:yahoo::dye::buddies::drummer:

Now it's the Senate's turn. :tap:

:yahoo::dye::buddies::drummer:

Now it's the Senate's turn. :tap:

No matter what, they HAVE to give Obama a WIN to keep his fans happy..

No matter the damage to the country.

:yahoo::dye::buddies::drummer:

Now it's the Senate's turn. :tap:You think it's funny and great?? Have you read it?? Do you know what it's going to cost YOU??

You think it's funny and great?? Have you read it?? Do you know what it's going to cost YOU??

That's what I was thinking. Andy, get ready to pay $15k per year for that health insurance or go to jail for 5 years :howdy:

House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican (http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583)

I wonder whats going to happen now that abortions are no longer legal except in cases of rape or incest, or actual medical threat to the mother.

I wonder whats going to happen now that abortions are no longer legal except in cases of rape or incest, or actual medical threat to the mother.

I might be able to figure out where you're going with that, but I'm not sure I'd be right. So, :confused:, I'll let you elaborate a bit.

Oh, and the sarcastic answer would be - a drastic increase in rape and incest accusations?

There was one Republican (Anh Joseph Cao (http://josephcao.house.gov/)of Louisiana) that voted for the bill. That'll be one seat lost for the GOP.

I might be able to figure out where you're going with that, but I'm not sure I'd be right. So, :confused:, I'll let you elaborate a bit.

Oh, and the sarcastic answer would be - a drastic increase in rape and incest accusations?
The voted to not pay for abortion that is used only for birth control.

Since I suspect that the majority of abortions are used for birth control, and do not come from rape or incest or health reasons, those that use it as such will suddenly find out that they have to pay their own way.
I also suspect that the majority of those people might not have the money to pay for such a procedure.

so, basically, your answer was correct, I expect to see the number of rapes increase by a large number once this gets started.

The voted to not pay for abortion that is used only for birth control.

Since I suspect that the majority of abortions are used for birth control, and do not come from rape or incest or health reasons, those that use it as such will suddenly find out that they have to pay their own way.
I also suspect that the majority of those people might not have the money to pay for such a procedure.

so, basically, your answer was correct, I expect to see the number of rapes increase by a large number once this gets started.

Gotcha, that's what I thought your point was. Though, in reality, I highly doubt it will have that effect.

Someone please help me here... As I'm understanding this, EVERYONE'S taxes will go up as a result of this. When am I going to start hearing from the media about what a liar Obama and these democrats are for promising and being elected on the premise of NO ONE UNDER $250,000 WILL SEE ONE DIME OF THEIR TAXES GO UP?

We got to listen to 8 years of calling Bush a liar on WMD. No one really knows if Bush lied but the democrats promoted this rhetoric and got elected on it. Now we have Obama and the democrat leaders caught in a blatant lie and no one seems to want to say it.

Joe Wilson was right and should retract his apology.

Gotcha, that's what I thought your point was. Though, in reality, I highly doubt it will have that effect.
I do find it funny though,
The very same people that have been screaming that the government has no right to dictate what they put in their body, or what the do with their body etc... are the same ones that think its a good idea having the government running their health care completely

Any bets on when the forced affirmative action (minority) doctors start showing up at the social clinic near you?

I wonder if our doctors will be appointed to us as they are in other countries.

Someone please help me here... As I'm understanding this, EVERYONE'S taxes will go up as a result of this. When am I going to start hearing from the media about what a liar Obama and these democrats are for promising and being elected on the premise of NO ONE UNDER $250,000 WILL SEE ONE DIME OF THEIR TAXES GO UP?

We got to listen to 8 years of calling Bush a liar on WMD. No one really knows if Bush lied but the democrats promoted this rhetoric and got elected on it. Now we have Obama and the democrat leaders caught in a blatant lie and no one seems to want to say it.

Joe Wilson was right and should retract his apology.

Yep, I was lying in bed last night flipping through the channels and thought the same thing when I seen the vote totals.....what a shame. Sometimes I wonder if I am missing something or if I am a total idiot as I can't see how anybody in their right mind and is a working American can support something like this,is the vote Polosi and others want from the unemployed/low income worth ruining us as a nation or do they actually believe it's best for us?

