PDA

View Full Version : EVERYONE agreed health reform was needed, not everyone is happy with the bill passed.



Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 06:17 PM
We've made one large step towards fixing the problem, many people, possibly most, (including myself, I have BIG problems with this bill) have major problems with the legislation that was passed. However, the bill passed does include many good changes (along with possible problems).

Is the better idea to attempt to repeal or starve the bill that was passed and go back to where we were (which everyone agreed was a bad place that needed to be fixed)? OR is the better idea to, now that we have a bill, to continue working on it, adjusting it, and adding new legislation to patch any problems in the bill as well as any unintended problems that may come in the future?

Because almost everybody agreed that we needed SOME reform, (and most people supported the new rules on pre-existing conditions, extending children's coverage, incentivizing students to go into the health field), does it make sense to throw out the baby with the bath water by trying to go back in time?

I'm of the mindset that we should look at where we are now, and see how we can improve upon it, rather than wishing to go back in time and redo history which is impossible.

Perhaps others here disagree?

Kay
04-25-2010, 06:56 PM
OR is the better idea to, now that we have a bill, to continue working on it, adjusting it, and adding new legislation to patch any problems in the bill as well as any unintended problems that may come in the future?

Yeah right, like we did the tax code. Take a hideously bad thing and make it grow
and grow with a little patch here and a little exemption there till you have an even
worse beast than you had to start with.

My vote is repeal it, drop all government restrictions in the health care industry and
let the free market place thrive for insurance companies, doctors and patients.

Sonnabend
04-25-2010, 07:17 PM
ncentivizing students to go into the health field)

More people will leave, not stay. Bet on it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:20 PM
More people will leave, not stay. Bet on it.

Then steps can be made to fix it. Pay raises for general practitioners, student loan forgiveness for those entering these fields, tax cuts for these crucial members of society.

Why do peopel think the solution is to move backwards rather than move forward?

We can wish either way, but time only moves one way.

Lager
04-25-2010, 07:23 PM
My car needed transmission work. I took it in and all they did put air in my tires. Oh well, at least it's better than nothing.

You say everyone agreed something needed to be done, which sounds to me like it would have been easy to get some good discussion and debates on how to fix it. Yet, the dems had to rush this thing through, and did so with no support at all from the other side. If it was such an appparent and obvious problem, how come?

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:30 PM
My car needed transmission work. I took it in and all they did put air in my tires. Oh well, at least it's better than nothing.

Does that mean you should you then deflate your tires and push your car to another shop to fix your transmission and also your (now) flat tires?




You say everyone agreed something needed to be done, which sounds to me like it would have been easy to get some good discussion and debates on how to fix it. Yet, the dems had to rush this thing through, and did so with no support at all from the other side. If it was such an appparent and obvious problem, how come?

Except that hundreds of Republican amendments were added to the bill, just because they didn't vote for it doesn't mean they didn't contribute to it.

Sonnabend
04-25-2010, 07:35 PM
Then steps can be made to fix it. Pay raises for general practitioners, student loan forgiveness for those entering these fields, tax cuts for these crucial members of society.

...and massive loads of paperwork and bureaucratic interference with their decisions. I live in a society with socialised medicine..and it's falling apart. Wait till the nurses start leaving in droves, bed closures, hospital closures, doctors leaving to work overseas, patients being turned away, massive waiting lists....all coming to a hospital near you, soon


Why do people think the solution is to move backwards rather than move forward?

We can wish either way, but time only moves one way.

And what Obama has done is a massive step backward. I've seen it.

Lager
04-25-2010, 07:38 PM
Does that mean you should you then deflate your tires and push your car to another shop to fix your transmission and also your (now) flat tires?



No, it means I should tell the people responsible that it's obvious they couldn't accomplish what I asked them, and go somewhere else to solve the problem. Maybe next November, for example.

Lager
04-25-2010, 07:40 PM
Except that hundreds of Republican amendments were added to the bill, just because they didn't vote for it doesn't mean they didn't contribute to it.

Somehow I find that hard to believe.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-25-2010, 07:51 PM
We've made one large step towards fixing the problem, many people, possibly most, (including myself, I have BIG problems with this bill) have major problems with the legislation that was passed. However, the bill passed does include many good changes (along with possible problems).

