New things in the HC Bill -add em here

[natisha]

I'll start: Fast food joints must post the nutrition facts on the drive thru boards

[JackieB]

Parents can keep their children on their policies until age 26.

Is this how the game works? :innocent:

[natisha]

Parents can keep their children on their policies until age 26.

Is this how the game works? :innocent:Yep, good, bad, sensible or dumb. All welcomed.

So if my kid is 24 with kids of their own are their kids on my policy too?
What if I don't want to pay for my kid on my policy & the kid doesn't get their own policy. Am I to blame? Who gets fined?
I thought kids could stay on parents' policies through college before? I don't have kids so this won't be a factor in my life but it's good to know.

[Equine_Woman]

No lifetime cap on insurance policies (which is good because my Dad almost died a few years back and he was knocking on his lifetime 2 million cap)

[WashingtonBay]

I thought kids could stay on parents' policies through college before?

They could, but the kid had to be in college. Now, they can be covered just for living in the basement... I think they probably have to be dependents... but who knows... not me.

[Equine_Woman]

No denial for pre-existing conditions in children.

[JackieB]

No pre-existing condition exclusions. Immediately for children and several years from now for adults.

This one is huge. The insurance companies can definitely make a decent profit insuring individuals with pre-existing conditions, but make more money if they can avoid taking on these customers. Keep in mind that the charter purpose of a publicly-held insurance company is not to provide as many customers as possible with insurance. It's to maximize shareholder value. Their responsibility is first to shareholders and second to policy holders.

Now you could say that insurance companies shouldn't have to take on, say a child with Type 1 diabetes for example, and you'd have a point from a free-market and business perspective. But I just think that's a position that lacks compassion when we know for sure that insurance companies will still be able to make a good profit.

[WashingtonBay]

RE ^ But what it also means is you don't have to buy insurance at all until you get sick. Why should you.... insurance is money down the drain unless you need it.

So they came up with a mandate... a fine if you don't buy insurance. But it's still less than buying insurance.

[Equine_Woman]

You can't buy insurance after the fact in a lot of cases. Car accidents, sudden illness etc. Those people all end up at the county hospital and don't pay anything.

[WashingtonBay]

Clarify what you mean EW.... what's the change?

[Ol Man River]

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)


2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing

5. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.


6. You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefit

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).


9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care

12. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).


13. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

14. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion.

15. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)


16. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

17. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned



I haven't verified this but as I understand it, Section 2571 of the bill includes a provision for a RFID (or computer chip) be implanted in the body for all available or needed health or personal information. These RFIDs are promoted under the guise of being life-supporting or life-sustaining health needs within the context of the legislation.
For example, under sec. 2571 (National Medical Device Registry) - (9)(1)(A)(ii), "May include, as the Secretary determines, appropriate and specifics in regulation, a class II device that is life-supporting or life-sustaining." Everyone could be required to have the chip (the size of a grain of rice) to get national health insurance, and if you do not have health insurance, you will be fined and possibly jailed.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I guess now we find out how compassionate the IRS is.

I hope y'all like it, because there won't be anything else.

[JackieB]

There is a mandate that all Americans buy health insurance. The proposal for this idea originally came from George Bush, Sr. when he was president and was/is intended to promote individual responsibility. The idea was that if a person is involved in an accident or develops a serious illness that this person is likely to require healthcare beyone his/her ability to pay. Hospitals/doctors have to pass along those costs to paying customers.

In fact, this is a very legitimate issue. If I wasn't one of the individuals stuck paying the bills for the uninsured, I wouldn't see a need to support mandated health insurance. I was sitting next to a financial executive for a large hospital on a plane recently and asked him if the cost of absorbing unpaid medical bills was really an issue for hospitals. He said it absolutely is. He couldn't divulge the amount, but it was in the many millions for his hospital alone. Those costs are reflected in my $550 a month premiums along with everyone else's.

[WashingtonBay]

If there were any market forces controlling costs, the costs of the uninsured would also be a lot less.

This problem is really complex. On the one hand, most people employed by large companies have no idea what their premiums cost.... and they don't care. It's "free".

They don't care how much the emergency room bill for their broken arm either... it's "free".

How much would the bill be to xray and put a cast on a broken arm if we had to pay for it out of pocket.... pure free market... $1,000? $10,000? How much would it cost at a veterinary clinic? That's your answer. Much closer to $1,000 than ten. Nevermind how much routine office exams would be if we paid for them like veterinary services. It'd be highly competitive, just like everything else.

But instead, we've made it manditory for everyone to be treated, and most think it shouldn't be about money, but care, as if veterinary care isn't about care. In thinking there should be no price considerations, in thinking everyone should get what they need without regard for money, we've in effect, made it cost way more than anyone can afford to pay. For even the most basic of services. Earache at a vet clinic? a hundred dollars. Earache at Urgent care? A thousand.



Something else that's related. For some reason, in our thinking that medicine shouldn't cost anything, we now include everything into our medical policies.... Adult diapers are covered by medicare. WHY? Why are we paying insurance rates to cover diapers? That's why it's not affordable, we are nickel and diming ourselves to death to cover expenses that are not emergencies, that are not unaffordable. Regular routine stuff should NOT be covered. Diabetic testing supplies, diapers, common medications, chronic and ongoing care supplies, all of those would be much more affordable in a free market. Save insurance for the unexpected and catastrophic, not the routine. Not adult diapers.

I bring up the adult diapers because they are also involved in what I think the biggest case of fraud is... those companies that advertise they will bill medicare directly for your stuff, you don't even have to know what it costs, or what they bill. Diapers.... Fancy electric scooters. You name it... Don't ask how much, because you don't even have to know.... "We'll take care of it". Ripe for fraud.

[JackieB]

If there were any market forces controlling costs, the costs of the uninsured would also be a lot less.

All good points, WB. And when the Republicans promise that this fight isn't over and that they will make changes, I really hope that these are the types of things they have in mind. Get some guts and strip that nonsense stuff (like diapers) out of Medicare and Medicaid. We can say that the Democrats just passed legislation that will "Ruin America" (to quote John Boehner) and that they acted against the will of the American people, but we can't say that they lacked courage on this one. Everything was at stake for them.

