peoples wallets with gov approval?

You want to know how much a doctor needs to tell you that you are sick? 10$...whats a visit cost these days? hundreds? Why does no one look at the real culprits here?

reply to post by Bored To Tears


Right, this will also let them decide to kill you if you have a cold and let the president punch puppies in the face while Pelosi holds them and we all will have to sing kumbya while they do it.

What do you mean it would not be under taxpayer control?

Government employed citizens will be doing all the clerical work. The various local agencies and department will be run by citizen elected citizens just as school board and local government.

Your city has a mayor and a city council. The council members, as well as the mayor and several other elected officialls will also serve on the boards of other agencies or departents within the municipal jurisdiction. They in turn have qualified professionals that they hire to assist in running the government system which serves the community, such as sanitation, schools, courts, police and fire department.

Now health will have this same privelage, and the end game is not to serve shareholders and churn out dividends just so someone can purchase a corvette for the Summer, or take the wife and kids to Paris.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by xstealth

 

I for one support this vote, and am very very happy to see this come to pass.

Pretty amazing actually...

So, you support this huge give away to the insurance industry? Hold a lot of insurance stock, do you?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Bored To Tears

 

Right, this will also let them decide to kill you if you have a cold and let the president punch puppies in the face while Pelosi holds them and we all will have to sing kumbya while they do it.

Bad attempt at sarcasm.

I hope you don't assume that I think that death panels are in store, if you do then that analogy about making assumptions fits you perfectly.

reply to post by tommy_boy

I ask you which of the 2 evils is more likely to side with the individual? The government that at times is WAYY TOO entitlement-driven (I'll grant that), or the For-Profit company that pretty much is part of a monopoly?


We NEED to err on the side of life here, not balance sheets.

Err on life it be then.

Should we let government take over utilities company? Pharmaceutical companies? Lives are at risk here as well.

Imo, there has to be a happy medium. Funny, how many members who have been members of Congress for quite a while have just now gotten a conscious. Funny how those health profits never bothered them before.

Government could have done a lot in the last twenty years or so if they had really been so concerned with such profits. And I feel the Insurance companies will survive and get a share of the pie.

In a way, I think Congress helped them. I believe I had read that their was a clause in there that would prevent any new insurance companies from popping up. Lessen the competition may be the name of this game.

Appreciate your views.