U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[Martok]

They are absolutely not left to go without treatment. There are walk-in clinics almost everywhere. People can travel to them and get a check up anytime they want to. They can go the emergency room directly, and they can not, as a matter of law, be denied care.

Who pays the bill?

An ER visit could run $2,000 or more.

An ambulance is about $2,000 also.

The insurance company pays - except the deductible. How does it work with auto insurance? You get into an accident, you pay the deductible. Why not?

If there isn't a deductible then there is no reason NOT to call an ambulance every time for everything. Why would anyone not? However, if your total annual max is $5500, then that can be paid back over time if you don't happen to have $5500 to pay right away. Hospitals and all their staff and equipment are expensive. The user should pay no cost?

None of that applies if you have no health insurance.

So who pays the bill?

[Twoflower]

No. Having seen your latest avatar, I have no doubt that you are as sober as a judge.

That hat is a multi-layered joke.

It's when that kind of hat has a really lo-ong bill on it that I begin to worry. I can't read the inscription. It's either something about a "Big Dog" or something about "GI Joe". Seeing somebody wear camo in plain sight is also somewhat disturbing to me.

Maybe that's one of the jokes.

I didnt get any vaccinations until I went to uni.

Hint: The rest of us call them "lectures".

I don't have any lecture classes.

[NineOneFour]

Claiming that an article posted nearly a year ago has any relationship to current legislation isn't stupid. But it isn't a very useful argument.

Well, then that's what you should have said in the post that simply said, "Stupid". You're on the right track, 914, but the forum rule is "be impeccable".

It's really easy. Assume you and the other person are both heavily armed and on a hair trigger. Bloodshed will result at any excuse. So be precise in your language and consider how to say something about the idea without involving the person that said it. This is the "Samurai Rule" if you've never heard of it before.

Samurais didn't have guns, so there.

[NineOneFour]

No. Having seen your latest avatar, I have no doubt that you are as sober as a judge.

That hat is a multi-layered joke.

It's when that kind of hat has a really lo-ong bill on it that I begin to worry. I can't read the inscription. It's either something about a "Big Dog" or something about "GI Joe". Seeing somebody wear camo in plain sight is also somewhat disturbing to me.

Maybe that's one of the jokes.

It's a Larry the Cable Guy hat, "Git'n-R-Done". Some of us know what's funny about that.

I despise Larry the Cable Guy. Every time I see him, I want to punch him in the face.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Claiming that an article posted nearly a year ago has any relationship to current legislation isn't stupid. But it isn't a very useful argument.

Well, then that's what you should have said in the post that simply said, "Stupid". You're on the right track, 914, but the forum rule is "be impeccable".

It's really easy. Assume you and the other person are both heavily armed and on a hair trigger. Bloodshed will result at any excuse. So be precise in your language and consider how to say something about the idea without involving the person that said it. This is the "Samurai Rule" if you've never heard of it before.

Samurais didn't have guns, so there.

Actually, the Tokugawa Shogunate banned guns in the 1600s. From about 1453 to 1637 the Japanese developed firearms after they were brought in from the "West". So, yes, they did.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's a Larry the Cable Guy hat, "Git'n-R-Done". Some of us know what's funny about that.

I despise Larry the Cable Guy. Every time I see him, I want to punch him in the face.

Bingo, you catch on fast.

[NineOneFour]

They are absolutely not left to go without treatment. There are walk-in clinics almost everywhere. People can travel to them and get a check up anytime they want to. They can go the emergency room directly, and they can not, as a matter of law, be denied care.

Who pays the bill?

An ER visit could run $2,000 or more.

An ambulance is about $2,000 also.

The insurance company pays - except the deductible. How does it work with auto insurance? You get into an accident, you pay the deductible. Why not?

If there isn't a deductible then there is no reason NOT to call an ambulance every time for everything. Why would anyone not? However, if your total annual max is $5500, then that can be paid back over time if you don't happen to have $5500 to pay right away. Hospitals and all their staff and equipment are expensive. The user should pay no cost?

None of that applies if you have no health insurance.

So who pays the bill?

No one.

You just die.

It's a Libertarian Paradise!

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course, the bill may bear no relation to the deductible, especially if there is collusion. That's how costs rise.

Yes, right. We are in agreement. The bill does bear no relationship to the deductible. Once the deductible is exceeded, then the insurance company pays, and that's that, basically (except some policies have different provisions than others).

I think what you know is that they figured out a way to cap the billing, and that "price controls" is like red flag to a libertarian boi. If they did not implement price controls, then we are all living in a pipe dream, regardless of whether we live in your universe or mine.

I'm not a Libertarian. So stop calling me one.

