What pisses me off the most is I have coverage that I pay for already, and not I will have even less take home money because I have to pay for some other pissant's coverage.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
True, but the bill limits your personal liability if you or somebody on your policy becomes sick. - In that, the bill aims to prevent insurance companies from weaseling out of paying claims.
* House Passes Health Bill * Choice, Life Groups Slam Obama Order on Abortion * FOX FORUM: Obama to America — I Win, You Lose * RAW DATA: Executive Order on Abortion Funding * Analysts: States on the Hook for Medicaid in Health Bill * SPEAKER'S LOBBY: Arrests Inside Capitol Building * READ THE BILL: Share Your Thoughts on Legislation * FOX FORUM: Obamacare Is the Next Roe v. Wade * Small Business Gone Fishin’
Also lists: dow jones down, nasdaq down, s&p 500 down
CNN: * Cheers as gavel comes down * Obama 'It was the Right Vote' * NOW incensed over anti-abortion * Text on abortion-related executive order * A reality check * Ticker: Deal with Obama costs Dem
MSNBC: * House Passes Historic Health Care Bill - But democrats triumph rests on fate of fixes in senate * Vote, discuss: Are you jazzed or mad? * Video: What it means to Americans * Newsweek: How bill reduces the deficit * Cover more people, but still save money? How? * Video: Health bill will pay for abortions, GOP says * Rank-and-file sent crucial votes * Video: Slurs target top Dems
~Lyuokdea
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
The problem is what is in this bill. This is from yahoo.com as to what is in the bill.
-An "individual mandate" will require all Americans to purchase some form of health care coverage, with government subsidies provided to those needing financial assistance to do so. People who don't obtain coverage of some sort will be subject to federal fines, which would begin to take effect in 2015.
So if some can "afford" health care by their standards, but in reality with other financial commitments they can't then they will fine them if they choose to ignore health care in favor of paying their bills, kids college tuition, elderly parents retirement home fees, child support, etc?
Quote:
-All employers with 50 or more employees will be legally obliged to offer coverage - or else they will be assessed a stiff fine of $2,000 per uninsured employee.
Is there a minimum coverage they must offer, or is this just a technicality and they can simple pay $1 toward your coverage and be within requirements of the bills?
Quote:
-Insurance exchanges - that is, purchasing pools for individuals not covered by employer-provided or federal plans such as Medicare - will be able to obtain coverage.
Basically coverage that is available now if you search for it. They just hope it will be cheaper, which I doubt.
Quote:
-Private insurers will no longer be permitted to deny coverage or raise premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions or illness.
They won't be needing to raise premiums, we are going to see an increase across the board soon to account for the 32 million extra people that need to be covered by the other covered that are and have been paying their premiums all these years. How about an incentive if I haven't used my premium for anything besides annual checkups, can I get a discount or refund?
Quote:
-Cost controls will be phased in via expanded coverage plans, resulting in a $1.3 trillion reduction in the federal deficit during the next 20 years, against $940 billion in costs associated with the bill, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
So basically 1.3 trillion they will not really save, but appropriate to something else that they screwed up and ran out of money for.
Gotta love the governments idea of "helping the people".
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: True, but the bill limits your personal liability if you or somebody on your policy becomes sick. - In that, the bill aims to prevent insurance companies from weaseling out of paying claims.
So fine. Why not make a bill aimed at correcting all the loopholes in the insurance system, and all the exaggerated charges in the health system, and focus the bill on bringing health care costs in line, which in turn would make health care more affordable to more people, not just charge me to pay for someone else's care.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Just glanced at the US Capitol. It isn't tie-dyed, and the devil hasn't ripped the dome off and used it as a toilet.
But I am really sad that I have to submit my grandma to the death panel today.
Give it time my friend. It takes a while to destroy something when it will put up a fight. First you lie like this to so as to get your foot in the door.
Quote: If the HoR made changes to the Senate bill to get it to pass. Deosn't the Senate have to agree to those changes?
That was a question I had also. I guess the way it works is the Bill is in - no question. The Senate can make changes, however, those changes could take years to come info effect, and may not happen at all. - This question was discussed on every newschannel this morning and this is the gist of the answer.
Here's my question, and somebody tell me if I'm out of line here:
The cost of US wars since 2001 is currently at 974,131,730,568. Here's a link to the info: http://www.costofwar.com/
We are all concerened about the healtcare bill and the way it affects our taxes, yet it costs billions less than the war on terror.
