ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Snorri1234]

You lose your freedoms when the government dictates who gets help and who doesn't.

What if the government dictates everyone should receive help?

[PLAYER57832]

Your side is arguing for change. I am not. You want change, write a clear and concise bill that can be easily explained or expect most people to be against it. Why would someone support their taxes going up for something they don't understand?

I don't understand? Gee, that's pretty interesting, given A. I actually have read the bill (not that you bothered to ask) B. have listened to plenty of commentary on ALL sides of this issue.

C. I have gone to lengths to explain all this to you and others (look back a ways in this thread...).


Further,
D. I have lived in and still have friends/family in more than one country with national health systems as well as (of course) the US.

E. I have lived here as an adult, responsible for children and that DOES make a huge difference in attitude!

SOO ....
You have a right to your opinion, but if you want to be taken seriously, you had best back it up with facts and reality, not the garbage you have so far spewed out. So far, all you have done is emphasize how little you know about real socialized medicine. And the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that you know nothing ... and THEN essentially brag about not being able to read through the bill you are criticizing... makes you look like a royal idiot, regardless of whether your views have any validity or not. (I disagree with greekdog and others, but they do have reasons for their ideas and beliefs. You do not!)

[PLAYER57832]

If the government wants to support the health of its citizens, my first suggestion is to transfer subsidies from the massive corn crop (topping 10M bushels) and transfer them to more healthy food, like domestically grown green veggies. lord knows the US is in love with unhealthy crap, and the only regularly eaten green veritable is iceberg lettuce, which is supposed to be the least healthy of all leafy vegetables(deep colors=better for you, iceberg is almost white). So, subsidize the spinach crop, the bell peppers, and other such vegetables. Then people will eat less of this crap full of the corn derivatives you hear so much about (high fructose blabla bla), because they won't be the cheapest things available. Instead of looking for a solution to the peoples health care, we need to look more into curing causes of peoples health problems. Natty, IDK about the subsidized crops in Finland.


sources:

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/09harvest.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/71510

Agreed as far as subsidies go (and can add a good deal more, like susidies for Florida sugarcane that is destroying the everglades in addition to contributing to poor health).

On a good note, some things are slowly changing. WIC, for example, still offers juice (giving kids a lot of juice is directly linked to obesity and a propensity for sodas later in life) and dry cereals loaded with relatively simple carbohydrates (sugar content is limited), they are also offering money for fresh vegetables and whole grain products.

However, my son can still get a pop tart and juice box for his "healthy breakfast" at school, never mind the "microwave" type waffles and such. And, not just gym, bur recess are held indoors after October 1rst. (this, rather than requiring parents to send their kids with clothes suitable for snow).

However, maybe this belongs in another thread?

[PLAYER57832]

Its called empathy for your fellow man. It's an amazing emotion. I'm sorry you don't have any.

So the only way to have empathy is through the government? It's amazing that the same people who demand that anything government remove anything religious from their realm are now saying that we must turn to that amoral government to have empathy (which is a moral attitude contrary to the natural state of people). If you want to show empathy for a fellow person, go do it yourself. You lose your freedoms when the government dictates who gets help and who doesn't. You try to enact this legislation on the grounds of empathy, but once they have access to your healthcare, they can dictate every facet of your life. Progressives want nothing more than to control people through governmental power, and in the name of healthcare they will do whatever they want. The government is in place to protect our rights from violation by other people, instead they want to dictate how we live.

Wait, WAIT... you claim the government is going to dicate who does and does not get help?

Right now, the INSURANCE companies absolutely and completely dictate what kind of health care 99% of people in this country recieve (the other 1% are wealthy enough to not be bothered). The government requires that health providers give EVERYBODY equal access to emergency health care and provides for full care for the poorest citizens.

You might try China if you don't like that. In China, you have to pay, in advance, for even emergency care. Bleeding people, women in labor, etc are all turned away until family can find enough money to pay at least a portion of the bill (often they have to have enough to cover all expected contingencies).