Is the better idea to attempt to repeal or starve the bill that was passed and go back to where we were (which everyone agreed was a bad place that needed to be fixed)? OR is the better idea to, now that we have a bill, to continue working on it, adjusting it, and adding new legislation to patch any problems in the bill as well as any unintended problems that may come in the future?

Because almost everybody agreed that we needed SOME reform, (and most people supported the new rules on pre-existing conditions, extending children's coverage, incentivizing students to go into the health field), does it make sense to throw out the baby with the bath water by trying to go back in time?

I'm of the mindset that we should look at where we are now, and see how we can improve upon it, rather than wishing to go back in time and redo history which is impossible.

Perhaps others here disagree?


The current law NEEDS to be utterly repealed and then immediately replaced with REAL free-market reform.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-25-2010, 07:52 PM
Does that mean you should you then deflate your tires and push your car to another shop to fix your transmission and also your (now) flat tires?





Except that hundreds of Republican amendments were added to the bill, just because they didn't vote for it doesn't mean they didn't contribute to it.


Nothing that mattered.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:53 PM
Somehow I find that hard to believe.

Believe it or not, 160 Republican amendments were accepted in the Senate bill that eventually passed.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 07:57 PM
Nothing that mattered.

Not so, according to Slate.com:


Yet many of the [b]GOP amendments on this incomplete list do seem pretty substantive. For example, one amendment offered by Oklahoma's Tom Coburn requires members of Congress and their staff to enroll in the government-run health insurance program. Another, sponsored by Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, would "establish an auto advisory council to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury regarding how best to represent the taxpayers of the United States as the majority owner of General Motors." An amendment written by North Carolina's Richard Burr requires that "a private plan would be exempt from any federal or state requirement related to quality improvement and reporting if the community health insurance option is not subject to the specific requirement."

The list goes on. An amendment from Mike Enzi of Wyoming promises "to protect pro-patient plans and prevent rationing." Another of his would "prohibit the government run plan from limiting access to end of life care." An amendment from New Hampshire's Judd Gregg "requires all savings associated with follow-on biologics to go towards deficit reduction."

There are some technical-seeming amendments, too. For example, an amendment from Burr (which was accepted) says, "On line 23 after 'groups' insert 'and reduces the cost of health care.' " Another amendment, proposed by Coburn, "[d]efines [the] average work week as 40 hours."

Keep in mind too that this report only examined HALF of the accepted Republican amendments, so there are many more as well.

NJCardFan
04-25-2010, 07:58 PM
In WeeWee's world, the following is logical:

You go to buy a brand new car. You buy the car but the breaks are shoddy, it rattles like a tambourine, smokes like a refinery, and the tires go flat on a daily basis. You take it back to the dealer and he tells you that he's well aware of the problems with the cars but he fixes them bit by bit but charges you for the repairs. You can't return it and you're stuck with it. This is the current healthcare law. How stupid of us to want something that works correctly from jump street.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 08:00 PM
The current law NEEDS to be utterly repealed and then immediately replaced with REAL free-market reform.

Why would that help? the profit-driven model works for the companies of insurance, but for consumers, it means maximizing how much you pay in, and minimizing (through any means) how much you get back when you need it.

The most often touted "free-market reform" solution is to allow companies to sell across state lines, but different states have different laws regarding health insurance, so if in fact this were done, every single company could set their base in the state with the loosest possible regulations, and although you may pay slightly less on your premiums, the total lack of regulations means the company will have even more leeway in ensuring that you get as little back as possible to maximizing their profit margin. That seems like good business, but it's not good for the consumer.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 08:04 PM
In WeeWee's world, the following is logical:

You go to buy a brand new car. You buy the car but the breaks are shoddy, it rattles like a tambourine, smokes like a refinery, and the tires go flat on a daily basis. You take it back to the dealer and he tells you that he's well aware of the problems with the cars but he fixes them bit by bit but charges you for the repairs. You can't return it and you're stuck with it. This is the current healthcare law. How stupid of us to want something that works correctly from jump street.

