Results 69 to 85 of 618
Thread: The sky has finally fallen...
03-26-2010, 05:29 PM #69
Is it gonna be free???..
- I’ve already chimed out repeated times (incl. in the “What don’t you like about your healthcare system?” thread) that there’s a need to reform the current U.S. health care system, but gotta do it “the right way”. This is not the “right way” but at the very least it was a forced start.
As for Prez BO promising to reform this HC bill during election, well, he’s promised so many things, yet this is the only one so far he’s gotten through. U.S. people expected some kind of reform, but the majority of them didn’t expect this kind of bill or reform to pass (some wanted some kind of reform, some wanted a major reform, some wanted no reform, but the majority of people are not in favor of this bill). Also, BO’s original plan of putting a single-payer system didn’t even make it as this bill essentially turns out to be only 50% or even less of what he really wanted.
As for the “process or how will he do it once elected”, well, he barked during the campaign that the old way of doing partisan politics will go away. Yet, here we have basically a partisan, one-sided policy that will affect everyone heavily (except for the freaking politicians & high ranking staffers, esp. those who voted in favor of the bill). What does that tell you?..
- Yes, the U.S. caused the current financial crisis (sub-prime). No doubt. I won’t go much further (but we might revisit again in this thread later), but if you read through the “the sky is falling again” thread, you’ll find out the reasons why.
- A question: If indeed “people now are going to die as we speak just because s/he doesn’t have insurance coverage”, and Prez BO kept on yelling during his many campaigns that there are many people who need health care and insurance **NOW**, then why do we have to wait 3-4 yrs to finally receive all the so called insurance benefits/coverage?..or is there something else behind this?..
- *sigh*..in the constitution, if one reads that particular section, it basically means, every citizen of the U.S. has the inalienable “right to life”. Meaning, that “right to life” has already been given. There was no mention of the govt. giving life or even “free” healthcare. The govt. only protects that individual’s right to his or her own life. That’s the difference.
That article, I gave, essentially explains why healthcare is a need not a right.
And if one wants to relate that portion of that constitution to having a government providing a health care to everyone, then let's be consistent. How about giving a free house/shelter or free food or free car insurance coverage or even a free Life Insurance coverage to everyone??..
This is America we’re talking about. A country founded and based on individual freedom and taking care of him/herself, first, then helping his/her own fellow citizens out of charity/willingness to give, not "forced". Not a country based on govt. “forcing” its citizens to do this or that for the other fellow citizens by taxation to the max. And Americans definitely don’t like to pay a lot of tax. What reg. folks don't know is that, hardworking regular and even poor people will be taxed through this bill. If someone feels otherwise, then one can move to another country which offers free govt. health care or subsidy.
Last edited by ctjcad; 03-26-2010 at 05:38 PM.
03-26-2010, 05:38 PM #70
Y asks why to Mr. t.
Amongst others: Big Pharma overcharging the U.S. consumers to cover the cheaper prices overseas; R&D in the U.S. sold cheaper overseas.
Another reason is the tax code. The govt. needs to fix the tax code. There’s no reason they couldn’t fix the tax code now. As long as the tax code continues to encourage people to over-consume healthcare, encourage doctors not to compete w/each other, encourage hospitals not to compete w/each other, the cost will continue to sky rocket. But now with this bill passing, the blame will not be on the insurance companies any longer but will be on the government.
* Cheung: Fair analysis and sorry to steal the thunder from your "What don't you like about your healthcare system?" thread.
Like already mentioned, the U.S. already has somekind of access to healthcare (Medicare & Medicaid). It's not as if we've never had one. This will just increase the bureaucratic aspect of getting a healthcare. However, not many of those govt. hc programs are popular, even with the poor or lower income folks. And now with this bill, 16 million or half of those 32 million supposedly going to be insured folks will be put on that unpopular Medicaid program. Let's see how long they'll stay on that.
Also, sure, more people will get some coverage but in the long run this will get worse (financially). The quality? It will not get better as rationing is gonna happen. Not gonna get better. Just look at the other publicly funded programs that's already bankrupt (Medicare and Social Security). When they started, it was still small. But not anymore.
