U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Martok]

Conservative David Frum says the health care vote was a huge defeat for the republicans,

He says it's their Waterloo.

Didn't some republicans predict that it would be Obama's Waterloo?


http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

[Martok]

No negotiating with the drug companies. The president gave that away last year.

You think the government can negotiate well with drug companies?

The VA negotiates with drug companies now.

If that plus the public option were part of health care reform it would have lowered health care cost by substantial amounts.

If that were true, then the original House bill (which incorporated both of those things), would have been estimated to reduce the deficit. HOwever, the CBO, when evaluating HR 3200, found that it would increase the deficit when there was a public option.

A strong robust public option would have brought costs down. I've read two CBO reports about the public option. One says it will control costs, and then there's the one you mention.

I believe a robust public option has also been called Medicare for all.

[ficklefiend]

Governments can negotiate very well with drug companies, because drug companies goals are to make as much money as possible, and governments goals are to spend as little money as possible, plus, they buy in bulk.

[NineOneFour]

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/26687/Dem ... mmary.html

Remember everyone, this plan was sold and billed as a vehicle to provide health insurance for all and that:

Health care will be more affordable than it is now as a result of this plan.
It will be budget neutral (at least), and would likely reduce the deficit.

Obama stated as follows: “I Will Not Sign a Healthcare Bill That Raises The Deficit by One Dime…Not One Dime!”

Opponents of the bill are adamant that health insurance will not be more affordable, and that it will raise the deficit. Even the CBO analysis based on these faulty assumptions concludes that in 2019 alone taxes will be $100 billion higher and spending will be increased by $200 billion.

Most of the proponents that I've seen say they believe that the deficit will be reduced and health insurance will be cheaper. I am fairly sure, however, that proponents don't really care if the deficit goes up or if health insurance is more expensive.

Oh stop squalling.

You aren't going to have to pay one lousy fucking dime. And the bill REDUCES the deficit.

Sheesh.

[NineOneFour]

Shame about the public option, but some healthcare reform is better than none.

"Sorry, but that bill has flaws. So we can't vote for it. Give us a perfect bill and we'll gladly vote for it. We'll wait right here until you come up with one. What? Help find one? That's a trap, isn't it?"

I'd settle for one that met Obama's criteria for a bill:

1. Paid for
2. Did not raise the deficit
3. Make health insurance more affordable
4. Lower health care costs

This reform is not paid for, will raise the deficit, will not make health insurance more affordable, and will not lower health care costs.

No, you wouldn't. You're against all health care reform that isn't more free market (TM).

[NineOneFour]

Shame about the public option, but some healthcare reform is better than none.

"Sorry, but that bill has flaws. So we can't vote for it. Give us a perfect bill and we'll gladly vote for it. We'll wait right here until you come up with one. What? Help find one? That's a trap, isn't it?"

I'd settle for one that met Obama's criteria for a bill:

1. Paid for
2. Did not raise the deficit
3. Make health insurance more affordable
4. Lower health care costs

This reform is not paid for, will raise the deficit, will not make health insurance more affordable, and will not lower health care costs.

I'll give it a chance to work. We can see what isn't working and fix those parts.

Anyone making over $35,000 a year is going to get royally fucked by these provisions when they take effect, and anyone making over $43,000 a year takes it in the ass with no grease (and not even a kiss on the cheek afterwards).

Remember - anyone making $43,000 a year is required to buy health insurance (after this takes effect) and is required to pay "cost sharing" and will not receive one dime of "government assistance." That amount is estimated, by the CBO based on the Democrat's own numbers, to be around $7,600 a year for a single person making over $43,000 a year. That's about 15% of gross income, mandatory, and no assistance. Given that the CBO numbers are based on the rosy estimates the Democrats needed to make their bill "budget neutral" (lol), does anyone think that that's a low estimate? Right now, a single person in Florida can get an o.k. policy for as low as $200 a month or even less sometimes ($2400 a year) - that option is going away with this health care reform.