If Republicans are against these social programs as they proclaim, then please show us. One of the reasons why I became skeptical of their motives over the years is because it seemed to me that they were just about as fond of entitlements as the Democrats. At least the Democrats admit it.

For some reason, I think the insurance companies aren't necessarily in favor of opening competition across state lines. Perhaps because the ones who have gone through all of the rules to sell policies in a particular state don't want the competition. I'm not sure, but I'd love to see that legislation introduced when the Republicans get Congress back, which will certainly happen eventually.

[WashingtonBay]

It would be terrific if conservatives that run as conservatives would actually remain conservative once they were in... You're right about that.

[mare]

Incontinence supplies (diapers, wipes) are not covered by Medicare A or B. Nursing homes supply those out of the rent they receive from a person. That may come from a person's savings, long-term care insurance, Medicare A if they qualify for up to 100 days, or Medicaid, but it's not something paid for seperately.

Some facilities use cotton, pre-formed diapers to help reduce cost. If a resident or their family wants something besides what the facility provides they have to purchase it themselves.

A small point, but just wanted to be included in this thread! ;)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

They lose their spines and worry too much about the demonization they get from liberals. They're tired of being called "racists", "homophobes", "bigots", "hating the poor", "mean"... blah, blah, blah. It's easier to just give the goodies.

Like I said somewhere else: I don't think it can be fixed anymore. It's too late. The tipping point has tipped. Remember: Now the people that don't pay taxes outnumber the people that do. The looters won't stop now until they've taken it all. We've crossed the Rubicon and there is no going back.

[WashingtonBay]

Mare... OK - Someone is advertising on TV that they'll bill your insurance for it... I thought medicare too but I'll pay more attention.

[JackieB]

Like I said somewhere else: I don't think it can be fixed anymore. It's too late. The tipping point has tipped. Remember: Now the people that don't pay taxes outnumber the people that do. The looters won't stop now until they've taken it all. We've crossed the Rubicon and there is no going back.

Now every civilization has its lifecycle, and perhaps you are right (RD) that we are headed toward destruction. But I have always been impressed with the ability of Americans to respond to challenges. We've seen it over and over in our 235 year history as a nation. Even flaming liberals don't want to see us come to ruin over fiscal issues.

Also keep in mind that it won't be too long before the next generation with bright minds like Grunge, HeavensEast, Bronson, ALOK, Outriding, Ponies, Dakota, Doc, and others who I don't mean to be leaving out (my apologies) take over. They won't be interested in seeing their kids grow up in a dying country.

[natisha]

.

This problem is really complex. On the one hand, most people employed by large companies have no idea what their premiums cost.... and they don't care. It's "free".

I worked at a private hospital that offered $30/hr with health insurance or $45/hr without. So you know they paid about $600 per week for for insurance & that was years ago. Just sayin'

By the way, now Congress is going after the Cap & Trade Bill, so diapers will be unaffordable as they leave a huge carbon a** print.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...] Even flaming liberals don't want to see us come to ruin over fiscal issues.
[...]


Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. They're depending on it.

[JackieB]

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. They're depending on it.

Now that's just absurd, RD. Even a parasite (to follow your analogy) wouldn't want to see the host die. Then it dies, too.

Sometimes you guys get a little far out there for me. For example, saying that a single payer system is inevitable. Did you not just see how much political capital was expended getting this bill passed? By the hair of its chinny-chin-chin even without the public option. And possibly to the political detriment of everyone who voted for it. There won't be consideration of a single payer system for a long, long time to come, if it ever comes back.

This is the type of thing that actually makes me roll my eyes sometimes. For example, going on 30 years now, I have had to listen to "Don't kid yourself. This is just the first step in taking away all of our guns..." Well, if that's the first step, the rest of the trip is going to take about 1,000 years, so you can worry about it instead of me.

I've said this before, but if I was a gun manufacturer, I'd secretly hope for the most liberal politicians we have to get elected. Phenomenal for sales and no real threat.

[Tiz]

"For some reason, I think the insurance companies aren't necessarily in favor of opening competition across state lines." JB

The insurance companies probably aren't in favor of losing the ability to limit their competition. I'm confident that they lobbied, or paid for, the current restrictions. It isn't complicated. If you're the only game in town, you can charge more for what you provide.

[Tiz]

"Now that's just absurd, RD. Even a parasite (to follow your analogy) wouldn't want to see the host die. Then it dies, too. "

Jackie, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, North Korea and so on, and so on, and so on. Explain them if that's just absurd.

[JackieB]

The insurance companies probably aren't in favor of losing the ability to limit their competition. I'm confident that they lobbied, or paid for, the current restrictions. It isn't complicated. If you're the only game in town, you can charge more for what you provide.

Makes perfect sense to me. However, establishing a federal law that would open competition (which I would fully support) goes against leaving control in state hands. The Republicans wouldn't be able to support it, would they? That's going against the Constitution and expands the role of the federal government.

[Tiz]

You're saying this regulation is a state right? I don't think so. I'd wager it's a federal regulation, and isn't related to a state's Constitutional right to set it's own laws.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I know you think it's absurd, JB. You always want to believe the very best about those in government. It's a nice sentiment.

[JackieB]

I know you think it's absurd, JB. You always want to believe the very best about those in government. It's a nice sentiment.

Poor Jackie. He just fell off the turnip truck. Could someone help him get back up, please? :)

Well, I certainly know that there are some seriously devious people in politics, as in any endeavor that involved power. I'm not naive in that regard. And I know that we're talking about a death by 1,000 cuts rather than something that would happen dramatically. I just think that there are enough bright minds in the mix to prevent that from happening for a long, long time.

Look at the democracies in Europe. Now I know that you feel that most of them are socialist countries, but they have endured for a lot longer than the US. And it's not like the people there are struggling like residents in African countries.

Maybe we'll get to a situation where a lot of Americans will decide to leave the country. It's not something I want, but I guess that's how we got here in the first place.

[JackieB]

You're saying this regulation is a state right? I don't think so. I'd wager it's a federal regulation, and isn't related to a state's Constitutional right to set it's own laws.

With insurance companies it is. Definitely. Each state makes its own rules on selling insurance in that state.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282743245193057.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282743245193057.html)
Mr. McCain recognizes that millions of Americans, many of them uninsured, live in states that impose numerous mandates -- there are about 1,900 mandates nationwide -- and restrictions that make health insurance unaffordable. Mr. McCain's proposal would simply let individuals faced with high prices and few options in their own state buy a regulated policy in another state.