Only way to sustain it is to 1)raise the tax like the other countries do and lower the quality of lifestyle for Americans or 2)reduce the benefits (which'll lead to lower quality of care). It's either one, no other choice.
* OTB: you punched it right through the roof w/your takes.
Last edited by ctjcad; 03-26-2010 at 05:47 PM.
03-26-2010, 05:58 PM #71
Kid me not??..
- Sometimes I feel I’ve been threatened in this forum. Does that mean BC is a wild lawless entity where everything and anything goes? Of course not.
- Also, if what you read is just a start, imagine in 20-30-40 yrs time when everything is fully implemented. Will there be even harsher backlash from the population?..
- U.S. will only have some sort of universal health care (most likely a 50-50 system like French or Germany). As a matter of fact, as already mentioned, it already has some sort of socialized health care (in the form of Medicare, Medicaid). This is just letting the govt. take over even more what’s already been there as they “think” they know what to do…..........yeah, right?!?!..
- Yes, this is the U.S., land of the free (hopefully it’s still is) where people can express everything and anything they want, up to a certain point. Even the law gives them that right.
- It’s not just presidents but the lawmakers themselves who are afraid to be kicked out of office. That’s why it’s taken so long to have this kind of bill passed because of the political ramification & consequences. The only ones who control everything is the Congress, not the Prez. And behind them are all the powerful special interest groups, lobbyists, big companies etc.
And yes, there were 34 Dems who voted against this bill. Are they lemmings also? No! All of those who voted against this bill basically represent their constituents, which is what they're supposed to do. But unfortunately, some of those who voted yes on this bill, didn’t listen to their constituents (who didn’t want this bill to pass). But they did so out of a special promise (and who knows what other backroom deals) from the president himself. That’s why you read all those threats & insults against those politicians who voted for it. If the politicians don’t listen to the people and instead lie, then what is the people supposed to do??..
Some even say, by passing this bill, those politicians, who voted for it, have committed political suicide…we'll see..
- Besides those 4 major players who’ve impacted the costs of health care, there are also the supposedly “evil” health insurance companies (the supposed middle man in all this), which Prez BO had been targeting. Guess what, Prez BO is now happily swimming with them as well as the big drug makers. Ooopss..
- Nice try and those are good suggestions. But reality is?
What is REAL health care reform? It is making laws that require US pharma companies to sell drugs in the US for less than you can get them in Canada! Reducing the costs by stopping the health care providers from raising rates above inflation level! Making health care NON_PROFIT (which this bill doesn not enforce)! That is health care reform!
And the Congress should be “forced” to participate, out of **their** pockets, and **not** taxpayer pockets, in any health care reform. But guess what, the Big Pharma companies just gave Prez BO and those who voted for this bill a big fat check and in return, the Big Pharma (as well as the insurance providers) companies got an even fatter check.
- Again, everything had already been discussed in the “What don’t you like about your healthcare system?” thread.
The only way to reduce the budget deficit is to either raise the tax even higher or reduce the benefit (both, of course, are not popular, but that’s what one gets for allowing govt. to control everything). So, yes, it will still be a battle.
You fix one thing, but don't fix the real issue/cause of the rising cost. At the end, the 1 thing you fixed will get even worse.
The winning side can only claim that they passed this bill to start off, I’d give them that. But the losing side’s argument will be proven even more correct at the end, but unfortunately it was totally shunned in this legislative process. Prez BO and those who voted for it are ignoring that fact. Why? Because to do this for political expediency.
As I already mentioned, it will take the people, who have more power and control, and the politicians’ political will to make this bill better. If given a chance, I really hope those politicians will fix this bill. This fall (Nov.), they will have their chance..
Last edited by ctjcad; 03-26-2010 at 06:13 PM.
03-26-2010, 06:08 PM #72
hey chris, are u making a run at my post count
03-26-2010, 06:27 PM #73
Guess who's behind all this........the IRS!!..and the Prez knows it..
..face it folks, this is nothing more than a tax bill disguised in the form of a Health Care Reform Plan...is this really about health & care??..of course the prez won't tell that..
16,500 more IRS agents needed to enforce Obamacare
By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
03/18/10 4:32 PM EDT
New tax mandates and penalties included in Obamacare will cause the greatest expansion of the Internal Revenue Service since World War II, according to a release from Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas.
