U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[Theophilus]

the key number is 32 million - ie the number who will now be able to get treatment. The rest is mere middle class whining.

Ah, but it's 32 million poor and old people, so they don't really count.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Then where are all the "bring the troops home now!" people that were so adamant during the Bush years...? They seem to have turned into a light smattering of crickets chirping softly in the distance on a warm, country evening....

You are implying that I had my head up my ass during those years. Well, you're wrong.

[Clinton Huxley]

the key number is 32 million - ie the number who will now be able to get treatment. The rest is mere middle class whining.

Ah, but it's 32 million poor and old people, so they don't really count.

their reward will be in heaven, I expect

[Rum]

Isn't the main point that millions of poorer people who could not get medical help when they need it will be able to? However you do it, get on with it.

To us in Europe it looks like the Dark Ages.

Europe ain't the center of the universe any more than the U.S. is. To us, the stories of how long it takes you folks to get in for an MRI or similar procedures is likewise "Dark Ages" -ish.

Whether the main point is one thing or another, there were some very specific promises and assurances made many times over by this administration: (1) more affordable, (2) cheaper than it is now on average $2500, (3) "will not add one dime to the deficit," (4) reduce the cost of health care.

Perhaps that's all "sales puffery" and whatnot, and we should just say, "oh we know they were just saying that to get the fence-sitters on board" and we should just acknowledge that he was lying all along....but, before the 2008 election and since Obama took office I have been having it out with health care reform supporters who assured me that I was just crazy to think that this will add to the deficit, be more expensive and not reduce the cost of health care overall....now that it's through, I am inundated by sentiments like yours -- the "oh, who cares about those details" thing...

I am not suggesting that Europe (the UK specifically) is the centre of the universe, nor that there could not be better systems, however here's a personal example. I was diagnosed with cancer here in the UK five years ago. I was scanned and had a biopsy within ten days. I had a further operation two weeks later and then a year late some cosmetic surgery to improve the look of what they had done. I had the option of paying for a private room for X pounds a night, which I took. It was no more expensive than a cheap hotel room and it was optional as I say.

Other than that cost I didn't spend one penny on all the treatment in hospital. The only other cost was for a few prescriptions for a period when I was out of hospital. It was essentially free. In my case it was timely, courteous, prompt and efficient. The staff were great and very professional.

That particular experience (the diagnosis and roller coaster that follows it) was one of the scariest things I have ever had to deal with. If I had been worried on top of that about how to pay for it all, then it would have made it much worse.

I pay a pretty large chunk of my salary into the national system. I have no idea if it cost all I have paid in to treat me. Possibly not - but I am more than happy to have subsidised others if I have. It is called social responsibility.

There have been some scare stories spread around about the British NHS system as propaganda in the USA over this issue. From all my experience - both myself and my family (we have had some bad luck over the last few years health and injury wise) I have nothing but praise for the system and the people who work n it.

[Coito ergo sum]

the key number is 32 million - ie the number who will now be able to get treatment. The rest is mere middle class whining.

Ah, but it's 32 million poor and old people, so they don't really count.

That's a complete misconception. First of all, old people are already covered by Medicare, so you can throw that nonsense out the window. Next, 17.5+ million of those 32 million make over 50,000 dollars a year or more (and are not helped by the new law in purchasing health insurance, they are merely forced to buy it on their own), and 12 million are already eligible for Medicaid an SCHIP but have not enrolled. A few million are in the middle and probably could be helped - might as well just pay for their fucking insurance and have done with it....it would be a tiny fraction of the cost...

[Coito ergo sum]

Isn't the main point that millions of poorer people who could not get medical help when they need it will be able to? However you do it, get on with it.

To us in Europe it looks like the Dark Ages.

Europe ain't the center of the universe any more than the U.S. is. To us, the stories of how long it takes you folks to get in for an MRI or similar procedures is likewise "Dark Ages" -ish.

Whether the main point is one thing or another, there were some very specific promises and assurances made many times over by this administration: (1) more affordable, (2) cheaper than it is now on average $2500, (3) "will not add one dime to the deficit," (4) reduce the cost of health care.

Perhaps that's all "sales puffery" and whatnot, and we should just say, "oh we know they were just saying that to get the fence-sitters on board" and we should just acknowledge that he was lying all along....but, before the 2008 election and since Obama took office I have been having it out with health care reform supporters who assured me that I was just crazy to think that this will add to the deficit, be more expensive and not reduce the cost of health care overall....now that it's through, I am inundated by sentiments like yours -- the "oh, who cares about those details" thing...