The federal government would have to pass a law saying that states could not implement rules that were more stringent than the federal standard. They would have to take that right away from the states.

[WashingtonBay]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6BxsWeJ_OIU/SswVdPloUcI/AAAAAAAAAks/sb4ay-gQH5A/s400/Turnip+truck.jpg


How did 'falling off a turnip truck' ever make it into our vocabulary? I mean... of all the things we may see transported by trucks, that some poor fool might have hitched a ride on... turnips?

I'm not even sure I could identify a turnip if you gave me one.


Just sayin is all...:popcorn:

[Tiz]

http://www.realestatebloglab.com/images/Turnip.jpg

[WashingtonBay]

Thanks Tiz :) What is it people "do" with them?

[Tiz]

Mandates aren't what we're talking about.

Does it make sense that conservative politicians in federal government want the restrictions on interstate sales of health insurance eliminated if the federal government has no say in those restrictions?

[Tiz]

They stumble around on them while riding in trucks.



Or eat them.

[palomino]

So what happens to me? I pay $373 a month for me and my 2 kids for insurance- does it go up, get changed?

[JackieB]

How did 'falling off a turnip truck' ever make it into our vocabulary? I mean... of all the things we may see transported by trucks, that some poor fool might have hitched a ride on... turnips?

I'm not even sure I could identify a turnip if you gave me one.


Just sayin is all...:popcorn:

You're so funny!!!!!! I'm glad that you are sticking to your goal of enjoying the beautiful spring weather and not getting completely bogged down in politics.

[JackieB]

So what happens to me? I pay $373 a month for me and my 2 kids for insurance- does it go up, get changed?

I heard a state insurance commissioner say on the news today that it shouldn't make a difference in premiums. Of course premiums will go up, but not more than they would have without this legislation. The reason is because the new "mandated" customers, many of whom will stay healthy, will offset those with pre-existing conditions. As you know, insurance only works because not everyone needs it.

[WashingtonBay]

You're so funny!!!!!! I'm glad that you are sticking to your goal of enjoying the beautiful spring weather and not getting completely bogged down in politics.

That's a good way to put it. I thought I was just being disruptive :D

[JackieB]

That Joe Biden! We can always count on him to provide material - for Saturday Night Live!

[WashingtonBay]

~is wondering if she's just been compared to Joe Biden~ :trout:

[natisha]

Now that's just absurd, RD. Even a parasite (to follow your analogy) wouldn't want to see the host die. Then it dies, too.

Sometimes you guys get a little far out there for me. For example, saying that a single payer system is inevitable. Did you not just see how much political capital was expended getting this bill passed? By the hair of its chinny-chin-chin even without the public option. And possibly to the political detriment of everyone who voted for it. There won't be consideration of a single payer system for a long, long time to come, if it ever comes back.
Sometimes the host does die.

Obama(;)) said himself he wants a single payer system. I just heard the clip again today. All he has to do is wait.
As for political detriment people have short memories & most of these things are not set to happen until after elections. If it is deficit neutral why can't they start now or as soon as they hire enough IRS staff to monitor us? Just wondering, not a direct ? to you JackieB.

[natisha]

So what happens to me? I pay $373 a month for me and my 2 kids for insurance- does it go up, get changed?Can't say for sure but I heard an insurance person today predicting a 200-300% increase in rates. They will almost have to to stay in business & then they will be called greedy & their downfall will be blamed on that- then the Gov. will step in & take over=single payer system.
See how that works? Just a matter of time.

[natisha]

They stumble around on them while riding in trucks.



Or eat them.greens

[natisha]

That Joe Biden! We can always count on him to provide material - for Saturday Night Live!And now we have Sharpton too, well, we always had him. Do you think Obama(;)) is searching the White House for duct tape?

[JackieB]

~is wondering if she's just been compared to Joe Biden~ :trout:

No, not by me. I had just happened to see that he made another one of his famous gaffes.

[natisha]

No, not by me. I had just happened to see that he made another one of his famous gaffes.I missed it, what now? We could use a laugh.

[WashingtonBay]

Oh really... I missed it too...

[JackieB]

[QUOTE=Tiz;299926Jackie, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, North Korea and so on, and so on, and so on. Explain them if that's just absurd.[/QUOTE]

Don't we at least get to work our way through being as awful as Western European countries, ending up like the nearly-bankrupt Greece, before heading onto Cuba, Venequela, and North Korea?

[JackieB]

I missed it, what now? We could use a laugh.

He uttered the expleted that starts with "f" at the signing as he was introducing the president.

[JackieB]

I've decided to get a PhD in anthropology. I'm going to earn my doctorate looking for the purpose of doomsayer-like hysteria in politics. It must serve a purpose. Like some sort of counterweight or something.

I spent a lot of time steadfastly assuring my liberal friends that President Bush could not completely destroy the country. And believe me, they were utterly serious.

Now here we are with John Boehner calling this bill "Armegedden" and many of you (who I know are smart and thoughtful) seriously thinking he's right. That, as RD put it, we've passed the "tipping point." Sort of like the Global Warming types.

I hope the forum endures for decades. I'm never one to say "I told you so". I hate that (seriously). But I'd like to still be friends with all of you when we can agree that everything turned out just fine.

[WashingtonBay]

Ha! He sure did... I went and looked!

YouTube- Biden to Obama at Health Care Signing: 'This is a Big F*#cking Deal'

[palomino]

Thats funny.

[mare]

I've decided to get a PhD in anthropology. I'm going to earn my doctorate looking for the purpose of doomsayer-like hysteria in politics. It must serve a purpose. Like some sort of counterweight or something.

I hope the forum endures for decades. I'm never one to say "I told you so". I hate that (seriously). But I'd like to still be friends with all of you when we can agree that everything turned out just fine.

I'll be looking forward to your dissertation!

While I believe neither party has the country's best interest at heart and think most are looking to line their own pockets in some way, I still think most issues will balance out and can be workable.

