Jump to content

Healthcare reform passes House


Guest American Woman

Recommended Posts

Business will be fine...just reconstituted by the winners and losers as before. As for Iraq, don't they deserve their Marshall Plan just like Europe?

This is far better than nobody making a buck. I never got a job from a poor man.

But I bet you got more invites to supper from a poor man than from a rich one...As for the Marshall Plan - I guess Iraq could and should have one - after all..back after WW2, those that caused the war shared in the profits..and as we know both sides brought about this mayhem - I can still see Chamberlain waving that note from Adolf - and I can still imagine the look on Churchill's face when his bosses said . "Thanks Winston you drunken f*** for saving our asses when it got out of hand..here's your bottle and your fired!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The non-poor guy that hires you is the same person who takes great delight in firing you - My older brother was just "let go" _ He was ready for the walk to the board room to hand over his keys to the bathroom - He saw it coming - He laughed in their faces and walked out..The ones doing the firing were very upset that the was NOT upset...I guess they did not realize that brother dear has a fat bank account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The non-poor guy that hires you is the same person who takes great delight in firing you - My older brother was just "let go" _ He was ready for the walk to the board room to hand over his keys to the bathroom - He saw it coming - He laughed in their faces and walked out..The ones doing the firing were very upset that the was NOT upset...I guess they did not realize that brother dear has a fat bank account.

Good for him....I made that decision a long time ago. Integrity tastes better than somebody elses ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that this bill will likely reduce the number of americans covered by health insurance:

http://www.aei.org/article/101278

Obamacare could have the unintended consequence of raising health insurance premiums and causing a decline in the number of people with insurance.

Here's why: A key feature of the House and Senate health bills would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions. The new coverage would start immediately, and the premium could not reflect the individual's health condition.

This well-intentioned feature would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance, saving the substantial premium costs. After all, if serious illness hit this person or a family member, he could immediately obtain coverage. As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise their premiums. (Separate accident policies might develop to deal with the risk of high-cost care after accidents when there is insufficient time to buy insurance.)

The article provides the math to show that even people with plans paid by a company would be better off if the company paid the penalty and let the employees pocket the savings of going without insurance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even so-called Christianity in the early stages was coercive.

Probably not in the early stages but after it became a religion and was tied to political opportunism.

Remembering the story of Peter when he insisted on the followers to sell their property and put the money in a common fund - where "they could come and take as needed." Eventually Saint Peter went a little nuts - power and money corrupted the movement instantly - Peter basically killed a man who lied to him about how much money he got for his land - Peter scared the poor bastard to death - Imagine how that effect the village - that if you did not cough up the cash, Peter could strike you dead. This was socialism gone bad.

A type of socialism. But socialism, is not concerned with fair or equal it is all about leveling the playing field and keeping everyone at the lowest common denominator.

Capitalism at least is about co-operative trade for the most part.

Charity to the rich in America is partly business. It's a big tax write off and the public image is improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, I resent anyone forcing me to buy something that there's no getting around. Some have compared it to mandatory vehicle insurance, but one can choose not to have a vehicle. So I object to mandatory insurance, especially since I will be at the mercy of the cost. To force someone to have insurance, and then fine them if they don't, is ludicrous; and I see the state forcing something like that as going over the line.

If people are going to have "forced coverage," then it should come out of our taxes same as Social Security, Education, etc.

Well, it all does come out of your same pocket doesn't it? How much of a stretch is it to think of it as being a tax?

I keep a household budget on a spreadsheet and my health insurance premiums, like my vehicle insurance simply fall under the same general heading "Government". My payments to both of these, go to the same Receiver General like my land taxes. Like the heading "Groceries" a lot just logically falls under it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it all does come out of your same pocket doesn't it? How much of a stretch is it to think of it as being a tax?
Taxes are usually levied on all people in a consistent manner. In some cases, tax credits/deductions may be be granted for purchases of things the government wants to encourage but I cannot think of any example where the government penalizes people via the tax system if they refuse to purchase something. This reversal makes the tax seem more punative than it is.

On the other hand, the government could have increased taxes by 2.5% and then granted a tax credit for everyone convered by an approved plan but that would violate Obama's pledge to "not raise taxes" on people earning less that 250K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Well, it all does come out of your same pocket doesn't it? How much of a stretch is it to think of it as being a tax?