I am not suggesting that Europe (the UK specifically) is the centre of the universe, nor that there could not be better systems, however here's a personal example. I was diagnosed with cancer here in the UK five years ago. I was scanned and had a biopsy within ten days. I had a further operation two weeks later and then a year late some cosmetic surgery to improve the look of what they had done. I had the option of paying for a private room for X pounds a night, which I took. It was no more expensive than a cheap hotel room and it was optional as I say.

Other than that cost I didn't spend one penny on all the treatment in hospital. The only other cost was for a few prescriptions for a period when I was out of hospital. It was essentially free. In my case it was timely, courteous, prompt and efficient. The staff were great and very professional.

That particular experience (the diagnosis and roller coaster that follows it) was one of the scariest things I have ever had to deal with. If I had been worried on top of that about how to pay for it all, then it would have made it much worse.

I pay a pretty large chunk of my salary into the national system. I have no idea if it cost all I have paid in to treat me. Possibly not - but I am more than happy to have subsidised others if I have. It is called social responsibility.

There have been some scare stories spread around about the British NHS system as propaganda in the USA over this issue. From all my experience - both myself and my family (we have had some bad luck over the last few years health and injury wise) I have nothing but praise for the system and the people who work n it.

I'm not worried about whether it subsidizes others. That's the nature of the beast. What I'm worried about is the fucked up nature of this bullshit that has been shoved through Congress against all rational objection for the political reason that "something has to be passed to save the Obama Presidency." This is a ridiculous, intrucisve, behemoth that is going to make things worse, IMHO. It costs too much, raises the deficit too much, makes health care more expensive, and makes health insurance less affordable while forcing people to buy it - in other words, it is everything Obama promised us it wouldn't be.

[Coito ergo sum]

the key number is 32 million - ie the number who will now be able to get treatment. The rest is mere middle class whining.

Ah, but it's 32 million poor and old people, so they don't really count.

their reward will be in heaven, I expect

Old people are covered by Medicare.

Children are covered by SCHIP and/or their parents' insurance through college. 12 million of the uninsured are already eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, but have not enrolled.

The poor and disabled are covered by Medicaid and SSI.

17.5+ million of the uninsured make over $50,000 a year and obviously, according to the Democrats, can afford their own fucking insurance because the law that just passed and will be signed by the President requires them to go out and buy their own insurance at the "unaffordable" market prices without any government assistance at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Then where are all the "bring the troops home now!" people that were so adamant during the Bush years...? They seem to have turned into a light smattering of crickets chirping softly in the distance on a warm, country evening....

You are implying that I had my head up my ass during those years. Well, you're wrong.

No, I'm suggesting that suggesting that the troops should never have been sent in does not explain why Obama is not being held to his campaign promise to bring the troops home by about now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Then where are all the "bring the troops home now!" people that were so adamant during the Bush years...? They seem to have turned into a light smattering of crickets chirping softly in the distance on a warm, country evening....

You are implying that I had my head up my ass during those years. Well, you're wrong.

No, I'm suggesting that suggesting that the troops should never have been sent in does not explain why Obama is not being held to his campaign promise to bring the troops home by about now.

That's just weird.

[Rum]

So you are saying there isn't a problem and there's no need for all this fuss?

Old people are covered by Medicare.

Children are covered by SCHIP and/or their parents' insurance through college. 12 million of the uninsured are already eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, but have not enrolled.

The poor and disabled are covered by Medicaid and SSI.

17.5+ million of the uninsured make over $50,000 a year and obviously, according to the Democrats, can afford their own fucking insurance because the law that just passed and will be signed by the President requires them to go out and buy their own insurance at the "unaffordable" market prices without any government assistance at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

So you are saying there isn't a problem and there's no need for all this fuss?

I'm saying there is not a problem requiring the complete overhaul of the health insurance system, the expenditure of (depending on who you talk to) 1.5 to 2.5 trillion dollars that we do not have, and the addition of a groundbreaking mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance scheme which increases the deficit, increases the cost of health insurance and fails in its basic purpose of providing more efficient and less expensive health care to all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So you are saying there isn't a problem and there's no need for all this fuss?

I'm saying there is not a problem requiring the complete overhaul of the health insurance system, the expenditure of (depending on who you talk to) 1.5 to 2.5 trillion dollars that we do not have, and the addition of a groundbreaking mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance scheme which increases the deficit, increases the cost of health insurance and fails in its basic purpose of providing more efficient and less expensive health care to all.

