Health-Care bill drafted by Democrats & Obama to include $600 BILLION in TAX INCREASES...

[ninjallamafromhell]

Originally Posted by LamarOwnsem

Why don't we push to reduce (or even eliminate, although a huge stretch) the cost of medical school tuition, instead? That way, doctors won't have to charge as outrageously to pay off their debt, making health care more affordable.

That has little to nothing to do with the problem in health care.

 

[ralf loran]

There are two subjects I don't want to be preached about, that's religion and politics.

You have your beliefs and I have mine and you're not going to sway me either way, so don't waste your time.

 

[essential1]

Well there is 2 different types of health care ideas floating around Single Payer (like Canada), Public Option (people choose between government health care orprivate health care.) They do not specify what plan that is. So Obama could be on the cheaper side. And those who didn't think this will cost billions#!$%%. Bad Health care costs us billions a year anyways so why not spend billions to fix the ship. Oh yeah that's right this is America where things neverneed to be changed, fixed or maintained.

And Charlie Rangle is not the biggest fan of Obama... So he could be saying things for personal grudge who knows (it is politics btw)

So cool your jets sir...

 

[craftsy21]

Even if you're upset about the government spending this money... it's funny where extreme left and right people differ...

The righties had no problem dropping this sort of money when it was to protect us against these intangible forces that sought to do evil against us... whilethe lefties were pitching a fit about innocent civilian lives and the military-industrial complex benefiting those making the decisions to goto war or not.

Now you get the righties crying about our government trying to protect us from REAL issues like disease and injuries, and they all of a sudden become fiscallyconservative again

Even if you don't agree with the left side of things - you have to admit, to back the current GOP leadership and talking heads means to be a selfish,blood-thirsty individual. These people would step all over each other, let alone the poor and hungry, to further themselves even one extra dollar.

 

[essential1]

Craftsy21 wrote:

---

Even if you're upset about the government spending this money... it's funny where extreme left and right people differ...

The righties had no problem dropping this sort of money when it was to protect us against these intangible forces that sought to do evil against us... while the lefties were pitching a fit about innocent civilian lives and the military-industrial complex benefiting those making the decisions to goto war or not.

Now you get the righties crying about our government trying to protect us from REAL issues like disease and injuries, and they all of a sudden become fiscally conservative again

Even if you don't agree with the left side of things - you have to admit, to back the current GOP leadership and talking heads means to be a selfish, blood-thirsty individual. These people would step all over each other, let alone the poor and hungry, to further themselves even one extra dollar.

so I can beat them to their absurd argument G.W. Bush was a liberal..

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by tmukg21

Originally Posted by Mangudai954

These next some odd years are going to be really interesting.

Yall make it sound like 1984 is a coming

Unless you're poor or uber rich it's gonna get disgusting.

Soooooo.......go for broke.

Let me qualify it.

If you're poor and know how to work the system. *

Middle class gets the shaft all the time throughout history. After all, they are the greatest competition for the rich.
The poor don't pay taxes and therefore can't be really forced to pay more. The uber rich don't pay their share because, well, they can do whatever the !%+* they want. They've got hoards of lawyers which scares the lackey social climbing government bureaucrats since they rather pick on the middle class which doesn't have money for lawyers ans can be scared into doing practically anything.

So.....

Unless you're poor or uber rich it's gonna get disgusting.

the problem with that is whenever a politician even tries to touch the ubber rich, people scream bloddy murder, trying to protect the rich when the rich nevertry to protect anyone but themself.

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Well there is 2 different types of health care ideas floating around Single Payer (like Canada), Public Option (people choose between government health care or private health care.) They do not specify what plan that is. So Obama could be on the cheaper side. And those who didn't think this will cost billions #!$%%. Bad Health care costs us billions a year anyways so why not spend billions to fix the ship. Oh yeah that's right this is America where things never need to be changed, fixed or maintained.

And Charlie Rangle is not the biggest fan of Obama... So he could be saying things for personal grudge who knows (it is politics btw)

So cool your jets sir...

In reality there are minimal differences between single payer and public option health care. Look up TennCare. It tried to do on the state levelwhat Obama is trying to do on the National level and failed miserably. Every one will be taxed in order to fund this program why would any one want to spendextra money for private insurance? Obama is not attacking the issue at its roots. If you want to cut health care costs you should research new technologiesthat cut costs and modernize existing medical infrastructure.

your crazy if you believe that Charlie Rangle is stretching the truth because of a personal grudge. The bill is in the house right now that is where he isgetting this info from.

 

[air justinxi]

This is not gonna end well, here or for The United States. The bomb is ticking.

