ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Symmetry]

Is the IRS really in charge of Health Care?

... Not in charge, but tasked with the responsibility of finding and fining folks in non-compliance with the new "You must be insured" thing.

...

Policemen blamed for enforcing the law?

... Cute, but make the connection for me. I'm not seeing the obvious connection between the Internal Revenue Service and health care "reform".

...

Ah, the point would be:

IRS blamed for enforcing laws on government revenues? It's what they do, no?

[Nobunaga]

Is the IRS really in charge of Health Care?

... Not in charge, but tasked with the responsibility of finding and fining folks in non-compliance with the new "You must be insured" thing.

...

Policemen blamed for enforcing the law?

... Cute, but make the connection for me. I'm not seeing the obvious connection between the Internal Revenue Service and health care "reform".

...

Ah, the point would be:

IRS blamed for enforcing laws on government revenues? It's what they do, no?

... When such revenues are taxes, yes. That's pretty clear. Fines levied for not having health insurance . . . That's a stretch.

...

[Symmetry]

It is indeed, to call all revenues taxes.

[Phatscotty]

It is indeed, to call all revenues taxes.

Not this time symm. I was wondering, on an entire different note, what might have happened during the cold war with USSR, what might have been different had we gotten this kind of health care deal back when Truman tried to do it. Any speculators? I mean, given that it was a arms race and turned out to be a will of which currency could assume the most spending, until the ruble broke. Maybe, if we had health care spending through the 40-80's directly out of the government budget, maybe we would have been the ones whos currency broke.??? surely there would have been more trillions racked up on top of the unsustainable debt we have now.

[Nobunaga]

... Fines are revenue. The town where I work would be naught but a collection of wrecks were it not for the speed cameras mounted EVERYWHERE. Big money.

... Giving the IRS power to levy fines on individual citizens who do not have health insurance is a sketchy proposition at best.

...

[Symmetry]

It is indeed, to call all revenues taxes.

Not this time symm. I was wondering, on an entire different note, what might have happened during the cold war with USSR, what might have been different had we gotten this kind of health care deal back when Truman tried to do it. Any speculators? I mean, given that it was a arms race and turned out to be a will of which currency could assume the most spending, until the ruble broke. Maybe, if we had health care spending through the 40-80's directly out of the government budget, maybe we would have been the ones whos currency broke.??? surely there would have been more trillions racked up on top of the unsustainable debt we have now.

Ah, speculating on history. If Truman had asked for this kind of healthcare deal, would you end up in the power of the USSR? I don't know- the UK did fairly well, and Cold War politics are a bit outdated. I don't know- if your best examples are a third of a century old- do they still outweigh current opinion?

[Symmetry]

... Fines are revenue. The town where I work would be naught but a collection of wrecks were it not for the speed cameras mounted EVERYWHERE. Big money.

... Giving the IRS power to levy fines on individual citizens who do not have health insurance is a sketchy proposition at best.

...

FInes are a type of revenue, as are taxes. I get some of your other points, but could you clarify?

This is always a tough thing to say- I liked what you were saying, but I didn't get the second half. Seemed like you were arguing a couple of points at the same time.

[Night Strike]

The 3 Worst Obamacare Ingredients

Now that the deed is done, we know which of the politicians' brilliant ideas will become law. Here are four of the most harmful:

1) The ban on “discriminating” against anyone with a pre-existing condition. This is popular, and yet one of the most damaging part of the bill. It forbids insurance companies to charge sick people more for insurance. The result: I will wait until I get sick to get insurance. The bill supposedly has a $750 fine for not buying insurance [Page 323.] But that won’t even be enforced [page 336.] Even if I did have to pay a $750 fine, so what? That’s much less than the $20,000 plus that it would cost me to buy insurance for my family. I’d be a fool to buy insurance now.

Soon only sick people will buy insurance, so premiums will skyrocket. One study found that it would increase premiums by 50%. Will our politicians see their mistake and fix it? No, they'll bash "evil" insurance companies. The insurance market is competitive today. Obamacare will reduce competition.

2) The cost. Supposedly $568 billion just for the years 2015 to 2019 (it doesn't really kick in until 2015.) This comes at a time when the debt is already so high that the federal government is in danger of losing its AAA credit rating. And get this -- Warren Buffet's company can now borrow money at a lower rate than the US government--apparently investors believe his company is more likely to pay them back.