A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ...
Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.
Americans for Tax Reform has a good breakdown of the bill by the numbers.
Isn't it reassuring that at a time of recession, government will do what's necessary to ensure its growth?
Isn't it comforting to know that despite the fact we'll likely have a massive shortage of doctors in America once this thing passes, we'll have an abundance of tax-collecting IRS agents?
03-26-2010, 06:32 PM #74
Check out the real deal behind all this..
..master silentheart stole the thunder with his other link..anyway, this is the real deal...
According to a new analysis from Americans for Tax Reform, over the course of a decade, the reconciliation bill will add an estimated $52.3 billion in new taxes. These taxes will be levied against employers, the sick, low-income and moderate-income workers, and just about everyone else, regardless of income.....now, i wonder who'll be feeling the pain..
03-26-2010, 08:02 PM #75
An outlook of the new HC bill already foreseen??..
..yes, he calls himself a republican but in reality he's more of a progressive or liberal..
"We are up to here with Republicans not being conservative enough," Dr. Sharon Sikora, a local dentist, said as she raised her hand over her head. "And with all due respect, governor, your health care in Massachusetts is not the be-all and end-all, and there are significant problems with that, and I wouldn't embrace that today, either."
Like the new federal law, the Massachusetts plan requires individuals to buy health insurance and imposes tax penalties on those who don't. Both plans penalize small businesses above a certain size that don't provide coverage to their employees. And both rely on new taxes for some of their financing.
Massachusetts has succeeded in raising the amount of insured residents to 97 percent, but the cost has strained the state treasury. Powers' agency reported that 68 percent of the 407,000 who are newly insured got a partial or full subsidy for their coverage.
03-26-2010, 08:07 PM #76
AT&T to take a $1 Billion dollar loss..
Now from AT&T: They report that they are expecting to take a $1-Billion dollar loss due to the health control bill. Job losses will surely follow…
AT&T will take $1B non-cash charge for health care
AP – In this March 23, 2010 photo,
By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer Barbara Ortutay, Ap Technology Writer – 20 mins ago
NEW YORK – AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.
The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.
All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&T's most recent quarterly earnings. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.
AT&T said Friday that the charge reflects changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.
Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits — including the subsidies — from their taxable income.
The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.
AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.
Changes to benefits are unlikely to take effect immediately. Rather, the issue would most likely come up as part of contract negotiations between the company and unions representing its employees and retirees. AT&T is the largest private employer of union workers in the U.S.
Candice Johnson, spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America, which represents more than 160,000 AT&T workers, said these employees have contracts in place until 2012. An agreement covering retirees also runs through 2012.
AT&T rival Verizon Communications Inc. was among 10 companies that sent a letter to congressional leaders in December warning that their costs would increase with the health care changes. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis said the company had no comment.
Also on Friday, Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said they are asking the CEOs of Caterpillar, Verizon, Deere and others to testify at an April 21 House subcommittee hearing on claims that the health care law could hurt their ability to provide health insurance to workers.
Shares in AT&T, which is based in Dallas, climbed 9 cents to close Friday at $26.24.
03-26-2010, 09:12 PM #77
So Chris, how you think the health care reform should look like? If you dont have an alternative you will sound like tipping towards $$$ than lives. At the moment you are only outlining the negative impact of the new bill without giving any alternative solution as to how should your pres should deliver. What is the "right way"?
We dont think that we are forced to pay Medicare levy on our tax. This is something that as a nation Australians willing to do out of conscince that if we dont have tax on health care in place the results will be ugly. Going through carity or other org (as you suggested) are simply wont work, the scale of health care is too big for them to handle.
If you dont think that "a right to life" is an obligation for govt to provide a public health care, security, etc, then what? What do you mean by "that “right to life” has already been given" and "The govt. only protects that individual’s right to his or her own life."?