 

[frankthekingdtx]

crazy but its about time something gets changed,i havent been able to get sick because i cant afford it.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Originally Posted by Essential1

Well there is 2 different types of health care ideas floating around Single Payer (like Canada), Public Option (people choose between government health care or private health care.) They do not specify what plan that is. So Obama could be on the cheaper side. And those who didn't think this will cost billions #!$%%. Bad Health care costs us billions a year anyways so why not spend billions to fix the ship. Oh yeah that's right this is America where things never need to be changed, fixed or maintained.

And Charlie Rangle is not the biggest fan of Obama... So he could be saying things for personal grudge who knows (it is politics btw)

So cool your jets sir...

In reality there are minimal differences between single payer and public option health care. Look up TennCare. It tried to do on the state level what Obama is trying to do on the National level and failed miserably. Every one will be taxed in order to fund this program why would any one want to spend extra money for private insurance? Obama is not attacking the issue at its roots. If you want to cut health care costs you should research new technologies that cut costs and modernize existing medical infrastructure.

your crazy if you believe that Charlie Rangle is stretching the truth because of a personal grudge. The bill is in the house right now that is where he is getting this info from.

If you want to cut health care costs look no further than the health care companies...


republicans lie all the time to uphold personal grudges, so don't think democrats never do it either. At a much lesser frequency but they still do it.That's why they say politics is a dirty game.

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Essential1

If you want to cut health care costs look no further than the health care companies...


republicans lie all the time to uphold personal grudges, so don't think democrats never do it either. At a much lesser frequency but they still do it. That's why they say politics is a dirty game.

If you cut health cost at the root level (doctor to patient interaction) insurance companies will follow suit by dropping their prices.Maintaining a high level of health care on the National or State scale has proved to be unsustainable in many of the places where its been applied.

Look man just google the bill and see it for your self. I dont see why your bringing partisanship into this. Obama has instated pay as you go policies ontocongress. They cant spend money if they don't present ways to cut spending or increase taxes to cover the costs of the program. I dont even think theseproposed tax increase will be enough long term.

 

[dunkaruu]

I would rather pay 600 billion in taxes that go towards health care than spend that same money on war.

 

[ooiron manoo]

I remember the good old days when $600B seemed like a lot of money. Now, fast forward to a year later and every spending bill the congress/ president puts out is $600-700B. Why must I carry the burden for the people who have chosen to live an unhealthy lifestyle? Most diseases now days are self inflicted (obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.) Why wouldn't the government give tax breaks to people who open a health savings account, or purchase their own insurance? The answer... giving out money gets more votes than encouraging people to save their own.

Not everyone has the luxury of an employer offering health benefits. Getting them on your own is expensive, and sometimes you have to pick and choose what will be covered. So even though you may have bought your own health insurance, it is possible to come down with something that is not covered.

One of the many problems with the US health care system is that it is more costly since people avoid the hospital, due to it's high cost. Most people wait until it is too late, just because they fear the cost.

Hell, it happened to me. I didn't have health care, hell I don't have health care right now. It is not affordable. Moving on, when I was in college, my appendix ruptured. Last I heard, that was not a "self inflicted" disease. I did not choose for my appendix to rupture, it happens. Even though, I had pain in my abdominal area, and I was vomiting. I refused to go to the hospital, chose the Pepto Bismol route. I ate Tommy's the night before, figured I had food poisoning

. Two days later, I had a high fever...time to hit the ER. Had test done, doc told me that my appendix was on the verge of bursting, needed surgery ASAP.

Get out of the hospital after a 4 night stay. I get slammed with a $40,000 hospital bill. My jaw dropped. That was from the hospital, not counting the nurse that did a Urine test ($140,

) or the Xray tech ($800). Luckily, I got the $40,000 covered because I was a college student, and our school covers emergency health issues through our fees. I still had to pay out of pocket for the Urine Test and the XRay Tech.

Keep in mind, that I was working 30+ hours for LAUSD, but since I was a non-classified employee, in other words "part time" (I ran an after school playground program), I did not have health coverage.

I'm all for Univeral Health Care for US Citizens, even if it means higher taxes. It works in other places. If I would have been stuck with that 40K bill, don't know what I would have done,

 

[tbone95860]

Originally Posted by eNPHAN

will i be paying less than $190 a month? (what i currently pay for ins)

if so, i'm down.

And getting a worse overall health care with longer lines.... should be great.

Originally Posted by rickybadman

T-Bone the bill is not even out yet, you are jumping the gun, this will not automatically make everyone go "Obama is ruining this country", Also what do you think the odds of you not taking a "L" in this thread, do you approve of my font.

1. I could care less if I take a "L" in this thread
2. I could care less about your font

Thanks for caring about my opinion though

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

what worries me more is the proposal to tax health benefits.