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Let me preface this by saying I, in no shape or form, consider myself to be a member of any party. I feel that bipartisan politics fails to keep the needs of the constituents in mind to push an agenda.
Anyhow, I think this bill is a bad thing for America. It certainly affects me negatively. As far as health care goes, I don't really need it. The government is telling me I HAVE to have it in 2014 or be penalized. That seems to go against everything that the United States is supposed to be.
I thought about buying health insurance a couple years back, but when I realized how much it would cost me I decided that paying yearly for a physical out of pocket isn't so bad.
Just seems to me that our freedom is being raped. The above only represents the viewpoint of an average person who doesn't follow a party, doesn't spend hours of the day following politics, and are to be taken lightly at best.
Name one entitlement program that cost even close to what they said it would. Most if not all ended up costing 3times as much. which blows your numbers out of the water...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
How is this different from mandating car insurance? Just an innocent question (which I'm sure will be mistaken for trying to stir the pot, but whatever).
Quote: How is this different from mandating car insurance? Just an innocent question (which I'm sure will be mistaken for trying to stir the pot, but whatever).
You don't have to drive...you have a choice.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: How is this different from mandating car insurance? Just an innocent question (which I'm sure will be mistaken for trying to stir the pot, but whatever).
You don't have to drive...you have a choice.
True...but let's be honest, where I live there is no public transportation and I need a car to get to work. (and before someone suggests "move," can't afford to do that)
jc. What really grinds me about this is that the "benefits" don't kick in until 2014. When people really start to realize what a fiasco this is, most of those that are responsible will be out of office and not be able to be held accountable.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: How is this different from mandating car insurance? Just an innocent question (which I'm sure will be mistaken for trying to stir the pot, but whatever).
You don't have to drive...you have a choice.
True...
That's all you needed to say. Everything else was moot.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: How is this different from mandating car insurance? Just an innocent question (which I'm sure will be mistaken for trying to stir the pot, but whatever).
You don't have to drive...you have a choice.
True...
That's all you needed to say. Everything else was moot.
The hell it isn't moot. I have to have a car so I can go to work. I have to pay insurance in order to have said car.
You could "CHOOSE" to car pool with others..... or take public transportation ....or if "work" is close enough, you can choose to walk or bike instead. It is still your CHOICE to have a car...and the insurance minimum is not coverage for you it is liability which is coverage for hitting another person. so it is protecting others rights. Whose rights are being protected with this law?
Last edited by PETE314; 03/22/1012:01 PM.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Keep in mind, liability coverage is what is mandated on an auto policy. - You and I both know that liability means if you are at fault in an accident, the liability coverage pays for people/property that you cause damage to. Essentially, the law only cares about damage you cause to other people, and does not mandate anything else in most states. However, liability minimums in some states are a joke. - (I'm going somewhere here, please follow me.)
For instance, in Ohio the minimum liability is 12.5/25/7.5. - Which means that if you have the state minimum liability coverage in Ohio, and you are at fault in an accident, your insurance company will pay 12.5 thousand towards a victims bodily injury (somebody you hurt) 25 thousand max towards all victims involved, and 7.5 thousand towards the victims property damage. - A meager minimum, and unfair to those of you who drive expensive cars and drive safely. Other states, like Alabama, are a different animal, in Alabama the minimums are 25/50/25. In Florida you do not have to carry bodily injury at all but you do have to carry property damage liability and personal injury protection - which is entirely different than liability.
Point is, with auto insurance, different states are allowed to dictate what coverages you must carry. Which means that state governments, in this respect, do indeed force coverage upon you that you can go without in other states.
Your answer is "don't drive". But what about people who have already purchased cars in states like Ohio, and are ok with their auto insurance payment. Then these same people move to Alabama, and are forced by the state to carry a higher level of liability coverage, which means that their auto insurance payment is higher. - The drivers may think "wth, I am a safe driver, I've always been responsible and never been in an accident, and now I move down to Alabama and am being forced to carry more coverage simply because the state says I have to." - Point is, it goes beyond "don't drive" and becomes an issue of state governments not caring about what you want or deserve and forcing their policy on you.