[Phatscotty]

If people would just plan ahead and do the bit of homework, a little tiny bit, this would not be an issue

[rockfist]

Your side is arguing for change. I am not. You want change, write a clear and concise bill that can be easily explained or expect most people to be against it. Why would someone support their taxes going up for something they don't understand?

I don't understand? Gee, that's pretty interesting, given A. I actually have read the bill (not that you bothered to ask) B. have listened to plenty of commentary on ALL sides of this issue.

C. I have gone to lengths to explain all this to you and others (look back a ways in this thread...).


Further,
D. I have lived in and still have friends/family in more than one country with national health systems as well as (of course) the US.

E. I have lived here as an adult, responsible for children and that DOES make a huge difference in attitude!

SOO ....
You have a right to your opinion, but if you want to be taken seriously, you had best back it up with facts and reality, not the garbage you have so far spewed out. So far, all you have done is emphasize how little you know about real socialized medicine. And the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that you know nothing ... and THEN essentially brag about not being able to read through the bill you are criticizing... makes you look like a royal idiot, regardless of whether your views have any validity or not. (I disagree with greekdog and others, but they do have reasons for their ideas and beliefs. You do not!)

I've read a version of the bill when it was around 2000 pages, no I have not read the latest version, but it seems pointless until they give us the reconclied version to read every ammendment which may or may not get passed. I'm not for it.

I do have children and I provide for their healthcare, which I don't mind doing, and my family business provides for the healthcare of over 100 people, which I don't mind doing for employees. I do mind doing it for other people who I have nothing to do with. Does that make me heartless? Perhaps, but I am not well off enough to save everyone and neither is our country.

I get angry when people try to overload the boat, which I believe will make it sink. This bill will not contain costs, it will not be budget neutral, and the idea of non profit insurance exhanges run by the federal government is a trojan horse to get to the public "option." There just isn't enough money to do this, when we haven't tamed the "entitlement" beast. You want to argue this based on the emotional aspect that everyone "should" have something, but the money just doesn't exist to pay for it and I am quite happy to go over numbers and I can shoot holes in the "estimate" the Dems are using.

[Phatscotty]

Your side is arguing for change. I am not. You want change, write a clear and concise bill that can be easily explained or expect most people to be against it. Why would someone support their taxes going up for something they don't understand?

I don't understand? Gee, that's pretty interesting, given A. I actually have read the bill (not that you bothered to ask) B. have listened to plenty of commentary on ALL sides of this issue.

C. I have gone to lengths to explain all this to you and others (look back a ways in this thread...).


Further,
D. I have lived in and still have friends/family in more than one country with national health systems as well as (of course) the US.

E. I have lived here as an adult, responsible for children and that DOES make a huge difference in attitude!

SOO ....
You have a right to your opinion, but if you want to be taken seriously, you had best back it up with facts and reality, not the garbage you have so far spewed out. So far, all you have done is emphasize how little you know about real socialized medicine. And the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that you know nothing ... and THEN essentially brag about not being able to read through the bill you are criticizing... makes you look like a royal idiot, regardless of whether your views have any validity or not. (I disagree with greekdog and others, but they do have reasons for their ideas and beliefs. You do not!)

I've read a version of the bill when it was around 2000 pages, no I have not read the latest version, but it seems pointless until they give us the reconclied version to read every ammendment which may or may not get passed. I'm not for it.

I do have children and I provide for their healthcare, which I don't mind doing, and my family business provides for the healthcare of over 100 people, which I don't mind doing for employees. I do mind doing it for other people who I have nothing to do with. Does that make me heartless? Perhaps, but I am not well off enough to save everyone and neither is our country.

I get angry when people try to overload the boat, which I believe will make it sink. This bill will not contain costs, it will not be budget neutral, and the idea of non profit insurance exhanges run by the federal government is a trojan horse to get to the public "option." There just isn't enough money to do this, when we haven't tamed the "entitlement" beast. You want to argue this based on the emotional aspect that everyone "should" have something, but the money just doesn't exist to pay for it and I am quite happy to go over numbers and I can shoot holes in the "estimate" the Dems are using.

our debt level has already quadrupled without the health care reform. If this goes through, there are going to be dramatic changes in our everyday life. I think that exactly what some of the gov't reformers want.