I'll be sending a note to my senators that they'll lose my vote if they vote yes for it.

Yes.... good point Dirty

Originally Posted by MisterP0315

OBAMA...

Cool?

Originally Posted by tmukg21

Originally Posted by CJ863

Jesus H. Christ....

aka Obama (to masses)

Originally Posted by M16

Word, the money was better spent looking for WMD's in Iraq.

Cuz universal health care would be better health care then now?
Word.....
Yeah how about NO

Originally Posted by crcballer55

I remember the good old days when $600B seemed like a lot of money. Now, fast forward to a year later and every spending bill the congress/ president puts out is $600-700B. Why must I carry the burden for the people who have chosen to live an unhealthy lifestyle? Most diseases now days are self inflicted (obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.) Why wouldn't the government give tax breaks to people who open a health savings account, or purchase their own insurance? The answer... giving out money gets more votes than encouraging people to save their own.

Some good points

Originally Posted by kash55

If you want government health care you need to pay taxes. That's how the rest of the world does it.

America isn't the rest of the world buddy

Originally Posted by dunkaruu

I would rather pay 600 billion in taxes that go towards health care than spend that same money on war.

On this version of health care....
No you wouldn't
Do some research...
And you'll come to the conclusion you were mistaken

 

[daglove20]

Also consider as of today many patients cannot get health insurance because health insurance companies will not insure them due to their conditions. Alsohealth care related costs are among the leaders for bankruptcy in the U.S. I just started my rotations and there are a few uninsured patients who justdidn't have their priorities straight and bought cars instead of health insurance but they are many older people who cannot afford or even eligible forinsurance and suffer because of it. I personally would not mind paying extra in taxes because really, as taxpayers we are footing the medical bills anyways forthose who can't pay. And it is also sad seeing older people with dementia or disabilities literally kicked from place to place since nobody wants to beresponsible for their cost. I'm for universal health care and personally speaking the majority of the professionals I work with feel the same. However barein mind I've only done rotations in public hospitals so I'm sure I would get mixed opinions from private physicians etc. since some of them may have totake a pay cut.

 

[essential1]

TBONE95860 wrote:

---

On this version of health care....
No you wouldn't
Do some research...
And you'll come to the conclusion you were mistaken

Ok I gave you props on your Harvard acceptance in the Fox Shep Smith thread but that is it. I got it you think you are 100% right all the time,every disagreement is always 100% wrong.. Do your own research, people actually do want health care from the government. Gee willikers. How about that? Justbecause people do research doesn't mean they will always come out on your side.. Hell I think you pushed him to the other side..

Also once again getting into Harvard is not a measure of intelligence.. If you work real hard and study an hour a night you will get 3.5 gpa or highSAT's.. blah blah.. people can work really hard and get good grades to get accepted into Harvard. Doesn't even mean they grasp intelligence it showsthey can study and do the work they are supposed to do. So all in all average intelligence can get into Harvard with effort. But Congrats on the good effort..


Go look for more Obama news clippings (I'm starting to think you have a scrapbook or the life size poster of him) so you can type in big font. So peoplecan respond in big font because that gimmick has become very funny.

Also it makes you look like you are bankrupt of ideas, so you have to type in big font to get noticed and stick in people's head. You may not think so butit is what people think.

 

[domnator27]

better spending money domestically than on a "developing nation"

 

[tbone95860]

I'll tell you one thing..... this issue is about to be and becoming the Conservative and Republican movements #1 priority to stop and dealwith

So this issue is about to get HOT over the coming weeks

Unfortunately for Obama.... the #'s on support for a state run health care have been decreasing

 

[rexanglorum]

wawaweewa wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Dirtylicious wrote:

---

but because they would be paying a higher deductible from their own account, there would be a greater incentive to use medicine more sparingly and to emphasize prevention.

dubious

Only a universe where streams and demand curves flow upward.


Actually a slightly longer explanation will illuminate how premium, low or no deductible insurance holders heavily consume health care. If you paid a flat rate, or if your employer on your behalf, of 300 per month to a grocery store and in exchange you could take what ever you want, the value of what you consume will probably be higher than the pay you go system at grocery stores today.

When someone pays a flat rate and then, later on pays a zero or near zero price for a good or service they will almost always try to get their money's worth. This is why most planned expenses do not operate on this system. Insurance is for events you do not want to happen like a car crash, a house fire, a robbery or emergency and/or very expensive hospital stays and surgeries, unplanned health events. Insurance is supposed to be a way to avert catastrophic financial loss. Unfortunately the premium, low or no deductible insurance does not just cover the emergency or otherwise unplanned events, it covers elective and planned events.