No actually that's exactly what the law protects against. A private dealer can do that because he's a private dealer, and if we remove regulations, nothing stops him from doing that and cheating you out of a good deal.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-25-2010, 08:04 PM
Why would that help? the profit-driven model works for the companies of insurance, but for consumers, it means maximizing how much you pay in, and minimizing (through any means) how much you get back when you need it.

No it does not. It means gaining market share by offering the best VALUE - and it is the CONSUMER who determines what that value is.

There is no better system on earth to increase quality and keep costs in line.


The most often touted "free-market reform" solution is to allow companies to sell across state lines, but different states have different laws regarding health insurance, so if in fact this were done, every single company could set their base in the state with the loosest possible regulations, and although you may pay slightly less on your premiums, the total lack of regulations means the company will have even more leeway in ensuring that you get as little back as possible to maximizing their profit margin. That seems like good business, but it's not good for the consumer.

And yet people would demand better services and the companies would provide it. The companies exist to fill the customer's demands. That is how they maximize their revenues. Idiots on the left overlook this fact.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 08:09 PM
How about something that isn't a stretch of a metaphor and doesn't confuse the terms we are working with:

According to your logic, this is acceptable:

You can buy insurance, make your regular payments into your plan, and when you get sick and it's time to collect what you've paid into because you had a heart attach, the company says "oh actually nevermind, it turns out you had Acne when you were 17 and that qualifies as a pre-existing condition, which nullifies your plan and we will not pay for your procedure" so your coverage is dropped, your money you paid into it goes down the drain, and you have to either sell your home and go bankrupt or simply die.

Or maybe you've been paying into your plan and you get sick, but this illness is long term and requires much care and your company decides they've paid out enough and drop you because your illness is putting a dent into their profit margin so they drop you.

Or maybe lower income people do not get insurance from their employer and cannot afford the riduclously expensive individual plans so he gets sick but cannot afford a $100 doctors visit and a $250 prescription for a 1-month medication, so his illness progresses until he goes to an emergency room, the costs soar up to $900, which he cannot pay, so the tax payers have to make up the difference.

These all sound wonderful, and they aren't metaphors that mix up the roles or private and public funding, they are actually what happens under the system we have.

Rockntractor
04-25-2010, 08:13 PM
How about something that isn't a stretch of a metaphor and doesn't confuse the terms we are working with:

According to your logic, this is acceptable:

You can buy insurance, make your regular payments into your plan, and when you get sick and it's time to collect what you've paid into because you had a heart attach
What is a heart attach, does a parasitic heart just jump on you and start pumping your blood out?:eek:

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 08:15 PM
No it does not. It means gaining market share by offering the best VALUE - and it is the CONSUMER who determines what that value is.

There is no better system on earth to increase quality and keep costs in line.

And yet people would demand better services and the companies would provide it. The companies exist to fill the customer's demands. That is how they maximize their revenues. Idiots on the left overlook this fact.

Except that health care/insurance isn't a commodity like a television or car. People don't get health insurance because they want entertainment, they do it because without it they can die or go bankrupt. For many, it's a necessity, and the insurance companies are very deceptive about how they do business. Health care without insurance is prohibitively expensive for anyone who makes a working or middle class income.

While our system is the best at producing regular commodities at high quality and low price, the problem is that health care/insurance is NOT like those other commodities, both in their societal necessity and in their process of doing business. You don't just pay the company and get something back, you have to keep paying them and hope that they will give something back if you get sick, but without regulations, they can find dozens of loopholes to keep from making payouts.

They need to raise their stock value by increasing profits, and the simple fact is that in an INSURANCE COMPANY, unlike a car or shoe company, you don't maximize profits by selling a product at a price more than it cost to produce it, you maximize profits by bringing in as much premiums and minimizing the payouts. That's the opposite of value.

