Obama's New HC Plan

[finn]

Someone tell me when we get to the bit when the chimps dress up and have a tea party and then the clowns come on....I like that bit, its funny.

[Rawedge Rim]

Someone tell me when we get to the bit when the chimps dress up and have a tea party and then the clowns come on....I like that bit, its funny.

musted have missed something there, or I'm just a bit less than brilliant today

[Rawedge Rim]

www.wral.com/news/local/story/7281166/

Having insurance 'going to be like Christmas'


Posted: 6:16 p.m. yesterday
Updated: 7:00 p.m. yesterday

Durham, N.C. — Uninsured Triangle residents said Monday that they eagerly await the overhaul of the nation's health care system.

"It's just going to be like Christmas," said DeCarlo Flythe, who lost health coverage for his family when he was laid off almost three years ago. "It's going to be great. You know, no worries (about) the bills. We are going to go ahead and pay our co-pay and be alright."


Flythe, a diabetic, said he checked into buying a policy for his family, but he couldn't afford it. He recently landed another job, but the new benefits haven't kicked in yet.

"I worry day to day, honestly," he said. "I pray to make sure my child or my wife don't' get sick because, if they go to the hospital, we are looking at a couple of thousand (dollars in bills)."

Flythe was among the patients Monday at the Walltown Clinic, a joint program of Duke University and Lincoln Community Health Center that serves the low-income neighborhoods near Duke's campus. The clinic serves 3,000 to 4,000 patients a year – 80 percent don't have health insurance – and charges co-pays based on what patients can afford.

"People will come in and say, 'I suddenly don't have a job. I've lost my insurance. Can you help me?'" said Kaity Granda, a physician's assistant at the clinic.

Norman Rucker said he hasn't had health insurance in almost 10 years because his employers haven't offered it.

"I'm not a person who gets sick a lot, so I didn't think I'd need any medicine," said Rucker, who racked up about $100,000 in hospital bills over that period by going to the emergency room whenever he needed care. "I'm trying to pay them off. Collection agencies call me all the time."

Rucker's wife has insurance, but the couple couldn't afford to put him on the policy. Now, he's excited he may also have coverage because of health care reform.

"It'll make the world better. It'll make us all better, actually," he said.

This is the stupidity of too many Americans who thing that Uncle Sam is actually gonna pay for thier healthcare. They think that thier insureance is either gonna be free, or so low cost as not to be an issue. Someone forgot to tell them that there was no requirement in the bill that insurance be cheap.

And as for the one guy, how the hell do you rack up over $100k in emergency room fees if you don't get sick very often?

[Cagliostro]

And as for the one guy, how the hell do you rack up over $100k in emergency room fees if you don't get sick very often?

Have a birth with complications.

[Rawedge Rim]

And as for the one guy, how the hell do you rack up over $100k in emergency room fees if you don't get sick very often?

Have a birth with complications.

Reckon not having a womb, ueterous, and other hardware would be considered a birth with complications, besides my obvious homophobic tendecies

[finn]

Someone tell me when we get to the bit when the chimps dress up and have a tea party and then the clowns come on....I like that bit, its funny.

musted have missed something there, or I'm just a bit less than brilliant today

It just reminded me of the circus a bit with people running around and falling over and doing slapstick whilst a group of chimps dressed like people sat civilly and took tea. The legislative processes of the US seem similarly bizare with States now challenging constitutionality and senators busy with lawyers trying to find ways around what I thought was a democratic procedure (and I was a bit bored and no-one was saying anything in here!).

I must say here that I think it unwise for the US to adopt this now, politically it only seems to heighten and consolidate the divided nature of America, socially I think the people who need this will get screwed somewhere along the way and economically I don't think you can afford it.

Nonetheless I think the excisting system is worse than the pram the above clowns have, with different sized wheels, holes in the carriage and bits and pieces falling off everywhere, however, worse than this is the fact that the pram is pushed by those whose primary concern is profit not care. Equally disturbing to me is the acceptance of this as not only adequate, but a better way than other options which might include rather than exclude, the best part of a fifth of the population.

Healthcare is the issue, but it seems to me that there is an underlying agenda for social reform. I think it highly unlikely that this issue will do little more harden the resolve of those who wish to maintain the status quo and probably harm that agenda in the process. Sun Tsu said "pick your battles" ........... this one might have been better fought at another time on different terrain; a loss of 10,000 men on each side with one man standing at the end is technically a win, but........