People making $35,00 to $43,000 will get some subsidies to help them, but they still will pay around 15% of their gross (at least) to buy mandatory health insurance.

If you have employer provided health insurance, you can bet that your portion of the health insurance premiums will be increased by your employer. That's because of all the added payroll and other taxes on employers. You will also be taxed on the health insurance provided by employers that you don't pay for (it'll be considered income). Also, the premiums themselves will be going up because of all the added coverages required to be provided under the policies.

Why do you think they delayed the implementation of this until 2014? What possible reason would they have to do that?

Do you have to buy automobile insurance?

Why do you think that is?

I agree it doesn't control costs. We can fix that. You just want to whine and throw the baby out with the bathwater because you don't get to have your little libertarian utopia.

[NineOneFour]

I'm curious about these numbers (15% of gross income etc). They sound a tad high. How is that worked out?

It's from the Recto Absurdum database.

[NineOneFour]

I've seen endless wild speculation about this bill. Most of it comes from thin air as far as I can tell. Not accusing the Repugnicans of lying, you understand, I just thinking they're lying out their ass.

And I'm still waiting for them to come up with something better.

Look - the $43,000 and over number is straight from the bill. It's not wild speculation. It's not anything from the Republicans. It's 400% of the poverty level. Nobody gets government assistance who makes over 400% of the poverty level.

That would seem to be something very basic about this bill that anyone who says they "support" it would be familiar with. Criminy....

OMG, NO!!!!!

No assistance for anyone who makes over 400% of poverty????

Oh...wait...there are yearly and lifetime caps over what can be charged now...

[NineOneFour]

If you make USD35k~43k/yr, you're not going to the soup line over this.

Never said it would...but, you will be forced to spend a lot more money on health insurance than you do now, which is the opposite of one of the things that Obama said he was trying to do here.

This bill will help a lot of people, including millions of children whose only sin is being born into a poor family.

Bull - fucking - shit. Children are already fucking covered 100% without any issue -- Medicaid - SCHIP - etc. The current health care bill (soon to be law) has nothing whatsoever to do with "saving the chill-run."

That must be why the US has a higher infant mortality rate than all of Western Europe.

Tell me, do you always talk out of your ass?

Is a little compassion for the poor out of the question?

No. However, Obama said health insurance would be more affordable. It ain't going to be. It's going to be more expensive. Obama said it would not be signed into law if it would raise the deficit. It will raise the deficit.

Yes, of course, YOU know better than the CBO...

Compassion for the poor my ass. The poor in the US get Medicaid for free. The disabled can get Medicare and social security benefits. Children are covered by Medicaid and SCHIP.

Well, that's a happy lie. You have to be DIRT poor to get medicaid, and I mean, fucking eating goddamn dog food for dinner poor.

A lot of hardworking Americans cannot afford health insurance and did without until now.

But all you say is "it'll increase the deficit".....waaaa....waaaa...
Which is more important? Saving lives or your own political ideology of fiscal conservatism?

Or is your third car and country-club membership more important?

Giant red herring, that. How about, a single guy making $44,000 being able to buy insurance for $2400 a year (no problem) now, and instead being asked to shell out $5300 (average per CBO estimate) once the law takes effect, plus shell out an additional $2300 in "cost sharing?" I guess that guy has to give up his country club, cars and boats, right?

No one making $44,000 has to pay that, now or ever. If you do, I feel sorry for you because you are financially incompetent. I make more than that (a lot more) and pay less (a lot less).

[NineOneFour]

?

It's nearly 1 a.m. here, so I'm not going to try to go point-by-point. All I can say is that I grew up poor. If our family's income went over a certain line, no more Medicaid. And I mean that line is very thin. The old system enouraged people to stay poor rather than cross that line.