What got the bill through were the dubious promises given to the CBO, ie: the promise to cut Medicare. But we all know Congress won't actually cut Medicare -- it has voted to ignore automatic, scheduled Medicare cuts every year since 2002 (once they even overrode a veto to do it).

debt1

This graph represents the future of our debt payments, before the health care bill passed. The area in red shows how much the federal government will have to pay in the coming years simply in interest on the debt.

Now, Congress adds a nearly $1 Trillion health care bill. And of course, government programs always cost more than promised.

3) Mandates will raise costs. The bill forces all insurance plans to cover "at least... maternity and newborn care... Mental health and substance disorder services... behavioral health treatment... preventative and wellness services and chronic disease management... pediatric services, including oral and vision care." In the real world, some people want these and some don’t. By requiring insurance companies to pay for all, we guarantee vast increases in wasteful spending. Also, the future offers endless new mandates — the bill gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to create them. [Page 105.]

With problems like those, the disgusting earmarks in the bill -- like the $100 million "Cornhusker Kickback" and the $300 million "Louisiana Purchase" -- seem barely worth a footnote.

The New York Times editorial board says that the bill "has some imperfections but is worthy of support."

Give me a break.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/03/22/the-3-worst-obamacare-ingredients/

[jbrettlip]

It goes against the Constitution, and won't stand. Player, buy your own healthcare. Snorri, enjoy euro disney and your $5 gallons errr litres of gas.

The only ones that will benefit are the lawyers already filing lawsuits across the country. You can not force someone to buy something.

[Phatscotty]

It is indeed, to call all revenues taxes.

Not this time symm. I was wondering, on an entire different note, what might have happened during the cold war with USSR, what might have been different had we gotten this kind of health care deal back when Truman tried to do it. Any speculators? I mean, given that it was a arms race and turned out to be a will of which currency could assume the most spending, until the ruble broke. Maybe, if we had health care spending through the 40-80's directly out of the government budget, maybe we would have been the ones whos currency broke.??? surely there would have been more trillions racked up on top of the unsustainable debt we have now.

Ah, speculating on history. If Truman had asked for this kind of healthcare deal, would you end up in the power of the USSR? I don't know- the UK did fairly well, and Cold War politics are a bit outdated. I don't know- if your best examples are a third of a century old- do they still outweigh current opinion?

just pointing out from a long term perspective. History is really all we have. And given this is a new entitlement, I find it quite reasonable to go back to the "new deal" and "great society" era for historical reference.

[jbrettlip]

Why does the "hockey stick" graph represent GOSPEL to global warming proponents but is readily ignored by the same people when it comes to government spending?

[Symmetry]

It is indeed, to call all revenues taxes.

Not this time symm. I was wondering, on an entire different note, what might have happened during the cold war with USSR, what might have been different had we gotten this kind of health care deal back when Truman tried to do it. Any speculators? I mean, given that it was a arms race and turned out to be a will of which currency could assume the most spending, until the ruble broke. Maybe, if we had health care spending through the 40-80's directly out of the government budget, maybe we would have been the ones whos currency broke.??? surely there would have been more trillions racked up on top of the unsustainable debt we have now.

Ah, speculating on history. If Truman had asked for this kind of healthcare deal, would you end up in the power of the USSR? I don't know- the UK did fairly well, and Cold War politics are a bit outdated. I don't know- if your best examples are a third of a century old- do they still outweigh current opinion?

just pointing out from a long term perspective. History is really all we have. And given this is a new entitlement, I find it quite reasonable to go back to the "new deal" and "great society" era for historical reference.

Fair enough, but we run into a problem. If you call up fictional examples of what might have happened. And I call up real examples of what did happen in countries where some measure of universal healthcare was introduced... well, I feel that the states with healthcare did fine when they introduced it. Better off? Sure. Worse off? Unlikely.

[Night Strike]

Why does the "hockey stick" graph represent GOSPEL to global warming proponents but is readily ignored by the same people when it comes to government spending?

+1

[Symmetry]

Why does the "hockey stick" graph represent GOSPEL to global warming proponents but is readily ignored by the same people when it comes to government spending?

I've got no clue, do explain.

[Phatscotty]

Ok, another argument. I was going to create a new thread, but I don't the the forum can handle another thrad trashing government. So here is something I wanted to ask democrats in General. It has everything to do with cost, which is the main argument around the health care bill. The argument being, the health care bill is AFFORDABLE.

Here is a track record of government predictions for medicare and social security...

In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975.

In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.

