http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/21/health.care.latest/index.html?hpt=T1

Careful what you wish for you just might get it.

The problem we Cits deal with is the PILES of bull that get passed around, and thrown about.
reading the lines, and cross referencing ALL the footnotes...is hard enough.
Do I have to mention the language?

El Eden


Guess I'll be moving to Mexico, at one of the Presidential Suites atop the La Jolla de Mismaloya hotel 20 miles south of Puerta Vallarta.  America has just turned into a marxist nation.  Glad I'm retired.  They fly the American Flag there, and all meals and drinks are included.  El Eden is just a 10 minute drive up the mountain.

La Jolla:  http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll/qscr=dspv/htid=16535

ANd if you dont take me with you, I will curse you ONLINE everyday..
I will tell everyone about EVERYTHING you are ashamed of, TRUE or FALSE..
I will send letters to the mex gov. requesting that you be returned.

If they have a fiber cable there??  we are in heaven.

America has just turned into a marxist nation.  Glad I'm retired. 

So, presumably, you have not accepted medicare since your retirement, correct?

I didn't realize you were the type to espouse such views. I had considered you fairly liberal. Note that in trying to find a country without universal health care, you did pick Mexico, not any of the developed democratic nations of the world, all of whom have universal care, most through a single payer or truly national system. I'd prefer single payer, myself, leaving health care providers in the private sector and rids us of the outrageously evil denial of health insurers. But, nationalizing the whole damn deal would be better than the system we had previously (and better than the system we're about to get as well).

Have you checked life expectancy and infant mortality rates in Mexico?

Actually, while I certainly cannot rejoice over this, I will say three things about it.

1. This will provide insurance to millions more people than have it today. That is a good thing.
2. This will remove preexisting conditions clauses. That is a good thing.
3. Without a public option, this bill forces people to pay money to corporations whether they want to or not. This represents the first time in the history of this once-great nation that corporations are actually able to levy a tax directly. Previously, they had to have the government tax us then provide corporate welfare. This is new. This is very bad. This is anything but Marxist.

This is unbridled capitalism taken to its logical extreme where corporations become the government. This is corporatocracy. Between this and the supreme court ruling on campaign contributions, they have won.

Do not fear Sarah Palin in 2012. The corporations will have no reason to deal with her. Expect the winning ticket to be Goldman Sachs for president with running mate ExxonMobil for vice president. I put them in that order because Goldman Sachs has far more experience putting their own employees into government positions than ExxonMobil who will be struggling to play catch up.

But wait, there's more. The supreme court ruling is already in effect. We won't need to wait 'til 2012 to see the results. We have about 7 months to pass campaign finance reform before the midterm elections. Wait, much less. Campaigning may begin very shortly, if it hasn't already. In congress, there may still be people under the political umbrellas of the existing two-party system, but it will be a total sham. Expect the senate and house majority parties to be either The Bank Party or The Fossil Fuel Party. Expect smaller representation from The Insurance Party, The Auto Party, etc. Who knows? If we're lucky, we may even get a single representative from The Coca Cola Party.

Welcome to the world of truly unbridled capitalism.

We'll have to see when the rubber mets the road because so much of this thing was put together in secret.  Government especially the this one has a well earned reputation for smoke and mirrors capitalize this word here move the comma here and no ones the wiser.  It might look like it's providing insurance to those who need it but we'll have to wait until the rubber meets the road 10 years after.

My money still sits on this being an insurance company bail out that's going to screw the public at large that's all government does.

1. we are REQUIRED to have insurance.
2. the CORPS cant decline our request.
3. pre-existing condition?  Do you think this is CHEAP??

That is without the PUBLIC OPTION..
Under the public option, you would pay 7% to the gov to COVER YOU..

You also have to remember that not all of the law will be in effect at first i.e. the pre-existing conditions will not be law until 2014 which is a ways away especially with the lawsuits being drawn up. The scholars are stating that federal law is supreme however interstate commerce and the constitiution limit exactly what the feds can do so lets see what happens when the dust settles...