The voted to not pay for abortion that is used only for birth control.

Since I suspect that the majority of abortions are used for birth control, and do not come from rape or incest or health reasons, those that use it as such will suddenly find out that they have to pay their own way.
I also suspect that the majority of those people might not have the money to pay for such a procedure.

so, basically, your answer was correct, I expect to see the number of rapes increase by a large number once this gets started.

The dems know, if they keep control long enough, they will eventually be able to add abortion in there later.

I do find it funny though,
The very same people that have been screaming that the government has no right to dictate what they put in their body, or what the do with their body etc... are the same ones that think its a good idea having the government running their health care completely



Not all of them!! I do not want the government anywhere near making my healthcare decisions.

Yep, I was lying in bed last night flipping through the channels and thought the same thing when I seen the vote totals.....what a shame. Sometimes I wonder if I am missing something or if I am a total idiot as I can't see how anybody in their right mind and is a working American can support something like this,is the vote Polosi and others want from the unemployed/low income worth ruining us as a nation or do they actually believe it's best for us?

Americans have been lied to. I get the impression many Americans are unable to logically do the math. They get sold a line: "Our healthcare system is in dire need of reform". They put images of people that have fallen through the healthcare cracks. They beat the message up and couple it with things like "Fundamental change" and "We will only tax the rich to pay for it" and, over and over and over, and American begin to believe it.

The failures of the Bush years along with an anti-Bush media set the stage perfectly for this situation. All the while conservatives are silent. They have no clear message to counter this lie.

The democrats have no compunction to lying to Americans as long as they can promote their agenda. They have done their homework and know exactly how to manipulate most Americans’ minds.

So the damn shame about it isn’t that they were able to promote and perpetrate this lie; the real shame is how easily Americans are convinced they are going to get something for nothing. In some really twisted way my hat is off to democrats.

Americans have been lied to. I get the impression many Americans are unable to logically do the math. They get sold a line: "Our healthcare system is in dire need of reform". They put images of people that have fallen through the healthcare cracks. They beat the message up and couple it with things like "Fundamental change" and "We will only tax the rich to pay for it" and, over and over and over, and American begin to believe it.

The failures of the Bush years along with an anti-Bush media set the stage perfectly for this situation. All the while conservatives are silent. They have no clear message to counter this lie.

The democrats have no compunction to lying to Americans as long as they can promote their agenda. They have done their homework and know exactly how to manipulate most Americans’ minds.

So the damn shame about it isn’t that they were able to promote and perpetrate this lie; the real shame is how easily Americans are convinced they are going to get something for nothing. In some really twisted way my hat is off to democrats.

The voters who voted for Obama are getting something for nothing, Its the rest of us who have to pay for it.
This bill is reparations. Read the thing.
The good part is now we do have a bill. One we can read and point to when we say it sucks.
Perhaps the Senate will listen to Americans.amd then again perhaps they will sneak this through at Midnight like the House did.

Taking out the pay for abortions was just a scam to get votes and Rrepublicans fell for it. 164 republicans voted to take out paying for abortions and that got the votes needed to pass the bill.

The Viet Cong Congressman from Louissianna "Charlie" Cao,was the only republican to vote for this bill, but republicans guaranteed its passage when they voted to take out the pay for abortions. Stupid.

I get the impression many Americans are unable to logically do the math.I think you are mostly right. Although, I think most Americans care about what their lawmakers do, because they know it will eventually effect their individual lives, they are too easily deceived; the deception is due to people not closely enough following the details of what lawmakers are doing, as well as the handiwork of skillful politicians to fabricate a favorable impression.

Thus, the 'equation' many Americans are left to work with is faulty because its parts are flawed or incomplete.

I think that for a long time people have been willing to accept the slow slide toward socialism because there seemed to be benefits without much real harm being done. Now we are crossing into dangerous territory because what is being proposed, and what lies ahead, definitely could harm us all.