You mentioned that some form of public health care is needed but just dont agree with pres BO the way its done. So in a sense you also agree on the declaration of independent on "a right to life", no? I know its not easy to admit that only after hundreds of years that Americans can fullfil her own declaration of independent. But its not uncommon, many countries around the world like INA for example is still lingering and could not deliver "Proklamasi Kemerdekaan"
If you think that American spirit of individuality is like "A country founded and based on individual freedom" will work, then why there are so many Police out in the street? Why there are 1 in 10 Americans are now in jail? The same can be said as for health care is concern, why health results are so poor? You have to have a governing bodies to look at all these issue, not on individual freedom, but on a broader aspect. You cant rely only on guns at home for people to have their own security, you have to have a police force that is publicly funded to provide security. Same can be said to health issue.
03-26-2010, 09:13 PM #78
Let me ask all Americans here : are you prepared to have a look at other developed countries' health care system and learn something about them?
Two very vital life and death items are costs and quality of life like life expectancy and infant mortality, and these are what shame America now.
03-27-2010, 02:45 AM #79
I agree 100% with you two on the 'right to live', 'quality of life' and 'govt role in looking after the health of her citizens', free Medicare and all...Sure congress or rather many prez have fu*ked up bigtime in accumulating this huge US$12.7T debt and escalating by US$4.03B daily. If this debt does not exists, the US$800B annual interest on this debt can buy a lot of health care, improving Americans life than to send over to CHN and Japan as interest. This deficit actually makes carbon tax small potato.
So, with the deficit this year at US$1.8T, more will be added to the debt...so agreeing with you both on Medicare, what component of the budget is gonna get cut or simply raise taxes to pay for this. Raising tax will be a economic disaster at this time as the US has an unemployment problem...you both should be honest enough to say it as is that this deficit and debt, which is simply passing onto the next generations, is not sustainable, and if US goes the way of Greece, forget about free Medicare, US will default and implode. Yes, nothing is free, Medicare is about $$$, deficit financing by borrowing with no plan on how/when to pay it back is just plainly stupidity. Talking about asking all Americans on healthcare...better ask those who haven't been born or too young to vote what they think of the montrous debt that they are going to pay for it. You know the answer to that one.
03-27-2010, 04:55 AM #80
The Congressional Budget Office says the new health care bill would cut the federal deficit by US$138 billion in the next decade and reduce the shortfall further in the next 10 years.
Opponents of the bill disagree. However, being in the opposition with no stewardship responsibilty all their talk carries no real weight. With a 2-party system, when one party sees white the other party automatically sees black. They are like 2 big gangs, forever fighting over turf.
Let us see if the governing party can reduce the deficit the new bill promises.
It is premature to say otherwise.
03-27-2010, 05:17 AM #81
Frankly, I don't see any serious problem in the level of debt of the US. You need this debt to inflate your economy. The alternative would be the end of America.
Today's world has changed. The debt would have been suicidal many years back when the US was the only global economic engine. Today we have China who right now is the sole global economic driver. This alone is an insurance against any default by the US on its debt.
But the US has to do something to stop the red ink, and the old health care system was bleeding America to death. The new health care Bill is intended to stop this bleeding.
As Warren Buffett has so succinctly described, the US health care system places the country at an economic disadvantage vs other countries, spending 17% of its GDP on health care vs 9% of GDP of its developed competitors and having fewer doctors and nurses per person too. Buffett likens this to a tapeworm eating at the US economy. Republicans apparently don't buy this.
03-28-2010, 01:46 AM #82
Here are some troubling data about the current health care in the US.
The top 1% of the population in the US accounts for 27% of its total health care costs.
The top 5% accounts for 50% of its total.
Perhaps the rest is left to suffer and die?
03-28-2010, 02:02 AM #83
03-28-2010, 03:40 AM #84
However, this does not square with the lower life expectancy and poorer infant mortality rate, both of which are almost solely determined by this 95%.
The 5%, whether they die young or old, have almost no effect on the nation's life expectancy and infant mortality rate-they are just too small to show up.
Now, who is twisting statistics?
03-28-2010, 05:02 AM #85
If americans eat more craps like fries and burgers than people from other nations, would spending a dollar of healthcare in the US get the same health benefit than a dollar spent else where??? U are incorrect to correlate money spent to amount of health benefits. Maybe the americans are so unhealthy, it might take 10$ to yield equal benefit of 1$ healthcare spent elsewhere.