[sindatur]

Someone tell me when we get to the bit when the chimps dress up and have a tea party and then the clowns come on....I like that bit, its funny.

musted have missed something there, or I'm just a bit less than brilliant today

It just reminded me of the circus a bit with people running around and falling over and doing slapstick whilst a group of chimps dressed like people sat civilly and took tea. The legislative processes of the US seem similarly bizare with States now challenging constitutionality and senators busy with lawyers trying to find ways around what I thought was a democratic procedure (and I was a bit bored and no-one was saying anything in here!).

I must say here that I think it unwise for the US to adopt this now, politically it only seems to heighten and consolidate the divided nature of America, socially I think the people who need this will get screwed somewhere along the way and economically I don't think you can afford it.

Nonetheless I think the excisting system is worse than the pram the above clowns have, with different sized wheels, holes in the carriage and bits and pieces falling off everywhere, however, worse than this is the fact that the pram is pushed by those whose primary concern is profit not care. Equally disturbing to me is the acceptance of this as not only adequate, but a better way than other options which might include rather than exclude, the best part of a fifth of the population.

Healthcare is the issue, but it seems to me that there is an underlying agenda for social reform. I think it highly unlikely that this issue will do little more harden the resolve of those who wish to maintain the status quo and probably harm that agenda in the process. Sun Tsu said "pick your battles" ........... this one might have been better fought at another time on different terrain; a loss of 10,000 men on each side with one man standing at the end is technically a win, but........

Actually, it's less than 1/10th of the population, we have over 300Million population and only 23Million uninsured (35 Million included Illegal Immigrants) and of those 23Million, probably half are students or young and healthy that would choose not to get insurance (some actually do choose not to, some would choose not to even if they could afford it), because they don't feel they need it and also folks like Z-thustra who prefer to use HSAs or pay cash for their infrequent medical needs.

[finn]

If that's so I stand corrected Sin, however I'd heard (or seen somewhere) the figure 56 million quoted.

[sindatur]

If that's so I stand corrected Sin, however I'd heard (or seen somewhere) the figure 56 million quoted.

56M...Really? First they said 47M, then they backed it off to to 35M, and now, when you take out the Illegal Immigrants you apparently get to 23M. However, with the Unemployment and people rolling their spending back and making tough decisions to gain savings for the posible further decline to come, I wouldn't be surprised if we're up above 25 Million again, and I wouldn't fall off my chair if someone showed even more.

[finn]

What's it they say about lies, damned lies and statistics?

In a shit-fight like this I'd guess there will be all sorts of figures quoted....this is the one I happened to see that stuck in the brain-box.

Nonetheless, the figures are still a bit incidental imo to a country that embodies elements of the greatest level of civilisation mankind has ever achieved side by side with genuine poverty and hardship for even by your estimates, a group of peopl who number more that the entire population of Australia.

[Cybrweez]

Regardless of how many can't afford it (which is never mentioned, its always uninsured, b/c that bigger number looks better), its still expensive for those who do have it. And the great thing about this massive piece of crap is that it doesn't do much for that at all. Well, it most likely will raise costs.

[SoulBiter]

EXACTLY!

This bill does relatively nothing to attack the root cause which is cost of healthcare which is directly proportional to the cost of healt insurance. If you could significantly lower healthcare costs, the cost of health insurance would decrease and then more people could afford to pay for it, more employers could afford to shoulder part of the burden, etc etc.

Instead all we have done is subsidized the costs of healthcare by instituting more taxes. The costs will continue to rise which means they will need new sources of revenue (taxes) to pay for the increased costs.

[Zarathustra]

Nonetheless I think the excisting system is worse than the pram the above clowns have, with different sized wheels, holes in the carriage and bits and pieces falling off everywhere, however, worse than this is the fact that the pram is pushed by those whose primary concern is profit not care. Equally disturbing to me is the acceptance of this as not only adequate, but a better way than other options which might include rather than exclude, the best part of a fifth of the population.

What are you talking about? The health insurance industry only makes 2.2% in profit!!

