H.R. 3950 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You're speaking as if the middle class only exists under $40K or $30K per year. It doesn't. I cited an example as the median household income.

No I'm not. But to say the cafeteria plan is the answer-all is ridiculous. HMO meds are BS on so many levels.

Quote

True or false: tax revenues were up during the 90s.

True, but so were they with fascist pig Ronnie in charge. Problem is, spending was up more and tax revenues were down far more.

Quote

Who controls the purse-strings?

Congress and the pres. Before you try to saythe 1997 tax cuts did any good, again, remember the tax increases that fixed the Reagan mess, as you call it the post cold war period, these happened in 1990 and 2003 when the US Congress was dem controlled. The Newt and Nazi friends cam in and tried to cut taxes, Clinton had to close the gov to stop them, but they got in a few smaller ones toward the end of the Clinton era.

Quote

President Clinton signed it for sure.

Yep, as a deal when the Nazis came in to control congress. See, the compasionate Nazis wanted to dissallow min wage increases, so Clinton caved on teh first to get it passed as long as tax cuts accompanied. He refused the 2nd attempt.

Quote

It was his watch, and he was steward over a great post-Cold-War peacetime expansion. The difference is that he didn't want to spend like a drunken sailor, and neither did Speaker Gingrich.

Yes, Greasy Gingrich just wasnted tax cuts, my friends.

Quote

We got the reverse whammy at the turn of the century.

Yes and who was in control of the WH and congress when that happened?

I see you cherry-picked this and didn;t want to explain the tax cuts 1997 and how they retroactively pulled us out of fascist pig Ronny's mess:

What was used to balance the budget, the tax cut in capital gains? Is that your tired way of saying tax cuts my friends creates more revenue? I think Clinton's entire fiscal plan is what balanced the budget, but I'm entertained by you cherry-picking parts of Clinton's tax policy and making assumptions.

I reached into the toilet and found this: http://www.heritage.org/...rch/Taxes/wm1835.cfm

This is what you're saying. So in 1997, after the economy was well within it's prosperity run, the dot.com boom was driving things as were the 1990 and 1993 tax increases paying the deficit down-surplus up, Clinton signs this rag for minimum wage increase as well as other things. It was a deal with teh devils (Republicans). See, in order for your boased, flawed argument to work, you would have to explain away the amazing fiscal reform from Reagan's mess to this tax change - WELL INTO THE CLINTON SUCCESS PERIOD. Youc an't, it was all tax increases in 1990 and 1993. Nice try tho, I was waiting for that in the many fiscal threads I wrote. While you're at it, explain GWB's tax cuts and tehir enormous success. And if you still have the energy, tell us all about fascist Ronnie and his lovely tax cuts and their resulting success.

Quote

How can you basically agree with me, when I responded to you saying that President Obama is "trying" to cut taxes on the poor?

It depends uponwhere you put low income earners, but as far as Obama's promise to cut their taxes, I agree, they don't make enough/pay enough taxes for it to matter.

Quote

I just did? Did you not read my post about "Jack"...you know, the one where he's on a plan you know nothing about?

Because I don't know the name of the plan that allows savings accounts for medical and other related items, even tho I know what cafeteria plans are, just didn't know the name - therefore I don't know anything about them? brilliant ad hominem. See, again, it really supports my position of the toilet for not being acquainted with HC terms when it's because I haven't had HC ins for years, which explains why I don't know the term for a process that I am aware of.

And no you didn't, I won't be your case study, if you care to, we can use jack and build a scenario.

Quote

See the subject of this thread. You can't pawn this on President Bush any longer. The is President Obama's, Speaker Pelosi's and Sen. Reid's show now.

And that's your rhetoric as well as the neo-cons. So the worst economy since the GD is the fault of the inheritor 10 months later? Brilliant - please just keep chanting that as you and yours gets your ass handed to you in 2010, 2012, etc.

I bet the neo-cons were saying that a year after FDR took office. Diff is they weren't so ridiculously in denial that they still thought tax cuts were the fix-all, as Hoover raised taxes in June 32.

Quote

Enjoy your time waiting in line for "free" care dude. I'll continue to work my ass off building a business, providing jobs, and paying my own way.

If you saw how hard I work for BS money you would keep ridiculous statements to yourself. Yea, dance around your office pretending you're someone, exploit the underclass and call yourself a true American.