NJCardFan
04-25-2010, 08:22 PM
You can buy insurance, make your regular payments into your plan, and when you get sick and it's time to collect what you've paid into because you had a heart attach
Um you liberal little twit, it's not that you can buy health insurance. You MUST buy health insurance. This is not a metaphor you fuck bag. It's the fucking law. Barack Obama and the Democratic party, whose cock you are willingly sucking, signed a law forcing a private citizen to enter into a contract with a private company with the threat of a monetary fine or imprisonment. Wipe the jism out of your fucking eyes and smell the shit your heroes are shoving down your throat. This entire law is fascism 10fucking1.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 08:26 PM
Um you liberal little twit, it's not that you can buy health insurance. You MUST buy health insurance. This is not a metaphor you fuck bag. It's the fucking law. Barack Obama and the Democratic party, whose cock you are willingly sucking, signed a law forcing a private citizen to enter into a contract with a private company with the threat of a monetary fine or imprisonment. Wipe the jism out of your fucking eyes and smell the shit your heroes are shoving down your throat. This entire law is fascism 10fucking1.

I don't expect you to study or memorize my posts, but in almost every thread about the Health Care bill I state unequivocally that I was very opposed to parts of this bill, especially the mandate to purchase private insurance. However, there are ways that additions can be added to make this far more acceptable (exceptions to the mandate, and a public non-profit health insurance option).

Rockntractor
04-25-2010, 08:32 PM
I don't expect you to study or memorize my posts, but in almost every thread about the Health Care bill I state unequivocally that I was very opposed to parts of this bill, especially the mandate to purchase private insurance. However, there are ways that additions can be added to make this far more acceptable (exceptions to the mandate, and a public non-profit health insurance option).
As long as you vote for liberals and support them you are supporting their agenda.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 08:35 PM
As long as you vote for liberals and support them you are supporting their agenda.

*Democrats. I would hardly call a mandate to purchase insurance from private corporations a "liberal" policy, but unless proper fixes and additions are made in the health policy before 2012, Obama and the Democrats will not be getting my vote.

Rockntractor
04-25-2010, 08:39 PM
*Democrats. I would hardly call a mandate to purchase insurance from private corporations a "liberal" policy, but unless proper fixes and additions are made in the health policy before 2012, Obama and the Democrats will not be getting my vote.
Demacrats are the liberal party until they change their name to socialist like they should. It would be better for the country if you would just quit voting completely and follow your dream of being a pot head.

Wei Wu Wei
04-25-2010, 08:45 PM
Demacrats are the liberal party until they change their name to socialist like they should. It would be better for the country if you would just quit voting completely and follow your dream of being a pot head.

lmao.

There is a socialist party but unfortunately it's mostly a joke in our country. Other countries have REAL socialists parties that work for the interests of working-class people, who tend to make up the majority of the populations. (believe it or not they dont' support violent communist revolutions like the radio people say :eek: )

This is such silly nonsense used to get the "left" and "right" to bicker amongst each other rather than realizing we have common interests as a community of workers, small business owners, and entrepreneurs, and that if we could strike a proper balance, our nation as a whole would be better off.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-25-2010, 09:27 PM
How about something that isn't a stretch of a metaphor and doesn't confuse the terms we are working with:

According to your logic, this is acceptable:

You can buy insurance, make your regular payments into your plan, and when you get sick and it's time to collect what you've paid into because you had a heart attach, the company says "oh actually nevermind, it turns out you had Acne when you were 17 and that qualifies as a pre-existing condition, which nullifies your plan and we will not pay for your procedure" so your coverage is dropped, your money you paid into it goes down the drain, and you have to either sell your home and go bankrupt or simply die.

Or maybe you've been paying into your plan and you get sick, but this illness is long term and requires much care and your company decides they've paid out enough and drop you because your illness is putting a dent into their profit margin so they drop you.



Haven't you ever stopped to think why these two incidents are repeated over and over and over again???

Perhaps you could have put two and two together and figured out the REASON for this is because they are some of the very few incidents that have even a smidgen of truth to them.

The FACT of the matter is that these types of things are RARE - at least in the private insurance industry, - they ARE however more common (more than twice as common) in the the government paid health plans.

The FACT of the matter is that more than 85% are happy with their own health plans. The solution to the problem is to make it easier for those who are unhappy, to switch plans, NOT to narrow down the choices to the government approved ones that don't really offer choice at all.

Tecate
04-25-2010, 10:23 PM
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/2czts1.gif

Articulate_Ape
04-25-2010, 10:25 PM
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/2czts1.gif

HAHAHAHAHA!

NJCardFan
04-25-2010, 10:46 PM
Or maybe you've been paying into your plan and you get sick, but this illness is long term and requires much care and your company decides they've paid out enough and drop you because your illness is putting a dent into their profit margin so they drop you.