If anything is more interesting than what Oblahma and his gang will do, it's how average Americans will react. Conservatives, obviously, are already incensed, but this country can only be saved if the middle is motivated enough to get involved.

Perhaps the Senate will listen to Americans.amd then again perhaps they will sneak this through at Midnight like the House did.As Palin said in her latest dispatch (today): "Our legislators can listen now, or they can hear us in 2010. It’s their choice."

That's what I was thinking. Andy, get ready to pay $15k per year for that health insurance or go to jail for 5 years :howdy:

House Committee on Ways & Means - Republican (http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583)But, but Obama said I could keep my insurance and it wouldn't go up. :lol:

For those of you that voted for this azz####, I hope you get taken over the coals along with the rest of us.

Perhaps I'm getting far too emotional about this whole thing, but I was just watching the Fox NFL Pre-Game Show. They started singing "God Bless America" and the first thing that came into my head is "We just got a giant socialist hole blown wide open in this country". It was hard for me to not feel that all these guys are fighting for - our freedom and liberty - is quickly becoming for naught.

And I cried.

They started singing "God Bless America" and the first thing that came into my head is "We just got a giant socialist hole blown wide open in this country". It was hard for me to not feel that all these guys are fighting for - our freedom and liberty - is quickly becoming for naught.ESPN aired an interview with Pat Tillman's widow, her first such discussion since his death. They included a clip of him talking about the men in his family who had served, and he felt bad because he hadn't "done a damn thing".

Didn't make me cry, but did make me think a thought similar to yours above.

Not encouraging, this current situation.

But, but Obama said I could keep my insurance and it wouldn't go up. :lol:

For those of you that voted for this azz####, I hope you get taken over the coals along with the rest of us.
He didnt lie.
You can keep your insurance, and it might not go up.

however, did he ever say that even if you did keep and pay for your own insurance you would be free and clear from paying the cost to run his insurance?

you can keep yours, you just have to pay twice.

He didnt lie.

Attached are two links. The first is a list of current House Representative's and the second is how they voted on the Health Care Bill.

OnTheIssues.org - House of Representatives (http://www.ontheissues.org/House.htm)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml

There was one Republican (Anh Joseph Cao (http://josephcao.house.gov/)of Louisiana) that voted for the bill. That'll be one seat lost for the GOP.

Feh. The seat previously held by William "Dollar" Jefferson.

They really know how to vote them in down there.

You think it's funny and great?? Have you read it?? Do you know what it's going to cost YOU??

He has no clue - just another pot stirrer.

As Palin said in her latest dispatch (today): "Our legislators can listen now, or they can hear us in 2010. It’s their choice."

:yay:

I was debating the healthcare bill with a co-worker this morning. We were talking about the 2.5% tax they mentioned to pay for it...

It that a fact and will every working american be paying this tax regardless of them having/or not having health insurance in place already?

The bill is inappropriatelt named.

It has nothing to do with Health Care Reform and everything to do with Governmental power.

It is the first step toward a Communist America.

The bill is inappropriatelt named.

It has nothing to do with Health Care Reform and everything to do with Governmental power.

It is the first step toward a Communist America.

You mean another of MANY steps toward a Communist America don't you?

The bill is inappropriatelt named.

It has nothing to do with Health Care Reform and everything to do with Governmental power.

It is the first step toward a Communist America.

First step? I think you are many steps behind.

I got a belly laugh that Andy is hooraying for Socialized medicine, when he and his generation are going to be the ones paying for it. :lol:

We'll see how the kids like it in about 15 years or so.

First step? I think you are many steps behind.

You may be correct, then let's call it the first major leap on the way to Communism.

There is no way that anyone in the United States should be made to buy something they dont want or be fined for not buying it. What next? A new Government Model Chevy? This bill destroys the Constitution, no matter what that great Constitutional scholar Obama and his flunky dunce student Steny Hoyer say.

I was debating the healthcare bill with a co-worker this morning. We were talking about the 2.5% tax they mentioned to pay for it...

It that a fact and will every working american be paying this tax regardless of them having/or not having health insurance in place already?

2.5%? Geez. We fund all of Medicare with 1.45%. And there's no caps.