Now, people who support the health care bill passage, I have to ask honestly.

Why is it different this time?

[rockfist]

Why does the "hockey stick" graph represent GOSPEL to global warming proponents but is readily ignored by the same people when it comes to government spending?

I've got no clue, do explain.

He means that the global warming proponents point to the recent rapid rise in temperatures as signs of a coming apocalypse, yet they ignore recent rapid rises in government spending as signs of a potential financial apocalypse. Its quite easy to model what will happen to a country's currency when no one wants it anymore. Its happened many times in history and the countries have had massive upheaval, if they have managed to survive it...yet the earth has survived being both much warmer and much colder than it is now.

[rockfist]

Ok, another argument. I was going to create a new thread, but I don't the the forum can handle another thrad trashing government. So here is something I wanted to ask democrats in General. It has everything to do with cost, which is the main argument around the health care bill. The argument being, the health care bill is AFFORDABLE.

Here is a track record of government predictions for medicare and social security...

In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975.

In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.

Now, people who support the health care bill passage, I have to ask honestly.

Why is it different this time?

Because the government is going to fix it.

[Night Strike]

So I was just thinking about how the liberals have tried to paint this fight for universal health care on the same plane as the fight for civil rights. They're correct that it's on the same plane, but not for the reasons they're thinking. In fact, these are exactly opposite situations. One of the tenants of the civil rights movement was that no person could be denied their right to vote based on any form of a poll tax: the right to vote was worth too much to be impugned. In this health care vote, those same liberals have now decreed that every citizen's right to LIVE in this country requires them to purchase health care insurance. So in one instance, the liberals took away the purchasing of a right, but now they are requiring a new purchase to secure an even more basic right to life.

[Nobunaga]

... Fines are revenue. The town where I work would be naught but a collection of wrecks were it not for the speed cameras mounted EVERYWHERE. Big money.

... Giving the IRS power to levy fines on individual citizens who do not have health insurance is a sketchy proposition at best.

...

FInes are a type of revenue, as are taxes. I get some of your other points, but could you clarify?

This is always a tough thing to say- I liked what you were saying, but I didn't get the second half. Seemed like you were arguing a couple of points at the same time.

... Employing the IRS to issue tax credits to low income folks for purposes of getting coverage I understand (I disagree, but I understand).

... Forcing citizens to prove they have coverage, on their annually submitted tax returns, and then empowering the IRS to punish citizens without coverage goes well beyond the scope of the IRS' role.

... Though draconian, it does seem an efficient approach to enforcement.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit ... 81377.html

...

[Snorri1234]

Those who are currently uninsured won't magically become insured because of this bill!!!! Here let me break it down:

(1) People who live below the poverty line
Now - Get Medicaid
Post-Bill - Get Medicaid

(2) People whose employers provide insurance
Now - Get insurance
Post-Bill - Get insurance (and have to pay tax depending upon the insurance)

(3) People who do not have insurance but can afford insurance
Now - No insurance, but can pay for shit
Post-Bill - Have to get insurance or pay a fine

(4) People who cannot afford insurance but live above the poverty line
Now - No insurance, have to pay for their own procedures or else go bankrupt
Post-Bill - Have to pay for their own insurance and get a subsidy the government

#4 is the only difference we're paying for, and it's $940 billion. $940 fucking billion! 2014!!!! COME ON PEOPLE! WAKE THE f*ck UP! This bill does nothing and costs $940 billion!!!

Yes #4 is the only one you're paying for with regards to extra coverage. Number three and the one where people aren't banned from purchasing insurance are the ones where you are saving money.

How hard is this to understand? Insurance only works when everyone is covered or those who aren't covered don't get anything. Since you aren't going for the latter option (you know, because that would be incredibly fucked up) you have to get everyone to have insurance. This bill gives almost all of the uninsured coverage.

[PLAYER57832]

Why does the "hockey stick" graph represent GOSPEL to global warming proponents but is readily ignored by the same people when it comes to government spending?

#1 I don't believe your assertion is correct. However, they are two completely different types of data and projections.

Global warming data is far better understood, is projected over a far longer time span, than economics. Specific predictions are not valid. Only the very broadest of projections. That is what many, many opponents fail to grasp. And, there is far, far, far more data going into the climate predictions than can possible go into Ecnomics.

Economics tries to make very narrow predictions for a relatively short time frame with only incomplete data. By the time any comparitive leve of economic data could be collected, the time frame would have already passed.