You're channeling Glenn Beck, aren't you?

[Coito ergo sum]

So you are saying there isn't a problem and there's no need for all this fuss?

I'm saying there is not a problem requiring the complete overhaul of the health insurance system, the expenditure of (depending on who you talk to) 1.5 to 2.5 trillion dollars that we do not have, and the addition of a groundbreaking mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance scheme which increases the deficit, increases the cost of health insurance and fails in its basic purpose of providing more efficient and less expensive health care to all.

You're channeling Glenn Beck, aren't you?

No, just the facts. I never watch Glenn Beck.

1. depending on who you talk to, the plan costs about 1.5 trillion to 2.5 trillion (most pessimistic) - and, we don't have that money, nobody disputes that.
2. It is most certainly a mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance program, right? That is what it is right? They're not giving it away. It's not government provided. The law says individuals must buy insurance from private insurers (or otherwise get it, like from employers as they do now).
3. It will increase the deficit.
4. It does increase the cost of health insurance (or are you seriously arguing that by adding 32 million people, eliminating preexisting condition exclusions, and eliminating policies that have aggregate caps and high deductibles, you can make it cheaper?)
5. And, as a result it fails in the basic purposes announced by Obama: more affordable, cheaper health insurance for everyone, that "does not increase the deficit by even one dime?"

That, you think, is somehow Glenn Beck whacko nonsense? Really?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So you are saying there isn't a problem and there's no need for all this fuss?

I'm saying there is not a problem requiring the complete overhaul of the health insurance system, the expenditure of (depending on who you talk to) 1.5 to 2.5 trillion dollars that we do not have, and the addition of a groundbreaking mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance scheme which increases the deficit, increases the cost of health insurance and fails in its basic purpose of providing more efficient and less expensive health care to all.

You're channeling Glenn Beck, aren't you?

No, just the facts. I never watch Glenn Beck.

1. depending on who you talk to, the plan costs about 1.5 trillion to 2.5 trillion (most pessimistic) - and, we don't have that money, nobody disputes that.
2. It is most certainly a mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance program, right? That is what it is right? They're not giving it away. It's not government provided. The law says individuals must buy insurance from private insurers (or otherwise get it, like from employers as they do now).
3. It will increase the deficit.
4. It does increase the cost of health insurance (or are you seriously arguing that by adding 32 million people, eliminating preexisting condition exclusions, and eliminating policies that have aggregate caps and high deductibles, you can make it cheaper?)
5. And, as a result it fails in the basic purposes announced by Obama: more affordable, cheaper health insurance for everyone, that "does not increase the deficit by even one dime?"

That, you think, is somehow Glenn Beck whacko nonsense? Really?

Yes.

[Coito ergo sum]

So you are saying there isn't a problem and there's no need for all this fuss?

I'm saying there is not a problem requiring the complete overhaul of the health insurance system, the expenditure of (depending on who you talk to) 1.5 to 2.5 trillion dollars that we do not have, and the addition of a groundbreaking mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance scheme which increases the deficit, increases the cost of health insurance and fails in its basic purpose of providing more efficient and less expensive health care to all.

You're channeling Glenn Beck, aren't you?

No, just the facts. I never watch Glenn Beck.

1. depending on who you talk to, the plan costs about 1.5 trillion to 2.5 trillion (most pessimistic) - and, we don't have that money, nobody disputes that.
2. It is most certainly a mandatory-purchase-of-health-insurance program, right? That is what it is right? They're not giving it away. It's not government provided. The law says individuals must buy insurance from private insurers (or otherwise get it, like from employers as they do now).
3. It will increase the deficit.
4. It does increase the cost of health insurance (or are you seriously arguing that by adding 32 million people, eliminating preexisting condition exclusions, and eliminating policies that have aggregate caps and high deductibles, you can make it cheaper?)
5. And, as a result it fails in the basic purposes announced by Obama: more affordable, cheaper health insurance for everyone, that "does not increase the deficit by even one dime?"

That, you think, is somehow Glenn Beck whacko nonsense? Really?

Yes.

LOL - so, which of my assertions is demonstrably false?

Or, are you seriously suggesting that the plan costs less than the most optimistic estimates, that we have plenty of money for it, that it is not a mandatory purchase of health insurance plan, that it will not increase the deficit, that it reduces the cost of health insurance, and it serves all the basic purposes proposed by Obama, including that it is more affordable insurance, cheaper than it is now (even though even the Democrats say that insurance costs go up under this plan), and does not increase the deficit?

That's what you're suggesting?