Of course, when Medicare was first put in place, it was just .35%. That's progress for ya.

2.5%? Geez. We fund all of Medicare with 1.45%. And there's no caps.

Of course, when Medicare was first put in place, it was just .35%. That's progress for ya.

My co-worker was trying to say that not everyone had to pay the tax... we were looking for more info on it. He was saying that only people getting the insurance had to pay the tax, and not the people that already had insurance.

I was debating the healthcare bill with a co-worker this morning. We were talking about the 2.5% tax they mentioned to pay for it...

It that a fact and will every working american be paying this tax regardless of them having/or not having health insurance in place already?

I suspect you are referring to the penalty for those who don't get health care coverage. Supposedly, it is capped at 2.5% of your income.

However, in the house bill, there is an additional 5.4% tax on income over $500,000 for single filers ($1,000,000 for couples). In other words, the house bill would raise the highest marginal tax rate by 5.4%. When will the theft stop? It's unconscionable.

I suspect you are referring to the penalty for those who don't get health care coverage. Supposedly, it is capped at 2.5% of your income.

However, in the house bill, there is an additional 5.4% tax on income over $500,000 for single filers ($1,000,000 for couples). In other words, the house bill would raise the highest marginal tax rate by 5.4%. When will the theft stop? It's unconscionable.

No, we didn't mean the penalty, we were really talking about the taxes. My thinking is that everyone pays the tax and his thinking is that only those getting the obama health care will pay the tax.

You are saying that only people that make incomes over 500K pay the tax?

My co-worker was trying to say that not everyone had to pay the tax... we were looking for more info on it. He was saying that only people getting the insurance had to pay the tax, and not the people that already had insurance.
I dont see how that could work in a expense type of way.

as a matter of fact, I dont think they can do it if everyone were to pay 2.5% off the top.

No, we didn't mean the penalty, we were really talking about the taxes. My thinking is that everyone pays the tax and his thinking is that only those getting the obama health care will pay the tax.

You are saying that only people that make incomes over 500K pay the tax?

I haven't seen anything about a 2.5% general tax. The only thing I've seen 2.5% in connection with, is the penalty for not having coverage. I don't think rates for the so-called public plan have been fixed yet, but I'm not certain about that.

And yes, the house bill creates a new 5.4% income tax for income over $500,000 - that is how they are 'paying' for half of the package.

Here's a crude guide to the essentials of the house bill, from the WSJ. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but I'd guess it's in the ballpark.

The Wall Street Journal Online - Interactive Graphics (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_healthcareproposals_20090912.html)

Gotcha, that's what I thought your point was. Though, in reality, I highly doubt it will have that effect.

I think BCP is right. Anytime they throw the word "health" to save the mother that means "mental" health. Not like the women would die by giving birth.

The allegations will drastically increase. Won't require any legal investigation for sure just make the allegation and the doctor will complete the procedure. Police can unfound the allegation after the fact.

Here's a crude guide to the essentials of the house bill, from the WSJ. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but I'd guess it's in the ballpark.

The Wall Street Journal Online - Interactive Graphics (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_healthcareproposals_20090912.html)

Thanks, I will have to look at it this evening.

No, we didn't mean the penalty, we were really talking about the taxes. My thinking is that everyone pays the tax and his thinking is that only those getting the obama health care will pay the tax.

You are saying that only people that make incomes over 500K pay the tax?There is no way to pay for this unless they tax everyone, and I mean everyone. If you're not getting obamacare, you're still going to end up paying taxes for it. Anyone who thinks otherwise better start doing some math. That's one of the things they were saying about the ones that are staying with their own healthcare, that it will go up just to make up for the ones that drop it in favor of the cheaper gov't healthcare. The gov't plan will eventually drive them out of business. Yes, you will have the cheaper gov't insurance, but the caliber of doctors and nurses you are going to end up with won't be what you have now. No one will want to get into the medical profession because the money won't be what it was. It has to eventually happen. It's logical. Look at Canada.