This system doesn't exclude a fifth of the population. Many in our population are young people who worry more about their Friday night beer fund more than they worry about insurance. Many (12 million) are illegal aliens. Many are already eligible for the massive safety net we already provide, but don't take advantage of it. Many are in between jobs and only go for a short time without insurance. And many don't know they can insure their families for less than a cable bill or cigarettes, like I do, with an HSA. I've given the numbers and links before: there are only about 1-2 million was are chronically without insurance. This is less than 1%, not a fifth. You don't need a 2.5 trillion dollar government takeover to insure them.

Healthcare is the issue, but it seems to me that there is an underlying agenda for social reform. I think it highly unlikely that this issue will do little more harden the resolve of those who wish to maintain the status quo and probably harm that agenda in the process.

You're right that it's about social reform. It's about expanding the government and turning America into a European socialist style country. But you're wrong to say that anyone wants to maintain the status quo. This is a false choice between Dem reform and doing nothing. It's also a straw man depiction of the opposition.

[Avatar]

I read on another board that this bill is actually quite similar to one that Republicans presented during the Clinton admin. That true?

Also notice it apparently mandates that restuarant chains with more than 20 locations will by law be required to show calorie counts for each menu item, on the menu itself. (That feels like the hand of Mrs Obama to me actually. )

--A

[Zarathustra]

I read on another board that this bill is actually quite similar to one that Republicans presented during the Clinton admin. That true?
--A

Absolutely not. This is the first time in U.S. history that our government has made it illegal for you to be a citizen without purchasing a private sector commodity, whether you want it or can afford it.

Charles Krauthammer made an excellent point last night on O'Reilly. He said that the reason the Dems in Congress aren't upset about losing the public option is because Obama finally got it through their thick skulls that they don't need the public option; the private insurance companies are going to be run by and controlled by the government. They will BE the public option.

And now it suddenly makes sense why the government is forcing us to buy their product. My fear has been that the Dems' plan will run the private insurance companies out of business. But it's actually much more clever than that: the private insurance companies will incrementally become controlled by the government so that they'll be like GM. A "private" company which the government controls.

And more:

Krauthammer Predicts European-Style VAT Tax
Syndicated columnist points to Deficit Reduction Commission as impetus national sales tax that will fund ObamaCare.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/23/2010 8:01:39 AM



Remember when it was the liberals that considered the potential of a value added tax or VAT in the United States? More and more, conservatives are starting to express their concerns about it becoming a reality.



The VAT is a consumption tax that is placed on a product whenever value is added at a stage of production and at final sale. For example, as Investopedia.com explains, “When a television is built by a company in Europe the manufacturer is charged a VAT on all of the supplies they purchase for producing the television. Once the television reaches the shelf, the consumer who purchases it must pay the VAT that applies to him or her.”



Now that health care reform has actually been passed by Congress, the options of stopping it are growing more and more limited. According to syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, this expensive unfunded liability won’t likely be undone in the Supreme Court.



“The first question is, will the courts act on this? I think there is a very good case, a very strong case you can make that the Commerce clause has never been used to force an individual to engage a contract with a private institution, i.e. an insurance company here,” Krauthammer said on FNC’s March 22 “Special Report with Brett Baier.” “Although – so I think there is a strong case. But I cannot imagine that the courts will overturn a piece of legislation this large. So, just as a practical prediction on this, I think it's unlikely, although I would like to see Justice [Samuel] Alito write the overturning opinion.”



Therefore, Krauthammer contends this liability will lead to the federal government instituting a VAT for the first time in the United States.



“But then I think there is a larger issue here,” Krauthammer said. “I think ultimately Obama understands that he has just added an unbelievably large entitlement on to a country drowning in debt. He is not stupid. I think he is anticipated this, and I think he is, from the beginning, had a plan and the plan is he is going to use the Deficit Reduction Commission, which will report only after November, and I'm absolutely sure it will recommend something new in American history, a national sales tax which is called a VAT in Europe.”



Krauthammer suggested liberals believe this is how to fund an entitlement state and not have the public notice, as would be the case with income taxes. And this will be an issue for the 2012 presidential election.



“All the Europeans who have the kind of entitlements America is now going to have, health care and all the others, need the VAT, because it's a gusher of income for the government,” Krauthammer continued. “And once you have that, even very small levels – a percent or two of a national sales tax – that's how the liberals think they will be able to fund this new very expanded entitlement state. It's the way it's done in Europe. It's going to have to be done here. And that, I think, is going to be the argument in the president's election of 2012.”