Quote

Enjoy the tit, I don't think you're going to like how it tastes all that much...but as long as it changes right?

Even if it's a bit tart, as long as it pisses off the neo-cons it will be worth it.

Quote

Stuff you know nothing about...along with news organizations and reference material.

Says the guy who avoided telling us how small tax cuts Clinton was leveraged into signing in 97 somehow created growth, tax revenues and reduced spending starting in the early-mid 90's.

Don't worry that I referred to medical savings flex accounts as just that and not cafeteria plans - purely semantic. But that is the basis of your args.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well I am nowhere near the top so I guess that statement is not true.

Glad you're happy with it. America is classist, HC is just one the many examples.

Quote

Nor would I expect someone like you too.....your own sarcasm back at you!

I'm rubber, you're glue

Quote

You didn't really think that I would expect someone with your post history and views to admit that they were wrong, hurtful and insensitive to care and apologize for it? But you could prove me wrong and do the decent thing........ball is in your court.

This is the slide to ad hominemville.

Quote

No, I guess you don't know what the word volunteer means, I didn't "have" to do anything, it was a choice to help others.

I'm not saying you personally have to do a thing, I'm saying in order for more people to get HC then some people need to volunteer, whereas civilized countries don't require volunteerism for basic needs.

Quote

My question is what are you doing to help your country?

I'm a veteran, how about you? At this point, nothing. If HC gets passed and it's descent with a public option, I will donate blood twice a year - the good stuff: O -

Quote

I don't think you are either but "we" as you stated does not include me and to quote you "I don't think that I am alone" either.

Ok, well I didn't state, "you" so quit acting as tho I did.

Quote

Thank you, helping other has given me some of the greatest joy in my life.

I believe you have given time and skill, that's great, but it defines the toilet for what it is that you would be required to do this when we are so wealthy and so wasteful with military expenditures.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Private (6 of top 10 universities in the world are US private schools - source US News rankings) which goes to show that having a public option does NOT destroy the private option. Also, the other 4 in the top 10 are public.

How many of those private universities have their tuition rates and admissions standards set by their "competing" public universities?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Other than to scrap the entire program and let the elderly rot, what is your solution? No solution, welcome to socialism

I have given my solution's plenty of times. You just apparently can't read unless it is in black (left) and white (right). If it does not fit into that, you just force it into the one you want and ignore what was ACTUALLY said.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

I'm guessing you're not a millionaire - you won't be paying for anyone

I am betting I am closer than you. And I bet I pay more in taxes than you. Of course you are fine with it... You have stated time after time that you don't want to work for it when you can have others buy it for you.

Quote

Imagine how great the US was and we weren't run / owned by corporations.

It is not... Unless you want to claim that Obama is on the Corporate payrolls.

Lets face it... you want something for nothing. That is freeloading and my point was imagine how great the US would be without people demanding things and not being willing to work for them.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

If demand goes up, supply will follow

This shows your total lack of economics knowledge.

Quote

The left would like to have a single-payer option like Canada. but the right won't budge, so teh [SIC] best the left can do is a paid public option.

Hate to break it to you.... single payer is ALSO a paid public option. I don't think you really have any idea about these plans or basic economics policies.

All you heard was FREE and jumped on the bandwagon.

I find it funny you claim freeloaders that are unwilling to work are honorable.

This is your whole argument in a nutshell:

Quote

Even if it's a bit tart, as long as it pisses off the neo-cons it will be worth it.

You don't really care about the best, you want free for you and to piss off others.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

Private (6 of top 10 universities in the world are US private schools - source US News rankings) which goes to show that having a public option does NOT destroy the private option. Also, the other 4 in the top 10 are public.

How many of those private universities have their tuition rates and admissions standards set by their "competing" public universities?

People will pay for private services if they can afford to and perceive that the service is better. Education is a perfect example of this.

The argument that a public option will kill the private is totally bogus.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

You're speaking as if the middle class only exists under $40K or $30K per year. It doesn't. I cited an example as the median household income.

No I'm not. But to say the cafeteria plan is the answer-all is ridiculous. HMO meds are BS on so many levels.

That's not what a cafeteria plan or flex spending plan is...just forget it......here, from your favorite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_spending_account

Quote

Quote

True or false: tax revenues were up during the 90s.