There is no way to pay for this unless they tax everyone, and I mean everyone. If you're not getting obamacare, you're still going to end up paying taxes for it. Anyone who thinks otherwise better start doing some math. That's one of the things they were saying about the ones that are staying with their own healthcare, that it will go up just to make up for the ones that drop it in favor of the cheaper gov't healthcare. The gov't plan will eventually drive them out of business. Yes, you will have the cheaper gov't insurance, but the caliber of doctors and nurses you are going to end up with won't be what you have now. No one will want to get into the medical profession because the money won't be what it was. It has to eventually happen. It's logical. Look at Canada.

That's what I was trying to explain to him. We both already have good insurance and he thinks the burden of the new health care won't fall on us because we don't need it. I'm trying to tell him otherwise, but I need facts to back up my debate, lol.

That's what I was trying to explain to him. We both already have good insurance and he thinks the burden of the new health care won't fall on us because we don't need it. I'm trying to tell him otherwise, but I need facts to back up my debate, lol.The math speaks for itself. A trillion and obamy wants half of it paid for by those that make 500,000 to 1,000,000 per year. The rest? Whose paying for that if the first half gets paid for? He's going to collect that in fines? :bs: We, the working class, are going to get taxed up our collective butts to pay for his healthcare BS/.

The math speaks for itself. A trillion and obamy wants half of it paid for by those that make 500,000 to 1,000,000 per year. The rest? Whose paying for that if the first half gets paid for? He's going to collect that in fines? :bs: We, the working class, are going to get taxed up our collective butts to pay for his healthcare BS/.

The way Newt explained it.

The health plan doesn't come into effect until 2012 or 2015. They can show first year covereage without defecit spending or any "extra costs" because they have up to 6 or 7 years to fund raise to pay for the first year.

The new medical reform doesn't take effect until probably 2015, but the Medicare and Medicaid cuts (totaling 500 BILLION dollars) start immediatly upon the signing of the bill. New taxes also start that day, along with multitudes of other money raising schemes to ensure they can show the CBO the first year is "free"

The problem lies.. If it takes 5 - 7 years of fund raising and new taxes, and benefit cuts to fund just the FIRST year, what the hell are we going to do for the second third, fourth years, when we don't have 7 years to raise funds, but only 12 months?

The way Newt explained it.

The health plan doesn't come into effect until 2012 or 2015. They can show first year covereage without defecit spending or any "extra costs" because they have up to 6 or 7 years to fund raise to pay for the first year.

The new medical reform doesn't take effect until probably 2015, but the Medicare and Medicaid cuts (totaling 500 BILLION dollars) start immediatly upon the signing of the bill. New taxes also start that day, along with multitudes of other money raising schemes to ensure they can show the CBO the first year is "free"

The problem lies.. If it takes 5 - 7 years of fund raising and new taxes, and benefit cuts to fund just the FIRST year, what the hell are we going to do for the second third, fourth years, when we don't have 7 years to raise funds, but only 12 months?Apparently, you can do the math, unlike the idiots that voted for Obamy.

The way Newt explained it.

The health plan doesn't come into effect until 2012 or 2015. They can show first year covereage without defecit spending or any "extra costs" because they have up to 6 or 7 years to fund raise to pay for the first year.

The new medical reform doesn't take effect until probably 2015, but the Medicare and Medicaid cuts (totaling 500 BILLION dollars) start immediatly upon the signing of the bill. New taxes also start that day, along with multitudes of other money raising schemes to ensure they can show the CBO the first year is "free"

The problem lies.. If it takes 5 - 7 years of fund raising and new taxes, and benefit cuts to fund just the FIRST year, what the hell are we going to do for the second third, fourth years, when we don't have 7 years to raise funds, but only 12 months?

It makes me want to :jameo:

That's what I was trying to explain to him. We both already have good insurance and he thinks the burden of the new health care won't fall on us because we don't need it. I'm trying to tell him otherwise, but I need facts to back up my debate, lol.