As Chris Edwards pointed out for Cato @ Liberty last year, a VAT wouldn’t be a cure-all. Instead, this would encourage more spending and higher tax rates, causing an impediment to U.S. economic growth.



“In sum, a VAT would not solve our deficit problems because Congress would simply boost its spending even higher, as happened in Europe as VAT rates increased over time,” Edwards wrote. “Also, a VAT is not needed to cut the corporate income tax rate because a corporate rate cut would be self-financing over the long-term as tax avoidance fell and economic growth increased.”

www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/ ... 75843.aspx

[Avatar]

I read on another board that this bill is actually quite similar to one that Republicans presented during the Clinton admin. That true?
--A

Absolutely not. This is the first time in U.S. history that our government has made it illegal for you to be a citizen without purchasing a private sector commodity, whether you want it or can afford it.

What about car insurance? Don't y'all have to have that?

--A

[Zarathustra]

I read on another board that this bill is actually quite similar to one that Republicans presented during the Clinton admin. That true?
--A

Absolutely not. This is the first time in U.S. history that our government has made it illegal for you to be a citizen without purchasing a private sector commodity, whether you want it or can afford it.

What about car insurance? Don't y'all have to have that?

--A

Yes, if you choose to own a car. It's a requirement you must fulfill in order to participate in a regulated activity that can potentially harm others. Driving is a privilege, not a right, nor a condition of being a U.S. citizen.

This is forcing you to buy something simply because you exist.

[finn]

Nonetheless I think the excisting system is worse than the pram the above clowns have, with different sized wheels, holes in the carriage and bits and pieces falling off everywhere, however, worse than this is the fact that the pram is pushed by those whose primary concern is profit not care. Equally disturbing to me is the acceptance of this as not only adequate, but a better way than other options which might include rather than exclude, the best part of a fifth of the population.

What are you talking about? The health insurance industry only makes 2.2% in profit!!

This system doesn't exclude a fifth of the population. Many in our population are young people who worry more about their Friday night beer fund more than they worry about insurance. Many (12 million) are illegal aliens. Many are already eligible for the massive safety net we already provide, but don't take advantage of it. Many are in between jobs and only go for a short time without insurance. And many don't know they can insure their families for less than a cable bill or cigarettes, like I do, with an HSA. I've given the numbers and links before: there are only about 1-2 million was are chronically without insurance. This is less than 1%, not a fifth. You don't need a 2.5 trillion dollar government takeover to insure them.

Healthcare is the issue, but it seems to me that there is an underlying agenda for social reform. I think it highly unlikely that this issue will do little more harden the resolve of those who wish to maintain the status quo and probably harm that agenda in the process.

You're right that it's about social reform. It's about expanding the government and turning America into a European socialist style country. But you're wrong to say that anyone wants to maintain the status quo. This is a false choice between Dem reform and doing nothing. It's also a straw man depiction of the opposition.

2.2% ????? Care to substantiate that........shareholders could put their money in a bank and get a better return or is that just the figures during the GFC or figs adjusted for something or other? Or perhaps you are suggesting there is some sort of philanthropic largesse making them keep artificially low profits? You might also like to include the huge costs of the actual service provision which is part of that supply chain.

Do you realise that there are a lot of people that are not as disciplined and as well schooled in personal domestic fiscal conservatism as the family Z? What about them, what would you suggest? You say the system doesn't exclude people but what are you saying? They exclude themselves? The freedom to be stupid is as much a part of your constitutional rights as any other freedom, doesn't disallowing levels of healthcare for these people impinge on that freedom to be unwise? Following this logic you could save a few bucks by removing fences and safety barriers and signposts.

Is it not better to see and accept that society is uneven, the exceptionally gifted and the far less gifted making up the extremes; did the founding fathers intend for the "a-bit-dumbs" to find themselves facing a future where they could not keep themselves healthy if struck with misfortune? What about the families whose primary income earner loses their job and accompanying benefits due to the recklessness of those who caused the GFC, many of whom saw little personal downside? Are they amongst the unwise because they cannot afford to take out insurance

Your figures are as out of kilter as possibly the 56million are: see reference above to lies, damned lies and statistics.

As for the status quo, is there an alternative reform? Is there an alternative social agenda? The conservative movement is by nature and definition about maintaining the status quo. It is not a false choice if there is no alternative choice.