Kind of an optimistic curmudgeon. :huh:

[Tiz]

"Now that's just absurd, RD. Even a parasite (to follow your analogy) wouldn't want to see the host die. Then it dies, too." JB

"Jackie, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, North Korea and so on, and so on, and so on. Explain them if that's just absurd."

"Don't we at least get to work our way through being as awful as Western European countries, ending up like the nearly-bankrupt Greece, before heading onto Cuba, Venequela, and North Korea? " JB

Sure, Jackie, we can do that, if you promise we'll come back to the subject afterwards.

[JackieB]

Kind of an optimistic curmudgeon. :huh:

Glad to hear it. I find the gloom and doom remarks to be a bit incredible from both sides. I think it's because we only truly have the ability to perceive what happens during our own lifetime. We know about history intellectually, but we can't actually go back and live then. These dire projections certainly would have applied during the Civil War (and had quite a lot of merit), we must have had A LOT of them during the Great Depression, my guess is that we had quite a few comments like this during the inflation of Jimmy Carter's presidency. I mentioned what my liberal friends kept saying for years during George Bush's presidency. I'm not talking about "Ugh! This is really bad", but "This is the beginning of the end. No doubt about it now."

[Tiz]

But, Jackie, there is a "beginning of the end", though this bill marks more of a 2/3's or 3/4's of an end. Did you read the article written by the former head of the CBO on a different thread?

[WashingtonBay]

Glad to hear it. I find the gloom and doom remarks to be a bit incredible from both sides..... I'm not talking about "Ugh! This is really bad", but "This is the beginning of the end. No doubt about it now."

Nobody pays attention to "This is a big deal". They only pay attention if you say it's a "Big F*in deal!"

I tend to think much of the gloom and doom is for dramatic effect. But people are dramatic people, and sometimes, the slippery slope is very real and those who can see it at the start are the ones who keep us from falling down it.

[mare]

I really appreciate everyone on here and the discussions. I appreciate when people post links to objective information on issues, too.

It is so frustrating to try to learn about different issues and when I search the internet for documents and news, I get only editorials! Both sides seem to be in a contest to see who can use the most emotion-provoking adjectives!

Rant over. *bows*

[natisha]

Glad to hear it. I find the gloom and doom remarks to be a bit incredible from both sides. I think it's because we only truly have the ability to perceive what happens during our own lifetime. Personally I think it's because we are living it, it becomes our personal experience. I've only got one shot at life. I'd like to be able to live it as I choose, greedily enjoying the fruits of my own labor without guilt. What happens after I'm dead probably won't bother me too much.

[natisha]

I will say this about Obama(;)) he certainly has restraint when it comes to Biden. He missed a good opportunity to give him an elbow in the mouth.

[Tiz]

Maxine Sums It Up

http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/cid:X.MA1.1269381553@aol.com
Let me get this straight. We're going to be gifted with a health care plan
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
to be signed by a president who also hasn't read it and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that's broke.

What the heck could possibly go wrong?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

JB, what's funny to me though is that I'm normally a very positive person. Ask anyone... probably even WB can attest that in day to day life I tend to be an optimist. Sometimes even aggravatingly so. I've always been that way.

I am optimistic about America. The country will survive. But we have a patch of road in front of us right now that is going to test us. The question is how much suffering lies between now and those better future days, someday. Sure, the country survived the civil war and prospered after that in ways unimagined by Lincoln. But that's not to say that the loss of 600,000 young men was good times. Was that the last civil war? Perhaps not. Let's hope the next one isn't in our lifetime.

The so-called "doom and gloom" regarding former Presidents and Congresses has been there-- you're right. But something new is happening now that has never happened before. Whole segments of the economy have been nationalized. That's really new, JB. The banking and insurance industry, two of the big three automakers were forcibly taken by the government and their executives fired. Not even Roosevelt dared to do that. Student loans have been nationalized. Every day something new has been taken over by the government-- a government that is *broke*. The deficit has quadrupled in only one year. That's unprecedented. And it's going to go spectacularly higher. The U.S. bond rating is in jeopardy of being down-graded.

Just because "things have always worked out OK" before is no guarantee that they always will. Tempt fate enough times and sometimes the dice fall badly.

People whined about Bush "taking our liberty". Sure, I remember that. But then it just wasn't actually true. Those were delusions by people that would've been angry at anything Bush did, for good or ill. If Bush had walked on water the headlines would've read "Bush can't swim".

But now I think we are genuinely losing freedom in some important ways, and I challenge anyone to call it a delusion. I don't want the government in control of my medical decisions. I don't want the government in control of everyone's medical records. Geez... no potential for abuse there...

It didn't need to be this way. And please nobody insult us by saying they're really doing it to help people. If they genuinely wanted to help people they'd improve what works best about the free market and make safety nets for those it misses. But instead they're wiping out what works best about the free market and rolling everyone into one big centrally-planned politburo. Your healthcare is now the responsibility of Congress. Gosh... they're just so darn good at everything they do...

Of course at last, it's really all about power. That's why they want it. If you control people's medical care you have the keys to the kingdom. Now there is nothing that isn't directly in the interest of government to regulate.

They cast off a King over a tax on tea.

[JackieB]

But, Jackie, there is a "beginning of the end", though this bill marks more of a 2/3's or 3/4's of an end. Did you read the article written by the former head of the CBO on a different thread?

I didn't really read it carefully, but I do know what it says. And please don't think that I'm suggesting or endorsing this as a solution at all. I'm not. But if push comes to shove in terms of this country going down the tubes over entitlement programs, they'll raise our taxes to pay for it. We'd end up looking more like a country in Western Europe such as Switzerland, Norway, or the U.K. Very distressing to many, I know, but not at all the same thing as living in North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba.

[natisha]

Pretty sure I don't want any level of sucks.

[gabhainn]

Now every civilization has its lifecycle, and perhaps you are right (RD) that we are headed toward destruction. .
a smarter man than me once said ( and I am paraphrasing) every great society from pax romana to pax britainica, and yes even the third reich (to a degree) failed due to 3 things, citizens recognizing themselves as an independent group instead of a member of the whole, the restriction of liberty, and big government....does that sound familiar?.....Kevin

[Tiz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieB http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/images/styles/beige/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?p=299910#post299910)
[...] Even flaming liberals don't want to see us come to ruin over fiscal issues.
[...]

"Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. They're depending on it." RD

"Now that's just absurd, RD. Even a parasite (to follow your analogy) wouldn't want to see the host die. Then it dies, too." JB

"Jackie, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, North Korea and so on, and so on, and so on. Explain them if that's just absurd." Tiz


This comment made me think you might not remember the genesis of the Cuba, ect. sentence, so just wanted to refresh your memory, Jackie.

"But if push comes to shove in terms of this country going down the tubes over entitlement programs, they'll raise our taxes to pay for it. We'd end up looking more like a country in Western Europe such as Switzerland, Norway, or the U.K. Very distressing to many, I know, but not at all the same thing as living in North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba.

[cheval]

I've decided to get a PhD in anthropology. I'm going to earn my doctorate looking for the purpose of doomsayer-like hysteria in politics. It must serve a purpose. Like some sort of counterweight or something.

I spent a lot of time steadfastly assuring my liberal friends that President Bush could not completely destroy the country. And believe me, they were utterly serious.

Now here we are with John Boehner calling this bill "Armegedden" and many of you (who I know are smart and thoughtful) seriously thinking he's right. That, as RD put it, we've passed the "tipping point." Sort of like the Global Warming types.

I hope the forum endures for decades. I'm never one to say "I told you so". I hate that (seriously). But I'd like to still be friends with all of you when we can agree that everything turned out just fine.

I don't quite get the hysteria here either. I did hear on the news tonight that it took quit some time and a lot of fighting to get Social Security and Medicare passed. I want to make sure my loved ones can get the health care they need without the hurt they are going through right now because they can't get it. I would pay more in taxes for that to happen. What is money compared to death of people you care about? It's nothing.

[Tiz]

Jackie, when you get around to reading the CBO report, you will find that the Social Security "savings" is counted twice. Fantasy in, fantasy out, as they say in the biz.

[Tiz]

"What is money compared to death of people you care about? It's nothing."

I agree. So, if you get sick, or your loved one gets sick, go to the doctor. Don't stay home and die because you don't want to pay for it.

[cheval]

I didn't say anything about not paying for it. In fact, our family is in debt in order to do so. That doesn't mean wishing for health insurance that you can afford so you aren't in debt makes you a bad person.

[JackieB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieB http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/images/styles/beige/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?p=299910#post299910)
[...] Even flaming liberals don't want to see us come to ruin over fiscal issues.
[...]

"Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. They're depending on it." RD

"Now that's just absurd, RD. Even a parasite (to follow your analogy) wouldn't want to see the host die. Then it dies, too." JB

"Jackie, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, North Korea and so on, and so on, and so on. Explain them if that's just absurd." Tiz


This comment made me think you might not remember the genesis of the Cuba, ect. sentence, so just wanted to refresh your memory, Jackie.

"But if push comes to shove in terms of this country going down the tubes over entitlement programs, they'll raise our taxes to pay for it. We'd end up looking more like a country in Western Europe such as Switzerland, Norway, or the U.K. Very distressing to many, I know, but not at all the same thing as living in North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba.

Thanks, Tiz (seriously, not sarcastic). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we actually could pay quite a bit more in taxes and not be much different than fully-developed countries in Europe. I'm honestly not proposing support of that, just saying. Kind of a political science discussion, if you will.

So many Americans despise this possible outcome because it goes against what we founded our country on, but the nation probably could persist for a couple hundred years or more in such a state.

[natisha]

I don't quite get the hysteria here either. I did hear on the news tonight that it took quit some time and a lot of fighting to get Social Security and Medicare passed. I want to make sure my loved ones can get the health care they need without the hurt they are going through right now because they can't get it. I would pay more in taxes for that to happen. What is money compared to death of people you care about? It's nothing.And how did those turn out? Maybe the hysteria was correct. SS is going broke & may not be there when needed the most. Medicare has always cost more than predicted, is full of fraud, & has many use restrictions.
The main objections( besides Gov. takeover & control ) is that the Gov. has proved over & over again that it can't run anything efficiently, except maybe the military but there is only one military so there is nothing to compare it to.

[Tiz]

The average worker, retiring at age 66, receives $1164 per month from Social Security. That is in 2010, but no one knows what happens now that the system will no longer have more workers paying in than taking out. That is an enormous problem because the money that was entrusted to the fund, and administered by the government all of these years, is gone. Spent on other programs.
Why SSI keeps being used as a good example is a mystery.

[JackieB]

SS is going broke & may not be there when needed the most. Medicare has always cost more than predicted, is full of fraud, & has many use restrictions.

You're making good points. So where are the politicians who are proposing either abolishing or drastically cutting these programs? You probably think I'm insincere, but I would seriously consider supporting these candidates if their proposals made sense. I've spent my entire career working either in or for Corporate America and I've also worked a lot with our local government and have been a keen student of state and federal government. You won't get any argument from me that government is less efficient than private business.

But I hear these Republicans talking about preserving and protecting SSI and Medicare for all recipients and I always find myself thinking "Wait a minute. Aren't you supposed to be telling us that we need to get rid of those programs and offering the private solution instead?"

When Nancy Pelosi mentioned that this bill could be placed with SSI and Medicare as great American achievements, that didn't make me feel comfortable. I get that this is going to be a challenge to fund and that the math is fuzzy. But at least she was honest about where she stands. And I found myself in complete agreement with those who feel that this is much better than doing nothing and just delaying the inevitability of dealing with health insurance.

I listen to these Republicans, especially during their campaigns, and I'm thinking "How can you be railing against big government in one sentence and then telling me how you will protect the biggest entitlements we've got (SSI and Medicare) in the next breath? Are you for or against big government?"

[Tiz]

Precisely why Republicans got voted out last November, Jackie. No spine. You must remember that GW tried to reform SSI though.

This health care debate was never about passing the Democrat's bill, or doing nothing.

[JackieB]

Precisely why Republicans got voted out last November, Jackie. No spine. You must remember that GW tried to reform SSI though.

This health care debate was never about passing the Democrat's bill, or doing nothing.

Well, I do wish that the Democrats had been more bipartisan about this process last summer when they had a chance. But they didn't. And I think they judged correctly when Scott Brown was elected and the Republicans suggested scrapping the bill and starting over in a bipartisan manner that the Republicans didn't intend to allow anything to pass before November so that they could club the Democrats silly with "Doing nothing for two years now". Nasty politics.