Also, keep in mind, in addition to different levels of liability, some states mandate that you carry certain coverages (medical payments, uninsured motorist, personal injury protection) that other states do not.
Quote: How is this different from mandating car insurance? Just an innocent question (which I'm sure will be mistaken for trying to stir the pot, but whatever).
The government isn't forcing you to drive.
The government isn't forcing the insurance companies to make it affordable.
The government is forcing the insurance companies to insure high risks, thus costing them a lot of money.
1. That's a thin argument; it's more of a tangent than a parallel. 2. It falls into State's Rights... the sort of thing that is supposed to preempt this sort of policy/power grab by the Feds 3. You still, no matter what, have the CHOICE of not buying the insurance because you have the CHOICE of driving or not driving. 4. Furthermore, the insurance you are being forced to carry is to protect others from loss due to your negligence; you are not being taxed to pay for the insurance of others. 5. Mandatory auto insurance needs to go the way of the dinosaur as well.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
If you move somewhere and you can't afford the Insurance payments you have options like: Walk, bike or car pool to work. You don't HAVE to drive and if you are not driving you don't need to carry insurance.
But this is car insurance, the main reason for having these state mandated insurance if you are driving is because you may hit someone injuring them and/or damaging their property and you need to have some form of reimbursing them if you are found at fault.
Quote: 4. Furthermore, the insurance you are being forced to carry is to protect others from loss due to your negligence; you are not being taxed to pay for the insurance of others.
On the contrary, take into account the MCCA fee, which is mandatory in Michigan. - This fee is charged per vehicle on any Michigan auto policy and the money charged is used to fund catastrophic pip claims in Michigan. - A catastrophic pip claim can be an accident that happens miles away that has nothing to do with you. You can go for years without a claim in Michigan, but the state still forces you to pay a $62.44 fee per vehicle at every 6 month renewal.
A better comparison to Ammo's car insurance concept would be if once you turn 16 and are of legal age to drive, the feds fine you for not having car insurance whether you have a license or a car or not.
Wonder how many people don't see a problem with FORCED health insurance, stand on the "it's my life" side when it comes to seatbelts and helmets.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 03/22/1001:16 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Ammo, there are two distinct differences between health insurance and auto insurance... the first is that the auto insurance you are required to carry is primarily to protect other people that you may harm, the health insurance benefits nobody but you... the second difference is that the government hasn't put the auto insurance market in their crosshairs... yet. Give them time, they'll get to it. Right now they have other industries to ruin, they'll get to auto insurance in due time.
In fact, go do a random google.. I tried, "State Farm Profit" just for fun and up popped a whole host of articles from the last couple years about "excessive profit", cheating customers, excessive bonuses for executives... so give them a chance to ruin healthcare, THEN they can go after auto insurance because the same groundwork has already been put in place.
I just might DVR Glenn Beck to watch him spontaneously combust live on TV (his head exploding in HD just might be pretty epic)...I caught a bit of Rush as I was out getting lunch and I was truly frightened listening to that assclown.
The MSNBC trio of loonies on the other wing are no better, but at least they don't try to scare people.
ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.
Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?
The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.
Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.
Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.
Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.
Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.
In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.
A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.
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.
The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.
The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.
from an idealistic standpoint, i would want everyone to have healthcare. from a practical standpoint, given our country is broke, this is just terrible timing and that we sacrifice other areas, such as education, while also hoping that we spend less in the future, is just foolish.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
Thanks...I wonder what happens when employers figure out the fine is cheaper than providing coverage??
All the people currently getting coverage through employer plans will more than lieky end up paying more for the government plan then their current plan...and many of those families makes more than 88K, so they won't be able to buy in to the government subsidized plans.
Another fleecing of the middle class....if people think 88K with a family of four is big time, you need to set your sights a bit higher.....that's a couple of 44K a year jobs.
Minimum wage is $7.25...more in some states.....if you work 50 hours a week, with OT you come to nearly half that amount.
I am getting very tired of people lowering our standards and trying to tell me 88K is above middle class and entering upper class standards.
What a joke.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Maybe they should just cut to the chase here ... 51 % of eligible voters in that earn the least, will now no longer need to work. It's up to the other 49% of people to completely support them. If people jump to the non-earners bracket, that's just more votes for election ... and if we ever get to the point where those earning money and actually paying taxes can't afford to support eveyrone else ... oh wait, we've already been there! So, who cares!
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