True, but so were they with fascist pig Ronnie in charge. Problem is, spending was up more and tax revenues were down far more.

Cite for me one time....just one time when spending actually decreased, at any relevant time, under any administration. Spending always goes up.

I'm skipping the muddled-tangents because, while it would make for a great discussion, I'm going to refocus on the subject at hand.

Quote

Quote

How can you basically agree with me, when I responded to you saying that President Obama is "trying" to cut taxes on the poor?

It depends uponwhere you put low income earners, but as far as Obama's promise to cut their taxes, I agree, they don't make enough/pay enough taxes for it to matter.

*face in hands here*...President Obama did not promise to cut any taxes. He promised not to raise taxes on incomes below $200K/$250K per year.

Quote

Quote

I just did? Did you not read my post about "Jack"...you know, the one where he's on a plan you know nothing about?

Because I don't know the name of the plan that allows savings accounts for medical and other related items, even tho I know what cafeteria plans are, just didn't know the name - therefore I don't know anything about them? brilliant ad hominem. See, again, it really supports my position of the toilet for not being acquainted with HC terms when it's because I haven't had HC ins for years, which explains why I don't know the term for a process that I am aware of.

And no you didn't, I won't be your case study, if you care to, we can use jack and build a scenario.

Good grief, I cited "Jack's" scenario because FSPs are very popular and well utilized by many, and varying income levels to cover all sorts of different expenses. They offer great tax advantages for all that use them (even the very low income earners, who end up getting more back in taxes). FSPs allow those that use them to not be taxed on the income they use for their health-care related expenses, why would anyone want to limit that? Sen. Reid and this bill, in its current form, do. There's no reasonable justification for that, regardless of understanding of the benefit. How can it be an ad-hominem if you admitted it??

Quote

Quote

See the subject of this thread. You can't pawn this on President Bush any longer. The is President Obama's, Speaker Pelosi's and Sen. Reid's show now.

And that's your rhetoric as well as the neo-cons. So the worst economy since the GD is the fault of the inheritor 10 months later? Brilliant - please just keep chanting that as you and yours gets your ass handed to you in 2010, 2012, etc.

I bet the neo-cons were saying that a year after FDR took office. Diff is they weren't so ridiculously in denial that they still thought tax cuts were the fix-all, as Hoover raised taxes in June 32.

Again, see the title of the thread. I'm not talking about the economy, I'm talking about the proposed health care legislation which appears to not only increase costs, but increase taxes, with no apparent increase in benefit or access to care.

Quote

Quote

Enjoy your time waiting in line for "free" care dude. I'll continue to work my ass off building a business, providing jobs, and paying my own way.

If you saw how hard I work for BS money you would keep ridiculous statements to yourself. Yea, dance around your office pretending you're someone, exploit the underclass and call yourself a true American.

Just because I "own" a business does make me exploit anyone. My venture, and assumption of risk is more indicative of the American spirit than sitting in the corner whining about something I don't have or feel I'm entitled to.

Quote

Quote

Enjoy the tit, I don't think you're going to like how it tastes all that much...but as long as it changes right?

Even if it's a bit tart, as long as it pisses off the neo-cons it will be worth it.

That's the problem...no it won't. The Republican Party is seeing that first hand in the wake of their destructive spending these past eight years. It isn't worth it just "sticking" to the other side without any principle at all. The "change" for the sake of "change" won't solve.

Quote

Quote

Stuff you know nothing about...along with news organizations and reference material.

Says the guy who avoided telling us how small tax cuts Clinton was leveraged into signing in 97 somehow created growth, tax revenues and reduced spending starting in the early-mid 90's.

Don't worry that I referred to medical savings flex accounts as just that and not cafeteria plans - purely semantic. But that is the basis of your args.

It does not discard the reality that during the time that income tax "increases" went into effect, there was a huge cut in the capital gains tax. Congress delivered to President Clinton balanced budgets and spending, never, ever actually decreased in dollars spent. Spin that.

I'm waiting for the linear logic that says increasing taxes on insurers will help reduce insurance costs. I'm waiting for the linear logic that says not implementing tort reform will reduce costs. I'm waiting for the logic that says forcing an increase in demand will reduce prices.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Private (6 of top 10 universities in the world are US private schools - source US News rankings) which goes to show that having a public option does NOT destroy the private option. Also, the other 4 in the top 10 are public.