: KD Martin  March 22, 2010, 02:50:30 AM

America has just turned into a marxist nation.  Glad I'm retired. 

So, presumably, you have not accepted medicare since your retirement, correct?

I don't know why this argument keeps rearing it's ugly head...it's the most ridiculous I've seen in this whole health care debate.  It's like saying that if someone fights carbon emissions that they shouldn't mow their lawn unless it's done with hand clippers since both gas and electric mowers are powered by fossil fuels.  Social programs are necessary, but they have to be within reasonable limits. 

Hell, I feel like my need to eat trumps my need for health care, why doesn't my employer supplement my grocery bill?  Why isn't the government offering me a place to shop for free groceries?  WTF?

I'd really, really like to know how many uninsured out there have:

Cable/Satellite TV
A car payment
Internet access
an alcohol/tobacco/drug addiction
a McDonalds/Taco Bell/Domino's bill over $100 a month
most home cooked meals prepared in the microwave

Every attribute I just mentioned probably describes 95% of the uninsured in this country.....okay, maybe not the addiction thing.  But other than that, folks need to sort out their priorities.  If you want the coolest truck ever, I don't want to pay for your health care.

that,
ADD TO IT THE cost OF INSURANCE..
THEn add family rates..

: Misanthropic Scott  March 22, 2010, 03:53:48 AM

: KD Martin  March 22, 2010, 02:50:30 AM

America has just turned into a marxist nation.  Glad I'm retired. 

So, presumably, you have not accepted medicare since your retirement, correct?

I don't know why this argument keeps rearing it's ugly head...it's the most ridiculous I've seen in this whole health care debate.  It's like saying that if someone fights carbon emissions that they shouldn't mow their lawn unless it's done with hand clippers since both gas and electric mowers are powered by fossil fuels.  Social programs are necessary, but they have to be within reasonable limits. 

Hell, I feel like my need to eat trumps my need for health care, why doesn't my employer supplement my grocery bill?  Why isn't the government offering me a place to shop for free groceries?  WTF?

I'd really, really like to know how many uninsured out there have:

Cable/Satellite TV
A car payment
Internet access
an alcohol/tobacco/drug addiction
a McDonalds/Taco Bell/Domino's bill over $100 a month
most home cooked meals prepared in the microwave

Every attribute I just mentioned probably describes 95% of the uninsured in this country.....okay, maybe not the addiction thing.  But other than that, folks need to sort out their priorities.  If you want the coolest truck ever, I don't want to pay for your health care.

The question keeps rearing its ugly head because it makes sense in this case. Insurance companies don't want to insure the least healthy segment of the population. So, they like that medicare will do it for them. They want the business from the rest of us. I want to put them out of business. I think they are wholly evil in purpose. To make a profit, they raise rates to the highest rates in the world while at the same time providing less and less coverage. I've already had to change insurance companies twice due to a doctor that previously accepted the companies' insurance stating that they now would no longer let him provide good care under the plan.

We have the highest costs and worst care among developed democratic nations. It's time to put these bastards out of business.

As for your company providing health care but not food, here's a better question. Why are the corporations in this country in the business of providing social welfare? That is the job of government. It makes our corporations far less able to compete on a world scale when no other corporations in the world are in the business of providing social welfare for their employees. They provide jobs, period. In other developed democratic nations, the government provides the social welfare programs, as it should.

And, as for your strawman list of crap that you think all of these poor working class people who have three part-time jobs and work harder than you do, but don't have insurance because part-time employers need not provide it, hence all of the part-time jobs, before I accept a word of that, you better have reliable statistics on the subject instead of mere curiosity that leads you to a conclusion you can't back up at all.

Scott, I'm not old enough for Medicare.  Darnit.  I haven't qualified for Medicaid -- yet.  But I'm doing my best.  This whole bill has really screwed things up, everything is on hold.