How, exactly, does that change? Medicaid still exists. People are just forced to buy health insurance if they make above the 133% of the poverty line. They get "some" assistance on a descending sliding scale on up to 400% of the poverty line. Then, those making over $43,000 get pounded in the ass in order to pay for a bunch of other people's free health care. So, a guy who breaks his balls to go to school, get a decent job and make 45,000 or 50,000 a year at a professional job, like an engineer or accountant, gets fleeced.

And, you know what? Lots of us grew up "poor." My parents separated cash in different envelopes each month when I was a kid and paid the bills. They sacrificed, and said "no" to many requests on our part. We were given socks, underwear, hats and gloves along with Christmas presents to make it look like we had more to open. The one thing that my parents gave to me when I graduated high school though, the most valuable thing, was a sense of self-reliance. I would hate to have the sense of entitlement that some people have these days.

Hey, great, you made it.

What you don't get is that a lot of what got you to here was plain old LUCK.

Not your skill. Not you being an awesome human being. But just LUCK.

Some people don't have it.

Cross the line, and no more help from the gummit. Suddenly a broken leg could bankrupt you, well before your annual income climbed to $35~43k. Alternatively, you could seek unreported income, which always ran the risk of landing your poor ass in jail. A lot of options there. The safe bet under the old system was to remain safely poor so that the gummit would take care of you. Good night, and I hope I haven't created any ill-will by stating my viewpoint.

And, nothing changes with this new reform. It merely increases the welfare state, and places additional burdens on those who make the mistake of obtaining a modicum of income for themselves. This is not a case of soaking people who make $250,000 a year and buy yachts. This is a case of soaking a guy or gal who makes $45,000 or $50,000, and handing over a chunk of his or her money to pay for someone else's health insurance. Like it or not - and it's fair enough that a person likes it or doesn't - that's what it is.

You need to actually read the bill and not Fox News Epic Fail. It doesn't soak anyone.

[NineOneFour]

I don't like how if people don't buy healthcare they will be punished for it.

I wasn't thrilled with that either.. But if you make below a certain amount you'll get assistance in paying for it. If we were getting a public option this wouldn't be an issue.

The issue for my family is they make above that amount, and will now have to help support other people's health care.

Really? Your family makes above $250,000 a year.

Sorry, my heart isn't bleeding for you.

[NineOneFour]

Your family can't hate Rush or the tea baggers that much. The whole Rush, tea bagger argument against health care reform is that they don't want to pay for other peoples health care. They view health care as a privileged. Like buying a house or corvette. If you have the money you can buy it, don't have the money, you're shit out of luck.

So...instead...the Democrats force you to buy it.

We should do the same with food. Since it's a right, everyone is forced to buy a specified panoply of foodstuffs that the government thinks you should have, and if you "can't afford" it then you get subsidies. Great plan.

Explain the difference between education and health care.

Then explain the difference between health insurance and automobile insurance.

I'll wait.

[Twoflower]

I don't like how if people don't buy healthcare they will be punished for it.

I wasn't thrilled with that either.. But if you make below a certain amount you'll get assistance in paying for it. If we were getting a public option this wouldn't be an issue.

The issue for my family is they make above that amount, and will now have to help support other people's health care.

Really? Your family makes above $250,000 a year.

Sorry, my heart isn't bleeding for you.

No they make over 42,000 a year.

[NineOneFour]

No negotiating with the drug companies. The president gave that away last year.

You think the government can negotiate well with drug companies?

Yes, most governments do it now.

Contrary to your belief, there actually ARE other countries than the US. I realize this comes as a shock to you. If you need to go lie down, I'll understand.

If that plus the public option were part of health care reform it would have lowered health care cost by substantial amounts.

If that were true, then the original House bill (which incorporated both of those things), would have been estimated to reduce the deficit. HOwever, the CBO, when evaluating HR 3200, found that it would increase the deficit when there was a public option.

Depends. There's more than one kind of public option.

Oh.

Sorry, I see you didn't know that either.

I'll add that to the list.