A good plan is to change the tax incentive to have employers offer higher deductible insurance and couple that with tax sheltered health savings accounts, similar to a 401k, with a tax incentive for employers to match or make contributions of their own. This combination of higher deductible insurance along with these accounts and the prospect of individuals being allowed to withdraw, tax free, funds that are 10-20 years old, would reduce health care consumption, a the margins.

Because the supply of health care is very inelastic, even a slight reduction in demand by full coverage holders, would greatly reduce the price of medical and health care. That makes it more affordable and accessible, without government having to spend or tax a dime.





We live in the real world.
Not in text book land.

Once one takes fraud, criminal acts, corruption, imperfect information , and about 1 billion+ more negative externalities into account do those graphs and theories change?
Even a tiny bit? .maybe?



People buy more at zero price then at a price that is well above zero, that is the real world. If you had to pay a 100k for every one of your cute little,lectures on how street smart you are, I would have to read less lectures by someone who has shown a failure to even understand the various theories that heclaims to be so good at taking apart.

Economic theory is an abstraction, it is like a road map, it is not meant to account for every detail. It is, however, a basic set of assumptions which haveshown themselves to be true in all or nearly all situations. The way you confused speculation with demand (they are the same things) and just claimed that"fraud, criminal acts, corruption, imperfect information , and about 1 billion+ more negative externalities" cause demand curves to slope upward, isproof that you should at least learn the theories which you claim that you have personally advanced so far beyond.

 

[dirtylicious]

A good plan is to change the tax incentive to have employers offer higher deductible insurance and couple that with tax sheltered health savings accounts, similar to a 401k, with a tax incentive for employers to match or make contributions of their own. This combination of higher deductible insurance along with these accounts and the prospect of individuals being allowed to withdraw, tax free, funds that are 10-20 years old, would reduce health care consumption, a the margins.
and what about those individuals who get sick who don't have a high value HSA (of funds that are 10-20 yrs old)?.

HSA's are good.. just not for everyone.

 

[emmanuel goldstein]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum



Economic theory is an abstraction, it is like a road map, it is not meant to account for every detail. It is, however, a basic set of assumptions which have shown themselves to be true in all or nearly all situations. The way you confused speculation with demand (they are the same things) and just claimed that "fraud, criminal acts, corruption, imperfect information , and about 1 billion+ more negative externalities" cause demand curves to slope upward, is proof that you should at least learn the theories which you claim that you have personally advanced so far beyond.

this right here is what people are not understanding ... we cant look to history and theory for EXACT answers to our problems today ... but we canlook for guidance ... the current administration has chosen to look for a quick fix, which inherently cant be sustained ...

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

I remember the good old days when $600B seemed like a lot of money. Now, fast forward to a year later and every spending bill the congress/ president puts out is $600-700B. Why must I carry the burden for the people who have chosen to live an unhealthy lifestyle? Most diseases now days are self inflicted (obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.) Why wouldn't the government give tax breaks to people who open a health savings account, or purchase their own insurance? The answer... giving out money gets more votes than encouraging people to save their own.

I do not like the idea of NEEDING employers to offer health insurance just to afford it. There should absolutely be catastrophic insurancecoverage offered so that someone will not be burdened with that kind of financial debt because their body had something unpreventable happen. Tumors,tonsillitis, broken bones, etc. are all unpreventable things that are a part of life. These should by no means be a reason why a person should be burdened bythe mountains of debt after the physical problem is fixed.

What I'm saying is that we should follow the pre-medicare model when you could actually afford to have your family doctor come to your house for basictreatment and not have to worry about who was going to take you, or how much it would cost.

With the current model, the doctor who actually sees you only gets 20% of what you pay and the rest goes towards red tape and the assistants who process thepaperwork. If we want to take a major step forward in health care, let's automate the system and get the records digitized so that the doctor can searchtheir database for your record rather than having paper charts that are illegible and need filing cabinets to store. Let's have the prescription sent viaemail to the pharmacy so that there are no problems reading the doctor's handwriting. Let's let the patients have their own record so they can take itto whichever hospital they want to go to and not worry about "doctor patient privacy".

 

[emmanuel goldstein]

yeah lets make everyones health care information digitized for all the world to see! ... ... ... not worry about doctor patient privacy?! that would work in anunbiased, perfect world where the only flower that grew was roses ...

 

[lifelessons]

wait will this give illegal citizens health care?????

if so i'm def against it....

 

[emmanuel goldstein]

this will give everyone who walks into a hospital or doctors office health care ... this is the biggest joke of the !##$$*! year ... seriously im not even onsome nice $+#+ anymore *!*% obama hes a !##$$*! idiot ...