[comic boy]

Your side is arguing for change. I am not. You want change, write a clear and concise bill that can be easily explained or expect most people to be against it. Why would someone support their taxes going up for something they don't understand?

I don't understand? Gee, that's pretty interesting, given A. I actually have read the bill (not that you bothered to ask) B. have listened to plenty of commentary on ALL sides of this issue.

C. I have gone to lengths to explain all this to you and others (look back a ways in this thread...).


Further,
D. I have lived in and still have friends/family in more than one country with national health systems as well as (of course) the US.

E. I have lived here as an adult, responsible for children and that DOES make a huge difference in attitude!

SOO ....
You have a right to your opinion, but if you want to be taken seriously, you had best back it up with facts and reality, not the garbage you have so far spewed out. So far, all you have done is emphasize how little you know about real socialized medicine. And the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that you know nothing ... and THEN essentially brag about not being able to read through the bill you are criticizing... makes you look like a royal idiot, regardless of whether your views have any validity or not. (I disagree with greekdog and others, but they do have reasons for their ideas and beliefs. You do not!)

I've read a version of the bill when it was around 2000 pages, no I have not read the latest version, but it seems pointless until they give us the reconclied version to read every ammendment which may or may not get passed. I'm not for it.

I do have children and I provide for their healthcare, which I don't mind doing, and my family business provides for the healthcare of over 100 people, which I don't mind doing for employees. I do mind doing it for other people who I have nothing to do with. Does that make me heartless? Perhaps, but I am not well off enough to save everyone and neither is our country.

I get angry when people try to overload the boat, which I believe will make it sink. This bill will not contain costs, it will not be budget neutral, and the idea of non profit insurance exhanges run by the federal government is a trojan horse to get to the public "option." There just isn't enough money to do this, when we haven't tamed the "entitlement" beast. You want to argue this based on the emotional aspect that everyone "should" have something, but the money just doesn't exist to pay for it and I am quite happy to go over numbers and I can shoot holes in the "estimate" the Dems are using.

So how do you explain the fact that many other countries, that are far less wealthy than the USA, manage to run National healthcare schemes without bankrupting themselves ?

[rockfist]

I haven't studied the budgets of every country on the globe. I can pick maybe three countries to review their budgets and projected budgets but I don't have the time to go over every one. So maybe I can look at the UK, Spain, and Canada or if you have other suggestions lets hear them.

I'm concerned with the US right now. Our budget deficit in Obama's proposed budget is over $1.5T, with projected buget deficits to remain high for the next ten years. This bill will supposedly (it will bring it down but not as much as CBO says it will) bring down the budget deficit in the first few years because the tax increases kick in before the spending does, but will not bring down long term deficits when the spending kicks in it will increase them. That simply is not sustainable.

[Phatscotty]

Your side is arguing for change. I am not. You want change, write a clear and concise bill that can be easily explained or expect most people to be against it. Why would someone support their taxes going up for something they don't understand?

I don't understand? Gee, that's pretty interesting, given A. I actually have read the bill (not that you bothered to ask) B. have listened to plenty of commentary on ALL sides of this issue.

C. I have gone to lengths to explain all this to you and others (look back a ways in this thread...).


Further,
D. I have lived in and still have friends/family in more than one country with national health systems as well as (of course) the US.

E. I have lived here as an adult, responsible for children and that DOES make a huge difference in attitude!

SOO ....
You have a right to your opinion, but if you want to be taken seriously, you had best back it up with facts and reality, not the garbage you have so far spewed out. So far, all you have done is emphasize how little you know about real socialized medicine. And the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that you know nothing ... and THEN essentially brag about not being able to read through the bill you are criticizing... makes you look like a royal idiot, regardless of whether your views have any validity or not. (I disagree with greekdog and others, but they do have reasons for their ideas and beliefs. You do not!)