[natisha]

You're making good points. So where are the politicians who are proposing either abolishing or drastically cutting these programs? You probably think I'm insincere, but I would seriously consider supporting these candidates if their proposals made sense. I've spent my entire career working either in or for Corporate America and I've also worked a lot with our local government and have been a keen student of state and federal government. You won't get any argument from me that government is less efficient than private business.

But I hear these Republicans talking about preserving and protecting SSI and Medicare for all recipients and I always find myself thinking "Wait a minute. Aren't you supposed to be telling us that we need to get rid of those programs and offering the private solution instead?"

When Nancy Pelosi mentioned that this bill could be placed with SSI and Medicare as great American achievements, that didn't make me feel comfortable. I get that this is going to be a challenge to fund and that the math is fuzzy. But at least she was honest about where she stands. And I found myself in complete agreement with those who feel that this is much better than doing nothing and just delaying the inevitability of dealing with health insurance.

I listen to these Republicans, especially during their campaigns, and I'm thinking "How can you be railing against big government in one sentence and then telling me how you will protect the biggest entitlements we've got (SSI and Medicare) in the next breath? Are you for or against big government?"Is something an entitlement if you've spent your whole working life putting into it? Like SSI.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Well, I do wish that the Democrats had been more bipartisan about this process last summer when they had a chance. But they didn't. And I think they judged correctly when Scott Brown was elected and the Republicans suggested scrapping the bill and starting over in a bipartisan manner that the Republicans didn't intend to allow anything to pass before November so that they could club the Democrats silly with "Doing nothing for two years now". Nasty politics.

I certainly don't want bipartisanship. Why would anybody want to compromise with evil? The only winner is evil. Evil doesn't care if it wins the whole thing. It enjoys just incremental bits of progress (i.e. "progressive").

The less bibartisanship... the better. Bipartisanship is like a feces sandwich. How much feces is acceptable in your sandwich?

[natisha]

I certainly don't want bipartisanship. Why would anybody want to compromise with evil? The only winner is evil. Evil doesn't care if it wins the whole thing. It enjoys just incremental bits of progress (i.e. "progressive").

The less bibartisanship... the better. Bipartisanship is like a feces sandwich. How much feces is acceptable in your sandwich?Are you angry again?;) :cool:

[JackieB]

Is something an entitlement if you've spent your whole working life putting into it? Like SSI.

The way that we have it set up it is because a person can potentially draw out a lot more than he/she put in. But I do agree that there is a fairness to it because your monthly checks are tied to income you earned.

[WashingtonBay]

Are you angry again?;) :cool:

Yes, I think he was last night...

Is something an entitlement if you've spent your whole working life putting into it? Like SSI.

I'll be the first to admit not being an expert on these systems, but SSI is the welfare branch of Social Security. It's needs-based disability, and is not a result of money paid in.... I think SSA is the retirement benefit.

Supplemental Security Income (http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/)

[mare]

I'll be the first to admit not being an expert on these systems, but SSI is the welfare branch of Social Security. It's needs-based disability, and is not a result of money paid in.... I think SSA is the retirement benefit.

Supplemental Security Income (http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/)

I wish social security, since it's a program already, had stayed out of the disability business. We already had a welfare program and all states have some form of medicaid. It's so complicated to add SSDI (disability insurance meaning monthly payments), eligibility for Medicare A and B (though SSDI), and money for housing, food, ultilities and more along with medicaid (welfare program).

It seems to be a source of confusions for providers and beneficiaries alike.

I've had to laugh when hearing complaints that people don't understand the new Health Care overhaul bill. Heck, we don't understand what we've got now.

[JackieB]

Yes, I think he was last night...



I'll be the first to admit not being an expert on these systems, but SSI is the welfare branch of Social Security. It's needs-based disability, and is not a result of money paid in.... I think SSA is the retirement benefit.

Supplemental Security Income (http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/)

Oh, sorry. I did mean the retirement benefit.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Are you angry again?;) :cool:

It comes and goes. :innocent:

[WashingtonBay]

Maybe we should have a tool to weight comments by number of bourbons and time of night.

You seriously deserve to be slapped with a fish for some of your posts last night. :trout:



I just wish someone else would do it.... too.... in addition to just me.

[JackieB]

The average worker, retiring at age 66, receives $1164 per month from Social Security. That is in 2010, but no one knows what happens now that the system will no longer have more workers paying in than taking out. That is an enormous problem because the money that was entrusted to the fund, and administered by the government all of these years, is gone. Spent on other programs.
Why SSI keeps being used as a good example is a mystery.

I completely agree. There is no way that the Millenium Generation (our teens on this forum, for example) are going to pay for all of us boomers in retirement. I would have no problem with a phaseout of Social Security and have said all of my adult life that if I could just get the money that I put into it, I'd leave and fund my own retirement. We haven't counted on it being there, anyway. Not one day. Everytime we've ever calculated what we need to live on in our Golden Years, we leave social security out of the mix.

But now that I've paid in for over 30 years, I don't want to just give up the money I contributed. However, I won't complain if my benefit is reduced. I understand that the system is not sustainable.

[JackieB]

I just wish someone else would do it.... too.... in addition to just me.

My pleasure. :) :trout:

[WashingtonBay]

Thanks :)

[natisha]

My pleasure. :) :trout:I kind of like it when he's angry... late at night... half lit. Rather appealing.

[Tiz]

Natisha, always there to sooth the savage beast, eh?

I like it when RD lets loose, too. How does Obama put it? Oh yeah. Fired up and ready to go! But for our founding principles, Mr. President.

[natisha]

Natisha, always there to sooth the savage beast, eh?

I like it when RD lets loose, too. How does Obama put it? Oh yeah. Fired up and ready to go! But for our founding principles, Mr. President.I try ;)

[HoustonFarrier]

No pre-existing condition exclusions. Immediately for children and several years from now for adults.

Might want to double check that one...I'm hearing they "Joe Bidened" that one.

Steve

[Tiz]

"The main objections( besides Gov. takeover & control ) is that the Gov. has proved over & over again that it can't run anything efficiently, except maybe the military but there is only one military so there is nothing to compare it to." Natisha

The people who do the work of the military are amazing, but the people who handle the military's budget are the usual government nightmare. You remember the 17 cent cotter pin that they paid $28 for? How much was that hammer? That new jet?