How many of those private universities have their tuition rates and admissions standards set by their "competing" public universities?

People will pay for private services if they can afford to and perceive that the service is better. Education is a perfect example of this.

The argument that a public option will kill the private is totally bogus.

You going to answer the question or not?

[Ron 10]

Quote

People will pay for private services if they can afford to and perceive that the service is better. Education is a perfect example of this.

The argument that a public option will kill the private is totally bogus.

Except in the HC example paying for it will be MANDATORY which is unlike your education example.

And yes, the "rich" will always be able to have private HC.... But what about the middle class that are happy with what they currently have?

The issue is not what will happen to the rich, but forcing the non-rich into public plans.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

People will pay for private services if they can afford to and perceive that the service is better. Education is a perfect example of this.

The argument that a public option will kill the private is totally bogus.

Except in the HC example paying for it will be MANDATORY which is unlike your education example.

And yes, the "rich" will always be able to have private HC.... But what about the middle class that are happy with what they currently have?

The issue is not what will happen to the rich, but forcing the non-rich into public plans.

I have yet to see any evidence that I will be forced into any plan different from the one I already have.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

I have yet to see any evidence that I will be forced into any plan different from the one I already have.

But will it be less expensive? Afterall, the name of the bill talks about affordability.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

I have yet to see any evidence that I will be forced into any plan different from the one I already have.

But will it be less expensive? Afterall, the name of the bill talks about affordability.

Crystal ball department. The final form of the legislation has yet to emerge. Now the GOP can't just kill it, maybe they'll actually get serious about negotiating its provisions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

I have yet to see any evidence that I will be forced into any plan different from the one I already have.

But will it be less expensive? Afterall, the name of the bill talks about affordability.

It will be more expensive than it is now, whether the HC bill is enacted or not.

If there is no health care bill enacted with a public option included, the rate of increase will be maximized to benefit the insurance industry.

[champu 1]

Quote

I have yet to see any evidence that I will be forced into any plan different from the one I already have.

It would appear the average plan values provided by employers stay a decent bit away from the "excess coverage tax" of the new bill, so I wouldn't expect employer options to change much. These numbers are, however, a few years old, and don't appear to include vision or dental costs, or HSA/HRA contributions, which all may go towards the threshold. These numbers are moving a lot in the different versions of the bill, so we'll have to wait and see where they land.

Quote

It would be a "forced purchase" if now the people who chose not to purchase insurance would be turned away from hospitals. The problem here is that there is no law which would require a grocery store to give you food even if you cannot or do not want to pay for it. There is no law either to require a car dealership to give you a car even if you cannot or do not want to pay for it. But a hospital is required to treat you even if you cannot or do not want to pay for it. Obviously someone has to pay for it.

There is no real alternative here. A hypothetical example would be someone signing a waiver saying something like "I refuse to participate in health insurance plan, so if I ever get into ER without cash in hands or bank guarantee, I hereby give the ER permission to end my worthless life and donate the organs" - but this obviously wouldn't fly.

Well now, let's think about that situation for a minute. If, after a grace period once a public option is provided, a person shows up in a hospital and can't demonstrate that they have some form of coverage, or can pay for treatment themselves, or are in the country on some form of visa and therefore can't necessarily be expected to have medical insurance, why should the hospital treat them?

Situations where the patient isn't stable and thus waiting for verification would be deleterious notwithstanding, why would we continue to force hospitals to treat people who can't be bothered to obtain something that's free?

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Well now, let's think about that situation for a minute. If, after a grace period once a public option is provided, a person shows up in a hospital and can't demonstrate that they have some form of coverage, or can pay for treatment themselves, or are in the country on some form of visa and therefore can't necessarily be expected to have medical insurance, why should the hospital treat them?

The decision should be a medical decision, not a financial (based on insurance) decision. A single payer system would be best Insurance should not be a consideration. The insurance provider has nothing to offer medically; they are only there to take a cut.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I have yet to see any evidence that I will be forced into any plan different from the one I already have.