I've read a version of the bill when it was around 2000 pages, no I have not read the latest version, but it seems pointless until they give us the reconclied version to read every ammendment which may or may not get passed. I'm not for it.

I do have children and I provide for their healthcare, which I don't mind doing, and my family business provides for the healthcare of over 100 people, which I don't mind doing for employees. I do mind doing it for other people who I have nothing to do with. Does that make me heartless? Perhaps, but I am not well off enough to save everyone and neither is our country.

I get angry when people try to overload the boat, which I believe will make it sink. This bill will not contain costs, it will not be budget neutral, and the idea of non profit insurance exhanges run by the federal government is a trojan horse to get to the public "option." There just isn't enough money to do this, when we haven't tamed the "entitlement" beast. You want to argue this based on the emotional aspect that everyone "should" have something, but the money just doesn't exist to pay for it and I am quite happy to go over numbers and I can shoot holes in the "estimate" the Dems are using.

So how do you explain the fact that many other countries, that are far less wealthy than the USA, manage to run National healthcare schemes without bankrupting themselves ?

they wait their turn for access to the health care they need???

[rockfist]

Am I the only person who it strikes as assinine that someone writes a 2600 page bill which will drastically change the future of our nation and requires more funds from me and I am forced to read it? Time is finite as are our national resources.

I've heard enough Bernie Sanders listening to the now defunct Air America and to WCPT, Chicago's progressive talk, to know that anything he is proposing is shit so I was able to not read the Sanders ammendment.

Its OUR money that they are using to pay for this proposed monstricity. If they can't write the bill consisely the answer should be no. That's just common decency.

But, I guess its the difference between capitalists and socialists. Capitalists actually have to sell things and being in sales I know I have about 30 seconds to 2 minutes at the most to get someone to listen to me before they tell me to buzz off or tune me out.

Seriously if you can't explain it quickly with bullet points what it will do, without resorting to emotional pleas, and then stand there and field questions about specifics, its not worth passing. No bill should take six pages to basically name a state.

[MeDeFe]

Seriously if you can't explain it quickly with bullet points what it will do, without resorting to emotional pleas, and then stand there and field questions about specifics, its not worth passing. No bill should take six pages to basically name a state.

But if you have nothing but bullet points ("death panels", "exploding costs", "limited access", "national debt") and nothing to back them up with I will not buy whatever you're selling even if you throw those points at me for 30 minutes straight.
The same goes for emotional pleas, btw, unless you can tell me just how your great plan will fix whatever I won't buy it either, no matter how emotional things get. And yes, I'm one of those so-called "socialists".

[Snorri1234]

I haven't studied the budgets of every country on the globe. I can pick maybe three countries to review their budgets and projected budgets but I don't have the time to go over every one. So maybe I can look at the UK, Spain, and Canada or if you have other suggestions lets hear them.

Why on earth would you need to study their budgets?

[Snorri1234]

they wait their turn for access to the health care they need???

And people in the US don't? Are you smoking crack or something?

[Snorri1234]

I haven't studied the budgets of every country on the globe. I can pick maybe three countries to review their budgets and projected budgets but I don't have the time to go over every one. So maybe I can look at the UK, Spain, and Canada or if you have other suggestions lets hear them.

Why on earth would you need to study their budgets?

I'm serious. Is there any reason why you dismiss the perfectly reasonable statement that the rest of the countries in the civilized world have a 100% of their citizens covered and still manage to spend less on health care than you? (Not slightly less, you spend 2 and a half times more than the number 2 on the list.)

[Juan_Bottom]

(Not slightly less, you spend 2 and a half times more than the number 2 on the list.)

at 16% of our GNP

[PLAYER57832]

You want to argue this based on the emotional aspect that everyone "should" have something, but the money just doesn't exist to pay for it and I am quite happy to go over numbers and I can shoot holes in the "estimate" the Dems are using.