[Tiz]

You're right, Steve.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Might want to double check that one...I'm hearing they "Joe Bidened" that one.

Steve

Yah... Been hearing that today. The bit about pre-existing conditions with children was supposed to be in the bill, but apparently somebody forgot to actually write it up. It's not in the bill.

Pretty funny, that. An omen, I think.

[cheval]

Are you guys that oppose this bill in favor of getting health care for everyone? Just by different means than what has happened? Or are you happy with the way things are right now?

Wouldn't it be nice if things actually worked out and everyone got upset over nothing?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Are you guys that oppose this bill in favor of getting health care for everyone? Just by different means than what has happened? Or are you happy with the way things are right now?

Wouldn't it be nice if things actually worked out and everyone got upset over nothing?

What I'd like is for government to get out of the way. Allow insurance companies to sell the sorts of policies that people want to buy, and let them compete for customers. Part of the problem is that too many things are forced to be covered. Nobody needs insurance for stuff that costs a few hundred dollars. We need insurance for stuff that costs tens of thousands of dollars.

[WashingtonBay]

Are you guys that oppose this bill in favor of getting health care for everyone? Just by different means than what has happened? Or are you happy with the way things are right now?

Wouldn't it be nice if things actually worked out and everyone got upset over nothing?

RD's right. The problem with health insurance is that it's run through employment, so there's little competition available for the end user. We need to get employers out of the health care business... people making their own buying decisions with a wide variety of competitive choices is the best thing for controlling price.

[mare]

RD's right. The problem with health insurance is that it's run through employment, so there's little competition available for the end user. We need to get employers out of the health care business... people making their own buying decisions with a wide variety of competitive choices is the best thing for controlling price.

I agree with that.

[cheval]

What I'd like is for government to get out of the way. Allow insurance companies to sell the sorts of policies that people want to buy, and let them compete for customers. Part of the problem is that too many things are forced to be covered. Nobody needs insurance for stuff that costs a few hundred dollars. We need insurance for stuff that costs tens of thousands of dollars.

Isn't the problem that they haven't done that? If there was affordable health care right now, would the government had to get involved? I've contacted I don't know how many different companies for basic insurance for my niece. I don't see any buy what you want policies right now.

My insurance co-pay for my steroid injections went up to a point I can no longer afford the injections and that is what keeps my migraines in check. I only have one health insurance choice through work. I don't have a variety of choices to pick from.

So maybe this is a wake up call for insurance companies to provide what people need.

[JackieB]

Isn't the problem that they haven't done that? If there was affordable health care right now, would the government had to get involved? I've contacted I don't know how many different companies for basic insurance for my niece. I don't see any buy what you want policies right now.

My insurance co-pay for my steroid injections went up to a point I can no longer afford the injections and that is what keeps my migraines in check. I only have one health insurance choice through work. I don't have a variety of choices to pick from.

So maybe this is a wake up call for insurance companies to provide what people need.

You're absolutely right, Cheval. We hear a lot of "The government needs to get out of...and let business run its course." I think that sounds great (with some regulation). I've worked in efficient companies my entire career. However, the Republicans have never tried to accomplish that with insurance companies and they would have a very hard time getting anywhere. You know who would resist them the most? Insurance companies who have monopolies on business in their states and don't want competition. The insurers would lobby, you guessed it, government to stop the change.

We also say that we need to get employers out of the insurance business. That's a brilliant idea. Good luck with it.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]
So maybe this is a wake up call for insurance companies to provide what people need.

But they're not allowed to. That's the problem.

[WashingtonBay]

Isn't the problem that they haven't done that? If there was affordable health care right now, would the government had to get involved? I've contacted I don't know how many different companies for basic insurance for my niece. I don't see any buy what you want policies right now.

My insurance co-pay for my steroid injections went up to a point I can no longer afford the injections and that is what keeps my migraines in check. I only have one health insurance choice through work. I don't have a variety of choices to pick from.

So maybe this is a wake up call for insurance companies to provide what people need.

I think there's also a wake up call needed for what people should expect medical insurance to cover. People have become accustomed to this idea that neither medical insurance or our treatment should cost money. That's not feasible. The treatment we want has a price.

IMHO, the best thing absolutely would be to eliminate insurance entirely for most doctor visits. If we paid directly for regular medical care, much like we do for our animals, then insurance would only have to cover the occasional, unforeseeable, and extraordinary, and the coverage for that kind of coverage would be much less.

But in that scenario, you'd pay for your own regular office calls and steroid shots, as a maintenance cost of being you. If you want insurance to pay for it and remain solvent for the long term, they're going to have to charge you more than what it costs or they lose money.

The upside though, is that competition and price comparison would become part of your doctor choice, much like it is now with choosing vets that we like, and who are affordable. Insurance could be left to procedures that cost thousands... something we may never need, and can't plan and budget for but would like to insure ourselves for just in case.

I've equated it to car insurance before, because I think the analogy is like this... car insurance is affordable because it does not cover the routine. It doesn't cover gas, oil changes, preventive care, or engine repairs. Even a blown engine is not covered, we expect to pay for it. Only the loss of the car through an accident, or the protection from liability if we crash into someone, is covered. Limiting insurance use to the catastrophic, and not for the every day routine, is why it's affordable.

[JackieB]

But they're not allowed to. That's the problem.

I think they are happier with their circumstances than you might expect. Not perfect by any means, but not dying to have the markets they presently serve open to unfettered competition.

It is possible to sell health insurance across state lines, by the way. I've had insurance from a provider out-of-state and I've sought a quote for an individual policy from one, too. The regulations that restrict the sales are at the state level. You'd have to remove control of that from the states. The insurers who are the major providers in those states right now would fight that mightily.

It could be done, but not without probably as much difficulty as we're going through right now. And we'd probably also see the lawsuits from state attorney generals that we are right now, too.

[JackieB]

IMHO, the best thing absolutely would be to eliminate insurance entirely for most doctor visits. If we paid directly for regular medical care, much like we do for our animals, then insurance would only have to cover the occasional, unforeseeable, and extraordinary, and the coverage for that kind of coverage would be much less.