It's not a tax, so it's a huge stretch. Taxes are based on "taxable income." Insurance premiums are based on what the insurance company charges, and that's what people have to pay. Furthermore, they have deductibles. I've never had an insurance policy that paid anything. I paid it all because I never met the deductible. So I'll now be buying insurance and still paying for my medical bills. Furthermore, I'm already paying taxes that go to health care. I'm just not getting any of the care myself. Yet the U.S. spends more on health care per capita than just about anyone else, if I remember correctly. So now I'll still be paying taxes for other people to get health care, I'll be paying for insurance that won't benefit me, and I'll be paying my medical bills out of pocket.

I keep a household budget on a spreadsheet and my health insurance premiums, like my vehicle insurance simply fall under the same general heading "Government". My payments to both of these, go to the same Receiver General like my land taxes. Like the heading "Groceries" a lot just logically falls under it.

I keep a budget too, and no matter what I call it, this will be nothing but an added expense. It's not "health care for everyone," it's health coverage, for 96% of the people. Which I still don't understand.

And here's the thing. It's supposed to be a good thing for all the people to be covered (or 96% of the people), yet they are factoring in fines from individuals and businesses in the budget for this. How nice is that? They are actually counting on people having to pay fines. How is that better than no health insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my vehicle insurance simply fall under the same general heading "Government".

Why would you have your car insurance payment fall under the category of Government? My carinsurance payment falls under the category of State Farm, not Government of Canada. It's a private-sector business, not a government institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Howard Dean urges defeat of emerging health care bill

Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice.

"You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout."

"This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble, and it's a shame."

---

I was surprised to read this strong criticism by Dean on a bill that is being pushed by his own party. Is Dean to be taken seriously on this, or does he have some sort of alternative agenda?

"Insurance company bailout"? Sounds sexy...

Video clip added-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31388323/vp/34448025#34448025

Edited by Sir Bandelot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, I resent anyone forcing me to buy something that there's no getting around.

So you must hate a lot of things:

- Pensions

- Wars

- Fixing roads

- Education

- Giving countries money (ex: $2 billion+ to Israel every year)

- etc.

Suddenly healthcare coverage for everyone, that is a little more important for the American people, has become such a big deal for the American people to support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should. Rates in Manitoba have consistently gone down every year the past five years.

I'm sure they have. They've gone down consistently and artificially. I'm sure a lot of businesses would love to live in the same fantasy world of economics that government run car insurance lives under. Where you can undercut your competition offering artificially low premiums because you don't have to worry about running deficits. While at the same time, being funded partially by your very competition through the taxes they pay to the government. Organized crime couldn't think of a better set up! :lol:

Example:

State Farm ---> pays taxes to Manitoba government ---> who then funds government run insurance ---> which then competes with State Farm. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they have. They've gone down consistently and artificially. I'm sure a lot of businesses would love to live in the same fantasy world of economics that government run car insurance lives under. Where you can undercut your competition offering artificially low premiums because you don't have to worry about running deficits. While at the same time, being funded partially by your very competition through the taxes they pay to the government. Organized crime couldn't think of a better set up! :lol:

Example:

State Farm ---> pays taxes to Manitoba government ---> who then funds government run insurance ---> which then competes with State Farm. :blink:

It's not comptetion, it's the fact that autopac has a monopoly. Which is ridiculous by the way. Having more companies would result in cheaper insurance for me, no matter who its from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Its never stopped you! :lol:

I was just astounded that you had never even heard of public auto insurance in Canada, and yet had already formed an opinion on it while elaborating how you didn't have the slightest idea how it works.

But in terms of my never being stopped, to what are you referring?

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
American Woman, on 08 November 2009 - 09:11 AM, said: First and foremost, I resent anyone forcing me to buy something that there's no getting around.

So you must hate a lot of things:

- Pensions

- Wars

- Fixing roads

- Education

- Giving countries money (ex: $2 billion+ to Israel every year)

- etc.

Did you even read the rest of my post?? Obviously not, since the very post you quoted from states quite clearly:

If people are going to have "forced coverage," then it should come out of our taxes same as Social Security, Education, etc.

Suddenly healthcare coverage for everyone, that is a little more important for the American people, has become such a big deal for the American people to support.

You obviously didn't read the rest of my posts, either, since I pointed out that having having health insurance doesn't guarantee health care.

So perhaps it's Obama's plan that the American people don't support; and yes, that makes it a big deal.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...