No, those are what you have been taught are the arguments of anyone opposed to the bill, it is not at all what I have said.

What I HAVE said is that offering health insurance to more people will REDUCE overall costs because our highest cost right now is the heavy dependence on emergency rooms and the resulting poor health to ALL of us when people wait and wait to see doctors and dentists.

What I have said is that some of those billions of dollars in profit (no exaggeration at all!) ought to go to reducing the overall health care costs, NOT to simply filling the pockets of insurance executives and stockholders. This in no way inhibits doctors and such from making their profits. However, no one denies that cuts are going to have come in those areas as well. Its just MOST of us would rather they be cuts based on evidentiary medicine (this medicine is not as effective as that medicine for this disease ... or this medicine might provide a very slight increase in cure rates, but costs 3 times as much ... if people want to buy it themselves, fine but it won't be covered by insurance). Right now, not only are those NOT the standards used, but the standards that are used are kept entirely secret, as "proprietary" information.


Bottom line -- you ignore the fact that ALL insurace means "paying for someone else". You ignore the fact that we pay MORE, not less for health care here in the US and really do NOT get better care as a result. You also ignore the fact that having large numbers of people without health care presents a serious and direct threat to you and your children. Universal health care is as much about self-serving motives as any sense of altruism.

[PLAYER57832]

I haven't studied the budgets of every country on the globe. I can pick maybe three countries to review their budgets and projected budgets but I don't have the time to go over every one. So maybe I can look at the UK, Spain, and Canada or if you have other suggestions lets hear them.

Nice, pick the countries who's systems have nothing at all to do with the bill. France or Germany are much better parallels.

But, even if you do center on those countries, they have a higher level of overall health, lower costs per person AND a higher satisfaction rate than here in the US. So, even when you try to "cream off" the worst-case countries, our system still pales.

[Phatscotty]

34 states are in the process of bringing up universal healthcare nullification if enacted at the federal level. Who said American's can't agree on anything? Waa waaAaAa

[Phatscotty]

I haven't studied the budgets of every country on the globe. I can pick maybe three countries to review their budgets and projected budgets but I don't have the time to go over every one. So maybe I can look at the UK, Spain, and Canada or if you have other suggestions lets hear them.

Nice, pick the countries who's systems have nothing at all to do with the bill. France or Germany are much better parallels.

But, even if you do center on those countries, they have a higher level of overall health, lower costs per person AND a higher satisfaction rate than here in the US. So, even when you try to "cream off" the worst-case countries, our system still pales.

So, we are in the end game for health care reform. With the debate being about over, What do you guys think will happen (not how do you feel about it)?

Pass it? Trash it? reconciliate? Is American Health Care going to go socialist or not?

[Night Strike]

Since we know the Democrats don't have a bone in their body that would actually listen to their constituents, some form of the current bill will end up passing into law. I would be shocked to see them not be bought off and hold their no votes. It really is sad, but I guess that shows you can't let members of the same party as extreme liberal leadership be elected into office. I guess we can all be proud that we handed over our freedom to the government.

[Neoteny]

You seem to have confused Republicans with Democratic constituents. Sorry about that.

[stahrgazer]

Bullet Point: More than 2/3 of the American GNP (Gross National Product) is healthcare, currently.
Bullet Point: Americans are one of the LEAST healthiest nations, despite currently spending about ten times as much for health care (someone has to line insurance bigwigs' pockets in our current system) as other systems
Bullet Point: Frequently in a lawsuit, our only option, the money goes to attorneys, NOT to the medical debt.
Bullet Point: Hospital and doctors' insurance costs rise to pay for the uninsured.
Bullet Point: Insurance costs are based on volume. More insureds would mean more volume.
Bullet Point: Giving everyone access to health care would increase volume, lower insurance costs, reduce the amount per capita spent on healthcare, increase national health.
Bullet Point: America already has some "socialized medicine" for children, unwed mothers, disabled (medicaid) and senior citizens (medicare).
Bullet Point: America already has other socialized programs, one is in education (my taxes pay for someone else's kids to get an education).
Bullet Point: The government has an obligation to protect its people. While healthcare itself has been kept outside of that obligation, there are factors in which the government is already involved. The FDA; the CDC; and with viral terrorism threats on the rise, it only makes sense for everyone to be able to see a doctor.
Bullet Point: Doctors and nurses are primarily FOR national health care.
Bullet Point: Insurance agents and owners are primarily AGAINST national health care.
Bullet Point: The government regulates cost to an extent on another "national need" - Oil.
Bullet Point: The government steps in, in crisis situations, to prohibit "price gouging" - why should insurance for medical care be exempt from that prohibition against price gouging?