ECA, come on along, I'll take you with.  They have fiber ethernet for the internet there.  And American satellite TV.  What more do you need?  There is some great healthcare there and some very good doctors.  And, it's nice and warm most of the time.  Hope you like to fish.

While I do agree that it is the job of the government to provide social services they are going about it wrong since they are not dealing with the skyrocketing costs associated with the medical industry. My own town is a nice example as we have a volunteer ambulance department when I was well a volunteer. If a patient was insured we charged their insurance however if they were not we would write it off it the patient could not afford it... due to this policy and the fact that if we responded and were turned away there was no charge the base rate was $500 per call and that price went up based on the services we performed. The only thing we did not charge for was supplies since we collected them from the hospital who in turn charged them at rates I don't think I want to know. I for one do have insurance and don't pay a dime due to the fact that federal law requires that the company I work for provide it since they have a federal contract. In reality it is paid for by the extra $3 per hour that we the tax payers pay for my services. Now factor in this little diddly that everyone keeps pointing out about federal medical coverage. My fiance and I have been discussing what to do when we get married. She pays approximately $85 per two weeks for medical coverage and while my company has a employee + spouse option hers does not soooo the cost if we go on her plan will jump to $189 per two weeks... that is a pretty decent jump and for some pay grades an expensive one. One last note is that my company provides short/long term disability which isn't an option for her so while I agree that congress can afford the health plan costs etc... it doesn't mean that every federal employee can.

IMHO, this bill makes a few minor improvements, and is therefore mostly good. However, allowing the insurance companies to tax us is a very bad thing indeed. The right answer, IMNSHO, is medicare for all. This should simply be a function of the government. And, that would indeed reduce costs all around. Consider that today health care providers accept far lower fees from insurers, including medicare, than they do for the uninsured who walk in off the street. Hell, for most of my medical care, I'd be better off just paying my copay plus what the insurer pays and buying coverage only for catastrophic events. But, when my doctor charges me $35 as a copay and bills the insurer $165 for the rest then accepts $31 from the insurance company as payment in full, I can't get the same thing. I can't ask him to take $66 from me as payment in full. As an ex-boss used to say, this is f___ing ridiculous ... and ridiculous is not enjoying it.

So, I think we all agree that this plan is not a full solution to the problem. However, for the 32 megapeople who will now get insurance, it is likely a large improvement. So, an improvement for 10% of the nation is a good thing in my opinion. Now, we need to ask why the major corporations in this country, excluding health insurance bastards, are not lobbying heavily for single payer health insurance. They are stuck in the tyranny of a bad idea, that corporations should be responsible for the social welfare of the nation. Why?

With medicare for all, we could not only have everyone insured, we would have a means by which to control costs. We would have cheaper per-person expenses for medicare as it began to cover healthy young people instead of the over 65 crowd. We could get rid of the VA, which has done a terrible job of caring for those who made real sacrifices for the country. We could stop paying for emergency room care when someone uninsured gets a cold. (That, at least, will be an improvement from this bill.) And, even though it would increase taxes, which seems to be a dirty word these days, we must recognize that we would be paying less to the government than we do to the insurance companies. So, total outlay would be less, even though it would be a tax instead of an insurance premium.

To me, I can't claim that I don't care who gets the money as long as it goes down (and it will), because I really want to put these thieves out of business. The very charter of a for profit health insurance company is to make money. It does so by raising premiums and lowering coverage. And, they're very good at that. But, they are not good at providing health care. In fact, they don't provide care at all. What they do is to deny payment for care at every possible opportunity. That's their job. I want to put them out of business. So, I do care where the money goes. I don't want it going to these bastards any more.

Even an incompetent bureaucrat will do a better job of providing care, because that will be their job, than a competent employee of a health insurance company whose job is specifically NOT to provide care.

The public option would have put the insurance companies out of business for precisely this reason. Because, insurance companies can't compete with an organization whose job is to provide care.