There are at least 3 ways that the health care package will add to the cost of health care in general, and/or the cost of coverage for the average person. Awareness of those ways doesn't necessarily come from facts about what is in the bill, but a basic understanding of economic and social dynamics, and how they will be affected by what is in the bill. With regard to a couple of them, you can't really describe them as facts, but they are realities which are absolutely certain to pertain. I'm not talking about speculation - just an awareness of how things do and will work. It's only speculation in the sense that I might speculate that, if I let go of this ball, it will drop to the ground.

One is the possible general taxpayer subsidization of the so called 'public option', that will likely be required at some point. Who knows how that subsidization will be embodied, and to what degree it will affect the average tax payer - but that isn't the most certain or, in my mind, the most important aspect of this health care reform package's effect on health care costs and cost burden shifting.

However, the second one is absolutely certain - and fundamentally important. It is the effect of the requirement to accept people with pre-existing conditions - and restrictions on charging people different rates based on them. It essentially forces companies that want to be health coverage providers, to also be charities - and to use a portion of the proceeds from customer's premiums to fund those charitable enterprises. Think of what would happen to auto insurance rates if the law ordered auto insurers to (1) give people auto insurance after they had already had accidents and then pay to fix their vehicles, and (2) not charge them more than anyone else for the insurance and not charge people within certain groups any more or less for insurance based on their perceived risk of being in accidents. Most people's rates would have to go up in order to support the costs of paying for the high risk customers, and those who had already had accidents before getting coverage. If your auto insurer had to charge you, and someone of the same age who has had 26 accidents, the same rate for insurance, whose rates would go up? Whose would be unfairly cheap? These provisions of health care reform amount to more wealth redistribution - it's as simple as that.

The third way the health care package will raise costs (or lower quality) is by increasing the prevalence of third party payer in our health care system. Third party payer is the most important issue in health care, with regard to concerns about cost and quality. This reform only exacerbates that problem. That's why it is mind-numbingly misguided - and frankly, the stated goals are disingenuously asserted. If someone wanted to reduce the costs of health care and/or increase the quality thereof, they would seek to limit the effect of the third party payer dynamic, not increase it. It's like throwing gasoline on a fire and proclaiming that you are trying to get it under control - just preposterous, and it takes very little awareness of simple, immutable, market dynamics to understand that. When you disconnect the shopping decisions from the liability to pay, costs will be greater, quality will be poorer, and/or both. There's just no way around that.

Our problem is that, instead of buying health care insurance, we buy pre-paid, bulk health care packages - so our interest in controlling the condition of the free market through our shopping decisions is severely mitigated. It's an asinine way of paying for something, and our government promotes it. This reform package not only promotes it more, but it mandates it in some situations. Inexplicably moronic - I don't know how else to describe it - well, other than, blatantly disingenuous.

Let me state it plainly and without equivocation - the goal of this reform is not to reduce health care costs and increase quality, it is to redistribute those costs among people such that some are paying much more than their fair share, and some are paying much, much less than their fair share. It absolutely will not accomplish the former, but it absolutely will accomplish the latter.

I am going to post a copy of an email from M.V. that I received concerning the new health care bill. I am posting it because I agree with it totally and will plan on doing the same thing.

This is government Tyranny in its most base form and needs to be resisted at all cost. This is the line and it has been stepped over if this bill becomes law!

By Any Means Necessary.

This great Republic is filled with men who - like me - will not submit to tyranny.

Though I have maintained medical insurance throughout my adult life - at great expense, especially during periods of unemployment - This I vow:
if this disgusting travesty is signed into law I will immediately and permanently drop my coverage.

Further, I will take any and all possible steps to avoid paying any taxes or penalties associated with this ridiculous abuse of power.

Let me be plain: I hereby announce my intention to do everything within my power to willfully violate the so-called "coverage mandate" - for no other reason than the fact that I am a free man and will not be subjugated by this or any other regime.

Let this statement serve as my declaration and confession of guilt - if I am without coverage it is due to a deliberate and willful act on my part.

Further, let this serve as a warning that I will resist any and all attempts to use physical force to compel my compliance (or punish my non-compliance) by any and all means which are or may come to my disposal.

By Any Means Necessary.