By the way there are a lot of things you are forced to buy simply because you exist, not least of which is the long list of expensive Obstetric needs from the moment you arrive on the planet......assuming you have the proper insurance.

[Zarathustra]

2.2% ????? Care to substantiate that........

CNNMoney.com They're ranked 35th in the Fortune 500.

Do you realise that there are a lot of people that are not as disciplined and as well schooled in personal domestic fiscal conservatism as the family Z? What about them, what would you suggest?

Anything but taking my money would be fine. If they're too uninformed to save a buck, that's no excuse to take mine. Their ignorance isn't my fault.

Following this logic you could save a few bucks by removing fences and safety barriers and signposts.

We're not talking about a few bucks. We're talking trillions of dollars for a brand new entitlement.

What about the families whose primary income earner loses their job and accompanying benefits due to the recklessness of those who caused the GFC, many of whom saw little personal downside? Are they amongst the unwise because they cannot afford to take out insurance

If they have lost their job, they're going to have a lot more to worry about than health insurance. Like food. And the mortgage. Am I supposed to pay for that, too?

BTW, I think insurance should be portable so you don't lose it when you lose your job. That was a McCain idea, too.

As for the status quo, is there an alternative reform? Is there an alternative social agenda? The conservative movement is by nature and definition about maintaining the status quo. It is not a false choice if there is no alternative choice.

Yes, there are lots of alternatives. I've listed many. No, there's no alternative social agenda. There is an alternative economic agenda: free market capitalism. The only social agenda there is what this country was founded on . . . like liberty and individual rights (like right to property). We do not want to remake society. I don't think that's government's job. Societies ought to be free to arrange themselves how they see fit, rather than 1/millionth of the population (our leaders) dictating a policy that the majority doesn't want.

By the way there are a lot of things you are forced to buy simply because you exist, not least of which is the long list of expensive Obstetric needs from the moment you arrive on the planet......assuming you have the proper insurance.

No, there is absolutely nothing you're forced to buy. You can have a baby in your home, or in a field. People have done it for millions of years. But even if you're talking about something like food, this is a necessity given to us by biology, not by bureaucracy.

[finn]

2.2% ????? Care to substantiate that........

CNNMoney.com They're ranked 35th in the Fortune 500..

Yes by return on revenue, but as a return on equity they do a bit better at 11.1%. Pharmaceuticals also do pretty well at 23% and Medical Products and Equipment at 21.2%. Then there's Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services at 17.3% and Health Care: Medical Facilities at 16.1%.

However focussing solely on just the Return on Revenue for Health Care: Medical Facilities you provided in your link: the actual figures represented are $7.956 Billion on revenues of $264.4 Billion .... that's just for the top 10 ranked companies.

Under the "Bang for your Buck" tab, Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care does pretty well giving a return of 3.91 on dollars of equity and meds companies ranked 2nd.

These guys are not crying poor especially when the distribution to the other related medical companies and the profits they make are taken into account. Now you might argue that doesn't count because they are different entities, but check the majority shareholdings!

What about the families whose primary income earner loses their job and accompanying benefits due to the recklessness of those who caused the GFC, many of whom saw little personal downside? Are they amongst the unwise because they cannot afford to take out insurance

If they have lost their job, they're going to have a lot more to worry about than health insurance. Like food. And the mortgage. Am I supposed to pay for that, too?

Isn't mutual assistance a part of any society, my good Samaritan?

BTW, I think insurance should be portable so you don't lose it when you lose your job. That was a McCain idea, too.

I hadn't heard that, but I agree; it's an excellent idea.

]By the way there are a lot of things you are forced to buy simply because you exist, not least of which is the long list of expensive Obstetric needs from the moment you arrive on the planet......assuming you have the proper insurance.

No, there is absolutely nothing you're forced to buy. You can have a baby in your home, or in a field. People have done it for millions of years.

So give those who can afford it or who are smart a head start in life? Great for those born into comfort, they get the best of care and get a head start on those who through no fault of their own can only manage to be born in a field and get no obstetric care, probably no early education or upper level socialisation. What do you have there if not an institutionalised class system based upon socio-economics, not an equal chance and a fair go for all? I thought that was what America was all about!

But even if you're talking about something like food, this is a necessity given to us by biology, not by bureaucracy.

Fair enough, point taken on that.