That would be OK with me. That's what my wife has (and I'll have in one more month when COBRA expires for me) from BCBSM (Michigan). We get a little bit of "wellness" stuff each year, but not much, and the deductible is $2,500. I don't mind. It motivates me to get on that treadmill every day and watch what I eat.

However, we budget $7,000 a year for this level of coverage and are going to have to figure out a way to come up with a lot more. Those are the negotiated prices for residents of Michigan who want to buy individual policies. And our policy is about third down the list of options.

Most of the people I know who have the "Cadillac" policies (and I know a lot of them) have no idea, nor any concern, about what any of this costs. It's just not an issue for them. Pay the $5 co-pay and away you go.

[WashingtonBay]

Most of the people I know who have the "Cadillac" policies (and I know a lot of them) have no idea, nor any concern, about what any of this costs. It's just not an issue for them. Pay the $5 co-pay and away you go.

And when people don't know and don't care what it costs, there is no control at all over price.

[WashingtonBay]

That would be OK with me. That's what my wife has (and I'll have in one more month when COBRA expires for me) from BCBSM (Michigan). We get a little bit of "wellness" stuff each year, but not much, and the deductible is $2,500. I don't mind. It motivates me to get on that treadmill every day and watch what I eat.

However, we budget $7,000 a year for this level of coverage and are going to have to figure out a way to come up with a lot more. Those are the negotiated prices for residents of Michigan who want to buy individual policies. And our policy is about third down the list of options.


That's what hubby and I had for a long time too... when we first married and neither had employer plans. I think our premiums were a little less than yours, but the deductible was high like that... it was to cover getting hit by a truck or more... not for the routine.

I have better coverage now... we do... through hubby's work. I still don't go to the doctor unless I'm bleeding out my eyes... I'm a really good insurance customer :D

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I'm not even sure what I have. I'd have to pull out my card and see what it is now. Seems like my company changes providers about once a year.

But right now I don't even really have a doctor. My old doctor just up and quit, they assigned me a new one to be my PPO, and then he quit. Supposedly they've assigned me a new doctor... some guy with a name like Samkiatsumrapastanoramian or something like that. He doesn't speak english. I don't think I'd bother. But nobody else in town is taking new patients. If I have to get something done, I'll just wait for the weekend and go to Urgent Care down in the harbor.

The doctor shortage is certainly one of the biggest unreported stories of the last few years. And it's only going to be a deepening problem.

[natisha]

I'm not even sure what I have. I'd have to pull out my card and see what it is now. Seems like my company changes providers about once a year.

But right now I don't even really have a doctor. My old doctor just up and quit, they assigned me a new one to be my PPO, and then he quit. Supposedly they've assigned me a new doctor... some guy with a name like Samkiatsumrapastanoramian or something like that. He doesn't speak english. I don't think I'd bother. But nobody else in town is taking new patients. If I have to get something done, I'll just wait for the weekend and go to Urgent Care down in the harbor.

The doctor shortage is certainly one of the biggest unreported stories of the last few years. And it's only going to be a deepening problem.Lets hope your tibia isn't visible on Monday :p

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Ah... it's nuthin. It's just a flesh wound. I'll just walk it off. :)

[natisha]

Ah... it's nuthin. It's just a flesh wound. I'll just walk it off. :)Your kitty tried that & see what happened?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Wow... just wow. Any and all that thought I was a little over the top by describing the dems as essentially Marxist and fascist... Here's Max Baucus saying it his own darn self:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/25/dem_senator_health_legislation_will_address_the_ma l-distribution_of_income_in_america.html

[Tiz]

Do Democrats believe that people who vote for them are that dumb? It looks like it, when the terminology changes so frequently.

Democrats, you know what mal-distribution means, don't you?

[Tiz]

This isn't really new. At least I think you'll all remember the discussion around Congress exempting themselves from their new healthcare laws. This just confirms it. They exempted their many, many staff members as well.

By John Lott

"With legislation encompassing almost 3,000 pages, it will take time to find out exactly what the mandates in the newly passed health care law mean for America. After all, it wasn’t until the end of last week that the reconciliation bill was even made public. But here's something we already have uncovered. And it's shocking. -- In addition to all the special favors doled out to various congressional districts, it turns out that the congressional staff who wrote the health care bill put in special favors for themselves, too.

While everyone else in the United States -- from the top corporate executives to the grocery store checkout clerk -- will be forced to buy their insurance through heavily regulated state-run exchanges, the health care bill excludes one group: the leadership and committee staff. Yes, that’s right. The very people who wrote up this bill are refusing to be included themselves. Given the narrow definition of “congressional staff” on page 158 of the health care bill, the Congressional Research Service memo believes (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_109/news/44605-1.html) that courts will not require “professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices” to go through the exchanges. President Obama and his family are also exempt from the law."

[HoustonFarrier]

Are you guys that oppose this bill in favor of getting health care for everyone? Just by different means than what has happened? Or are you happy with the way things are right now?

Wouldn't it be nice if things actually worked out and everyone got upset over nothing?

What you have right now is a bill that *may*work for about 40-50 million people, give or take a few million, and will NOT work for the rest ..... some 250 million. There is NOTHING in this bill that will help me...NOTHING. And, contrary to what President obama says, my taxes WILL go up...and, in a few short years, my health care quality will go down.

And, for those that it will help, those without insurance...it won't kick in for at least 4 years...and even then, there are no specific price controls.

Would you pay for a car for 4 years before you got to drive it?

Would you pay for a refrigerator for 4 years before you got to use it?

Would you pay for car insurance for 4 years before you got coverage??

Wake up and think America.

Steve

[natisha]

Too late I'm afraid.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

One little tidbit from The Corner on NRO today. Seems they neglected to put any real enforcement mechanism in the bill, for when people don't actually get their mandated coverage. The IRS is supposed to oversee that everybody does so, but it appears that there's no penalty mechanism when they don't.

Combine this with the guarantees for coverage of pre-existing conditions... and you can kiss the private health insurance industry goodbye.

[gabhainn]

The student loan thing, it just floors me. So if they dont like what you are studying they can refuse you a loan? Be about right for this bunch, I wonder why they dont just take the Constitution out of the national archives and use it for a napkin? That seems to be about as much as its worth to them.............Kevin