Let me be clear: I have always maintained health insurance and will continue to do so - but an out-of-control government's demand that I do is probably the only thing which could PREVENT me from doing so.

I am a citizen, not a subject.

I will not submit.

I will resist.

By Any Means Necessary.

I am going to post a copy of an email from M.V. that I received concerning the new health care bill. I am posting it because I agree with it totally and will plan on doing the same thing.

This is government Tyranny in its most base form and needs to be resisted at all cost. This is the line and it has been stepped over if this bill becomes law!
Nice words in the letter, but to be honest, I doubt that anyone will take that road.
If I were living alone, not married, no child, maybe, just maybe I woudl fight it and go without insurance.
the reality is that I have a responsibility to care for my Child, and my wife and that includes insuring that they have access to medical care when needed.

So, as much as I would love to discard this government mandate, it just is not possible to do so and meet my obligations.

Im screwed.

The way Newt explained it.

The health plan doesn't come into effect until 2012 or 2015. They can show first year covereage without defecit spending or any "extra costs" because they have up to 6 or 7 years to fund raise to pay for the first year.

The new medical reform doesn't take effect until probably 2015, but the Medicare and Medicaid cuts (totaling 500 BILLION dollars) start immediatly upon the signing of the bill. New taxes also start that day, along with multitudes of other money raising schemes to ensure they can show the CBO the first year is "free"

The problem lies.. If it takes 5 - 7 years of fund raising and new taxes, and benefit cuts to fund just the FIRST year, what the hell are we going to do for the second third, fourth years, when we don't have 7 years to raise funds, but only 12 months?And this has to be real good news for those on fixed incomes that only have medicare or medicaid. Medicare didn't take care of it all anyway. Before my parents passed away, they had to pay out of pocket for Blue Cross/ Blue Shield to cover all their expenses that Medicare didn't. Obama and his Dems are going to screw this country over royally on this healthcare.

And this has to be real good news for those on fixed incomes that only have medicare or medicaid. Medicare didn't take care of it all anyway. Before my parents passed away, they had to pay out of pocket for Blue Cross/ Blue Shield to cover all their expenses that Medicare didn't. Obama and his Dems are going to screw this country over royally on this healthcare.
I guess if you can kill off enough old people before the plan kicks in, the cost will be substantially lower.

good plan.. unless you are, or you know someone that is old.

I am going to post a copy of an email from M.V. that I received concerning the new health care bill. I am posting it because I agree with it totally and will plan on doing the same thing.

This is government Tyranny in its most base form and needs to be resisted at all cost. This is the line and it has been stepped over if this bill becomes law!

How old is that email? Change a few specifics and it could have been written 240 years ago in Boston.

Nice words in the letter, but to be honest, I doubt that anyone will take that road.
If I were living alone, not married, no child, maybe, just maybe I woudl fight it and go without insurance.
the reality is that I have a responsibility to care for my Child, and my wife and that includes insuring that they have access to medical care when needed.

So, as much as I would love to discard this government mandate, it just is not possible to do so and meet my obligations.

Im screwed.

I guess it depends on the situation. But, you might still be better off saving all of the money you spend on premiums, and just paying routine medical expenses out of pocket. Then, if anyone has or develops serious medical issues that would create significant expense, you could go get coverage to pay for them. Of course, that doesn't work for everyone - including those who already have serious medical issues, and substantial ongoing expenses as a result. It also doesn't account for accidents or such things which might require immediate treatment - treatment needed before you would have time to secure coverage.

This is one of the problems with this 'reform' - it essentially makes real, fairly valued, 'insurance' unavailable. I want insurance against things that might happen which I would be pressed to afford - not a pre-paid bulk health care plan.

I'm just curious. Have any of you asked your doctors their opinions on any of this? I see two VERY good doctors, one local and a neurologist in Alexandria, they are both in favor of health care reform.

I'm just curious. Have any of you asked your doctors their opinions on any of this? I see two VERY good doctors, one local and a neurologist in Alexandria, they are both in favor of health care reform.

:gossip: talked to her doctor and they said they would give up medicine if it goes through.