Give me names. Real names. Not made up names. Give me the name of someone an insurance company dropped because it was cutting into their profit margin. Please. Just 1 name. And you better have the evidence to back it up.(I'm not holding me breath).

You see folks, wee wee has his little liberal playbook out and is spouting talking points left and right. I've yet to find the people dying in the streets. It's funny that someone who is close to me has been fighting leukemia since the late 70's and in the last few years had suffered a debilitating stroke(my 35 year old cousin) and has rung up tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills(including a 4 year stay at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia). I'd say she cut into a profit margin or 2 but my late uncle and aunt have never had their insurance cut off. And my father in law is not only going through leukemia himself, he's been on medication costing as much as $1,000 per dose(radiation pill) and is now going through an experimental treatment and he's not being cut off. WeeWee, you are full of so much bullshit that it's sad.

malloc
04-26-2010, 06:43 AM
*Democrats. I would hardly call a mandate to purchase insurance from private corporations a "liberal" policy, but unless proper fixes and additions are made in the health policy before 2012, Obama and the Democrats will not be getting my vote.

You really must be trying to achieve some some sort of B.A. in idiocy if you didn't see this coming. The "liberal", "democrat" policy of the United States is to put the government in charge over private health care insurers. These liberals failed in outright nationalizing the whole business, so they fell back on plan "b". The government will make any law necessary to ensure that these private health insurer companies become as GSE's,. which means congress wants complete and total control over the internal practices of health insurance companies, they will remain private in name only.

See our discussion here: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=258511&postcount=71

So, the liberal, democrat, socialist, party of the U.S. couldn't achieve socialism. So they desired the next best thing in their bag of liberalism tricks, and that was fascism.



Then steps can be made to fix it. Pay raises for general practitioners, student loan forgiveness for those entering these fields, tax cuts for these crucial members of society.


Are you really that daft?

Recall our conversation: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=262976&postcount=21

Do you remember the economic reality which states that real wages are a function of competition? A CEO, a board of directors, or any such outfit can not declare a wage rate! Wages, in exchange for skills are a competitive market. You can't just have a President, or the czar of Obamacare declare that doctors will receive a 15% salary increase and expect more doctors to materialize out of the ether. Especially when the private sector is offering nearly twice as much compensation for chemical, and biochemical engineers!





Wage prices, meaning salary, benefits, etc. are set by competition, not by decree of a CEO. If the CEO of Oracle decided he was only going to pay programmers $25,000 while Microsoft was paying them $50,000 Microsoft would have the pick of the litter and Oracle would be less competitive.




I tried to teach you better, and you didn't' listen.



Why would that help? the profit-driven model works for the companies of insurance, but for consumers, it means maximizing how much you pay in, and minimizing (through any means) how much you get back when you need it.


Either you are just plain stupid, a troll, or too arrogant to admit when you are wrong, this topic has also been covered.

Within this same post, of the profit model: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=262976&postcount=21

I have demonstrated, time and again, why this health care "reform package" passed by your idealistic congress won't hold water. You chose to discontinue that thread of discussion and make up another. I hope I've just shown how they can all be tied together. There will be no more running from thread to thread from you. The threads will chase you. There will be no more, "I believe", because economics is a science, not a religion. I've given you ample resources for actual, economic study, and you have chosen your belief in a political ideology over the science. You see, economics isn't some psudeo-science like, "race relations', or "political science". Economics is a cold hard science backed up with math, equations, and laws. I've done my best to keep these sort of things out of our discussions, because they are based on a pre-requisite understanding of math up to calculus, hard to follow, and quite-frankly boring models. However, this is your one and only thread to convince CU to support Obamacare. If you can't prove the promises of Obama and Pelosi/Reid in this thread, I guarantee the next thread you bring up about the subject will exist with a single reply linking this thread.

Can I get the support of CU there? Can I ask CU to just link this thread and refrain from replying whenever Wei Wu Wei attempts to talk about this subject? I think that will work out nicely.

Basically, you are going to have to stop running and start defending, if you can, what the hell you are talking about. The gauntlet is down, will you pick it up?