One does not need to be a Libertarian to oppose this new law.

[Coito ergo sum]

Claiming that an article posted nearly a year ago has any relationship to current legislation isn't stupid. But it isn't a very useful argument.

Well, then that's what you should have said in the post that simply said, "Stupid". You're on the right track, 914, but the spirit of the forum rule is "be impeccable".

Regarding the article that was posted, the same points apply since those aspects of the law as passed are still the same. The article was discussing the HR 3200 and Senate version. The law as passed wasn't a wholesale revision, and the high deductible issue is still the same. But, anyone who wants to tapdance around the issue and ride in on a white horse as a knight in shining armor to defend, right or wrong, their Lord, is going to do so.

[NineOneFour]

Of course, the bill may bear no relation to the deductible, especially if there is collusion. That's how costs rise.

Yes, right. We are in agreement. The bill does bear no relationship to the deductible. Once the deductible is exceeded, then the insurance company pays, and that's that, basically (except some policies have different provisions than others).

I think what you know is that they figured out a way to cap the billing, and that "price controls" is like red flag to a libertarian boi. If they did not implement price controls, then we are all living in a pipe dream, regardless of whether we live in your universe or mine.

I'm not a Libertarian. So stop calling me one.

One does not need to be a Libertarian to oppose this new law.

Well, as we've seen, you will not pay more under this bill and neither will your employer.

So on what grounds do you oppose it other than ideology?

[NineOneFour]

Claiming that an article posted nearly a year ago has any relationship to current legislation isn't stupid. But it isn't a very useful argument.

Well, then that's what you should have said in the post that simply said, "Stupid". You're on the right track, 914, but the spirit of the forum rule is "be impeccable".

Regarding the article that was posted, the same points apply since those aspects of the law as passed are still the same. The article was discussing the HR 3200 and Senate version. The law as passed wasn't a wholesale revision, and the high deductible issue is still the same. But, anyone who wants to tapdance around the issue and ride in on a white horse as a knight in shining armor to defend, right or wrong, their Lord, is going to do so.

If you could post the current test of the current two bills, that would be great.

But if you did that, people could figure out the differences, couldn't they?

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course, the bill may bear no relation to the deductible, especially if there is collusion. That's how costs rise.

Yes, right. We are in agreement. The bill does bear no relationship to the deductible. Once the deductible is exceeded, then the insurance company pays, and that's that, basically (except some policies have different provisions than others).

I think what you know is that they figured out a way to cap the billing, and that "price controls" is like red flag to a libertarian boi. If they did not implement price controls, then we are all living in a pipe dream, regardless of whether we live in your universe or mine.

I'm not a Libertarian. So stop calling me one.

One does not need to be a Libertarian to oppose this new law.

Well, as we've seen, you will not pay more under this bill and neither will your employer.

We haven't seen that. Nobody that even supports this bill still seriously claims it will not raise the cost of insurance and employers absolutely will pay more. We've seen many employers issue formal statements over the last few days that state how much more money they will pay.

You assert, without presenting any evidence, and against both the evidence we have and common sense, that somehow this debacle will save money. But, just because you say it doesn't make it true.

So on what grounds do you oppose it other than ideology?

1. It is going to make things worse, not better.
2. It does not fulfill the goals of health care reform as announced by Obama
3. It will make insurance more expensive (and will shift the responsibility to pay for that insurance to others)
4. It will make health care more expensive overall.
5. It will make health care worse, and will discourage innovation.
6. It is, IMHO, un-American, anti-liberty, and opens the door to unprecedented interference in the personal and private lives of Americans
7. It is probably designed to fail, in order to operate as a stepping stone to single-payer, which is what most of its supporters want anyway.

[Coito ergo sum]

Claiming that an article posted nearly a year ago has any relationship to current legislation isn't stupid. But it isn't a very useful argument.

Well, then that's what you should have said in the post that simply said, "Stupid". You're on the right track, 914, but the spirit of the forum rule is "be impeccable".

Regarding the article that was posted, the same points apply since those aspects of the law as passed are still the same. The article was discussing the HR 3200 and Senate version. The law as passed wasn't a wholesale revision, and the high deductible issue is still the same. But, anyone who wants to tapdance around the issue and ride in on a white horse as a knight in shining armor to defend, right or wrong, their Lord, is going to do so.

If you could post the current test of the current two bills, that would be great.

But if you did that, people could figure out the differences, couldn't they?

"current test" of "the current two bills?" What are you talking about?

O.k. - I'll bite....go ahead post the "current test" of the "current two bills."

[Martok]

This should come as no surprise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/po ... party.html

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This should come as no surprise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/po ... party.html

Mr. Grimes, who receives Social Security, . . .