He means that the global warming proponents point to the recent rapid rise in temperatures as signs of a coming apocalypse, yet they ignore recent rapid rises in government spending as signs of a potential financial apocalypse. Its quite easy to model what will happen to a country's currency when no one wants it anymore. Its happened many times in history and the countries have had massive upheaval, if they have managed to survive it...yet the earth has survived being both much warmer and much colder than it is now.

No, in fact most experts point to both as problems. This health care bill, despite what the right wing is trying to say, should slow the rise of our deficit.

And as for your second, Earth might have survived, but people have not. That rather makes a difference... or, to be clearer, there is growing evidence that past climate upheaval is what led to the evolution of human beings. In other words, all of our close relatives were quickly killed off until, eventually, only we remained. Not sure we really want to go through that again!

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, another argument. I was going to create a new thread, but I don't the the forum can handle another thrad trashing government. So here is something I wanted to ask democrats in General. It has everything to do with cost, which is the main argument around the health care bill. The argument being, the health care bill is AFFORDABLE.

Here is a track record of government predictions for medicare and social security...

In fact, every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted. For instance, in 1967 the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975.

In 1965 federal actuaries figured the Medicare hospital program would end up running $9 billion in 1990. The cost was more than $66 billion.

In 1987 Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would hit $100 million in 1992. The actual bill came to $11 billion. The initial costs of Medicare's kidney-dialysis program, passed in 1972, were more than twice projected levels.

The Congressional Budget Office doubled the estimated cost of Medicare's catastrophic insurance benefit — subsequently repealed — from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually within the first year of its passage. The agency increased the projected cost of the skilled nursing benefit an astonishing sevenfold over roughly the same time frame, from $2.1 billion to $13.5 billion. And in 1935 a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.

Now, people who support the health care bill passage, I have to ask honestly.

Why is it different this time?

The problem you ignore is alternatives. That it costs more than budget estimates is a problem, but had nothing been done, the projections would have been even worse. THAT is the part you wish to dismiss.

Health care costs rise, primarily, because we get so very much more FOR our money now than before. Just think about it. In the 1940's a tonsilectimis and Apendectomy were pretty much "advanced surgery". Now, heart transplants, joint replacement and brain surgaries are fairly standard. Cancer can actually be cured in many cases.

You cannot expect a frost-free refrigerator to cost the same as an old ice box (the kind with the ice block on top). You cannot expect a cure for cancer for the same price as pennicilin.

And for all you declare Social Security a "failure", millions of older people are living reasonable lives, not stuck at their kids or on the street, thanks to that program. One factor is that it has expanded to cover so much more than it was originally intended. A huge chunk of that money goes not to retirees, but to disabled individuals. Absolutely, they need coverage, but the inputs were not increased enough to cover the expense.

Add into that, the US Congress kept borrowing from what was supposed to be a surplus waiting for us now. It was exactly a stupid as taking from your 401K.

[PLAYER57832]

It goes against the Constitution, and won't stand. Player, buy your own healthcare.

We have it, as I have said repeatedly. But individuals are not the consumers, employers are. Employers only real incentive is to offer the minimum they can. That minimum means far too many people who HAVE insurance still cannot afford heath care.

[PLAYER57832]

After reviewing the bill and comments, I found you skipped some important details.

(2) People whose employers provide insurance
Now - Get insurance
Post-Bill - Get insurance (and have to pay tax depending upon the insurance)

Small businesses will now get a tax break to help offset purchases.

(3) People who do not have insurance but can afford insurance
Now - No insurance, but can pay for shit
Post-Bill - Have to get insurance or pay a fine

#1 since companies cannot exclude people, the number who can now afford insurance will increase. Subsidies for low income folks will also help.

The fine will help offset payments for the care those without insurance will require. Right now, the penalties are pretty low. They are likely to increase, at least for larger companies.

(4) People who cannot afford insurance but live above the poverty line
Now - No insurance, have to pay for their own procedures or else go bankrupt
Post-Bill - Have to pay for their own insurance and get a subsidy the government

You don't see this as a major improvement?

[Snorri1234]

The fine will help offset payments for the care those without insurance will require. Right now, the penalties are pretty low. They are likely to increase, at least for larger companies.

Yeah the fines being a little low might be a problem. Over here the fines are basically 130% of what insurance would cost you. You're not banned from going to the doctor or hospital and the only difference is that drugs aren't paid for.


But you know, you're paying more than you would if you had insurance so it would be idiotic not to have insurance.