BTW, did they just say that they are in favor of "reform" or did they say they favored the legislation that is going through Congress. It's a subtle, but important difference. "Reform" can be either good or bad...just like "CHANGE!"

:gossip: talked to her doctor and they said they would give up medicine if it goes through.

BTW, did they just say that they are in favor of "reform" or did they say they favored the legislation that is going through Congress. It's a subtle, but important difference. "Reform" can be either good or bad...just like "CHANGE!"


My family doctor is in favor of current affairs. I was in there maybe 3 weeks ago. He's known my mother for several years and we talk on a more personal level than most doctors/patients. I can't speak for my neurologist being in favor of reform or what's actually happening but if I had to guess I'd venture to say he's also in favor of current events since he recommended that MK an I watch Michael Moore's Sicko.

I can't speak for my neurologist being in favor of reform or what's actually happening but if I had to guess I'd venture to say he's also in favor of current events since he recommended that MK an I watch Michael Moore's Sicko.

I don't know if I'd want to visit a neurologist who needs his own head examined.

I don't know if I'd want to visit a neurologist who needs his own head examined.

:shrug:
He diagnosed in 20 minutes what no local neurologist had done in 15 years. He's an excellent doctor. While Michael Moore may be very extreme the documentary was pretty good. If you watch it realizing there's an agenda you should be able to take what you want out of it.

I don't know if I'd want to visit a neurologist who needs his own head examined.

I haven't seen the movie, but I'd be willing to bet that he does identify some real problems with the health care system (sprinkled with some lies as well). However, the method(s) of fixing those problems are where I'd disagree with him.

I haven't seen the movie, but I'd be willing to bet that he does identify some real problems with the health care system (sprinkled with some lies as well). However, the method(s) of fixing those problems are where I'd disagree with him.


Exactly. It's an interesting watch. I'm well aware of a lot of the issues due to my own recent personal battles with Carefirst. I wish I'd have watched the movie 6 months ago before I began my fight.

I parsed a little bit of the bill, looking for some specific answers, and in at least one regard it is even worse than I thought - worse than a previous proposal was.


SEC. 213. INSURANCE RATING RULES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The premium rate charged for a qualified health benefits plan that is health insurance coverage may not vary except as follows:

(1) LIMITED AGE VARIATION PERMITTED.—By age (within such age categories as the Commissioner shall specify) so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1.

(2) BY AREA.—By premium rating area (as permitted by State insurance regulators or, in the case of Exchange-participating health benefits plans, as specified by the Commissioner in consultation with such regulators).

(3) BY FAMILY ENROLLMENT.—By family enrollment (such as variations within categories and compositions of families) so long as the ratio of the premium for family enrollment (or enrollments) to the premium for individual enrollment is uniform, as specified under State law and consistent with rules of the Commissioner.



In other words, premiums can only vary on the basis of age by a factor of 2? That's preposterous. So, a coverage provider can only charge a 78 year old, 894 pound, 6 pack a day smoker, diagnosed with colon cancer, chlamydia, diabetes, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, turf toe and AIDS, twice as much as they can charge a 20 year old who appears to be in perfect health. (That's probably a bad example, as the former would likely be dead in an hour, and thus wouldn't create much further medical expense.)

It's pretty simple, young and healthy people will be picking up a significant part of the tab for old and unhealthy people. If you are among the latter, then you should probably be saying thank you. If you are among the former, well, um, uh, yeah, so, sorry about your luck.

Further, there is indeed a tax penalty of 2.5%, based on income, for not having coverage. It is capped at the cost of the applicable national average premium, it is prorated for the portion of the year during which you didn't have coverage, and there are some exceptions. Frankly, I think it will still make sense for a lot of people to not have coverage. The amount that they would be paying in premiums, above and beyond the fair value of their policy, will be greater than the amount of the penalty they will have to pay. I don't know that this law will force as many 'net subsidizers' into the system as they would like.


EDIT: I should note that the wording of this provision of the law is poor - so it is possible for it to be interpreted in a different way (hence the question mark after the sentence). But, that interpretation wouldn't make any sense, and I'm pretty confident that it isn't what is intended.