As you like to say, the final version of the bill is not out. AND at one point people like you were claiming it would not have a penalty..... Yet the current version does.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Well now, let's think about that situation for a minute. If, after a grace period once a public option is provided, a person shows up in a hospital and can't demonstrate that they have some form of coverage, or can pay for treatment themselves, or are in the country on some form of visa and therefore can't necessarily be expected to have medical insurance, why should the hospital treat them?

The decision should be a medical decision, not a financial (based on insurance) decision. A single payer system would be best Insurance should not be a consideration. The insurance provider has nothing to offer medically; they are only there to take a cut.

Obviously not a very good understanding of how insurance works.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And yes, the "rich" will always be able to have private HC.... But what about the middle class that are happy with what they currently have?

Where did you get that? Middle class is not happy with what they have now - even local Republicans admitted that current system is screwed, and need fixing. They just don't agree with the proposed way to fix it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[d16842 0]

Quote

Assertion: a government-run program that exists side by side with private ones. We've had such a system in education for years... Public universities have existed side-by-side with private, and many site our country as the world's best in secondary education.

Question: When you compare private schools to public schools... Which do you think is better?

Assertion: Private (6 of top 10 universities in the world are US private schools - source US News rankings) which goes to show that having a public option does NOT destroy the private option. Also, the other 4 in the top 10 are public.

The education example fails examination on several levels.

First how do you measure "better". Are the private schools better, or is much of their success due to their incoming students being better? It is certainly a self fulfilling prophecy. Once a school gets a superior reputation, it gets better candidates. The measure of a school should also be the degree of growth and improvement they create in students, and that is not measured.

The assertion that private schools yield better results fails on deeper examination. Check out their graduates' earnings twenty years later, where the outcome is purely performance driven. As long as colleges are the best measure of things, John, do they pay professors with doctorates from private schools more money? Private schools only succeed if they provide a superior product in some form. And even then, the public schools get students in overwhelming numbers.

To the poster's earlier assertion that US private colleges offer the best education, leaving us to presume that our private medical insurance will too, I counter that private insurance policies in Canada and Britain offer by far the best medical services, but like our like our private colleges, with their public option, few choose to purchase them.

In comparison to college, the US public medical option only equals the private one, so why would one go with a private one that cost YOU more, if you don't have to? I have several friends with thriving private businesses. Without exception the ones that provide medical coverage expect business pressures to force them to drop it, if a public option is put forward. One describes it as a domino stack. Once one in the industry does, all will have to, or go out of business. My friends who pay for their own insurance look forward to this passing, as sooner or later they will be eligible. And as long as the taxpayer subsidizes it, why not?

Make no mistake. Once this starts, like nearly all other nations that go down this path, in a generation, the public option will be the only one still on the table. For example, how many private option policies are still purchased in Canada or Britain?

Tom B

[d16842 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have yet to see any evidence that I will be forced into any plan different from the one I already have.

But will it be less expensive? Afterall, the name of the bill talks about affordability.

It will be more expensive than it is now, whether the HC bill is enacted or not.

If there is no health care bill enacted with a public option included, the rate of increase will be maximized to benefit the insurance industry.

Has it occurred to you that our health care is more expensive because we demand and received more medical services, by far, than any other nation?

Tom B

[Ron 10]

Quote

Where did you get that? Middle class is not happy with what they have now -

According to Gallup's data, 87% of people with private insurance and say that the quality of their health care is excellent or good.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have yet to see any evidence that I will be forced into any plan different from the one I already have.

But will it be less expensive? Afterall, the name of the bill talks about affordability.

It will be more expensive than it is now, whether the HC bill is enacted or not.

If there is no health care bill enacted with a public option included, the rate of increase will be maximized to benefit the insurance industry.

Has it occurred to you that our health care is more expensive because we demand and received more medical services, by far, than any other nation?

Yes it has. One of the things we will have to do in the long run is ration services. This will be necessary whether or not the HC legislation is enacted. What is most important right now is to take the insurance companies, who add nothing to the quality of our medical care out of the middle and get everyone covered.

[Ron 10]

Quote

One of the things we will have to do in the long run is ration services.

Worth repeating for those that claim it will not happen under the new program and claim no one is suggesting it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What is most important right now is to take the insurance companies, who add nothing to the quality of our medical care out of the middle and get everyone covered.

By.... more insurance companies.

Great idea, chango!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706