Question: Why would those who'd get paid be for a system that provides insurance or care for all, and those "nice ol' insurance companies" be against? Could it be that insurance is afraid they'll get a smaller piece of the pie? Isn't health care about HEALTH, not INSURANCE profits?
Answer: No, currently in America, "health care" is about Insurance Profits; but hopefully that will soon change so that health care becomes, as it should be, about Health.

[PLAYER57832]

Bullet Point addition: Most states have "socialized" medicine for more than just unwed mothers and children, through S-Chip programs (a type of medicaid, more or less).

Bullet Point addition: most government workers already have access to "exchanges" similar to what is planned for everyone. Some people in larger companies who can choose their own policies do as well.

Bullet Point addition: Regarding Abortion--
A. whether its right or wrong is a religious debate, unwinnable.
B. No one, even those in favor, "like" abortion. It is just seen as a lessor of evils by some, not by others.
C. The DEBATE is over HOW to limit it... some feel education, other methods are best. A few feel that the only way or the best way is to have laws to limit abortion. This group will stop at nothing to achieve that end, including blocking the healthcare bill.
D. FUNDING for INSURANCE is a poor and backwards way to effect this change, even for those who want it. This is a RELIGIOUS debate. Claiming that the Roman Catholic Bishops or any other church has the right to dictate what insurance coverage people get is as assinine as saying that the Jehovah's Winesses have the right to deny blood transfusion coverage or that Christian Scientists have the right to refuse ANY kind of tax subsidy for health insurance payments .
E. The AMOUNT of "harm" considered here is a small portion of the entire insurance some people may choose through exchanges. This is insurance may, in some cases, include coverage for abortion. NOTE that this "abortion coverage" includes a D & C post miscarriage, traumatic/emergency abortions, etc. ALL cases that even most people who are fully against abortion agree with. The actual money any one person might contribute to each of these policies is less than a penny. Note that this is only for coverage, not for actual abortions. Many who have coverage do not use it. Many who use it, use it ONLY for the above reasons (miscarried child or emergency situations).

So, to sum up, a few extremist are using the debate over Health care to once again push forward an anti-abortion agenda. Roman Catholic congress people have been threatened with excommunication and censor of various types (I refuse to get into the Roman Catholic legal definitions, but they will face serious repricutions) for doing what their constituanciesm the people who elected them, want. Others use all sorts of scare tactics to push this forward.

All, under the guise of the supposed "significant harm" to their souls that will come from less than one cent of their tax dollars possibly going to fund insurance that might possibly cover a procedure againts their personnal religion, but which other religions do not oppose. WORSE, even coverage for procedures that are actually fully sanctioned by the Roman Catholic church (miscarriages, life of mother threatened, etc.)

Bottom line YOUR religion is not justification to hold up this bill!

[Trephining]

Bullet Point: ...
... {removed by Trephining to shorten quoted post text}
...
Bullet Point:
Question: Why would those who'd get paid be for a system that provides insurance or care for all, and those "nice ol' insurance companies" be against? Could it be that insurance is afraid they'll get a smaller piece of the pie? Isn't health care about HEALTH, not INSURANCE profits?
Answer: No, currently in America, "health care" is about Insurance Profits; but hopefully that will soon change so that health care becomes, as it should be, about Health.

I have a question: What is the average health insurance company profit margin? (in % terms)