Obama ...........delusional? or just outright deceitful

[carbon_crash]

Should ahve stopped right there to prevent an ignorant statement. It is not the govt's place to cap salaries on anyone but federal employees. This is like my employer telling your employer, who is in the same market, that he can only pay his employee's X dollars a year.

So you saying my statement was ignorant? I think it is ridiculous for the govt to limit anyone's pay unless they are your employer. Did you misunderstand what I said originally? I was making an example out of the rather large amounts of $$ pro athletes collect for "entertainment" when Doctors actually serve a purpose and should be entitled to make whatever they want

[preferredduck]

So you saying my statement was ignorant? I think it is ridiculous for the govt to limit anyone's pay unless they are your employer. Did you misunderstand what I said originally? I was making an example out of the rather large amounts of $$ pro athletes collect for "entertainment" when Doctors actually serve a purpose and should be entitled to make whatever they want

i wouldn't let micheal vick operate on me at all, i might have a dog in my ass afterwards!!! LOL i see both of your points, the gov't should only regulate gov't employees pay and not a dr's pay

[BanginJimmy]

So you saying my statement was ignorant? I think it is ridiculous for the govt to limit anyone's pay unless they are your employer. Did you misunderstand what I said originally? I was making an example out of the rather large amounts of $$ pro athletes collect for "entertainment" when Doctors actually serve a purpose and should be entitled to make whatever they want

I didnt misunderstand you, it was an ignorant statement. You are saying that profession A is overpaid and profession B is ok. Your time and skills are worth whatever someone will pay you for them, not a penny less. If you can get someone to pay you 1M a year to bag groceries at Kroger, then that is what you are worth. It doesnt matter that a cashier is only making minimum wage.

[SampaGuy]

I didnt misunderstand you, it was an ignorant statement. You are saying that profession A is overpaid and profession B is ok. Your time and skills are worth whatever someone will pay you for them, not a penny less.

Yes, that is the way it should be. But if Mr. Obama doesn't want it that way and we can't do anything about it, shouldn't he at least target athletes and the other overpaid extremes rather than doctors? I think this is carbon_crash's opinion and I don't see anything wrong with it.

[tony]

I didnt misunderstand you, it was an ignorant statement. You are saying that profession A is overpaid and profession B is ok. Your time and skills are worth whatever someone will pay you for them, not a penny less. If you can get someone to pay you 1M a year to bag groceries at Kroger, then that is what you are worth. It doesnt matter that a cashier is only making minimum wage.

If that is the case then Malpractice Lawsuits should not be capped either, you can cap their liability but not their salary? Interesting..

On Obama's plan, its one of those either you're against it or for it. If you're paying $200+ a month for medical insurance I don't see why anyone in that situation would be against reform. As I stated before, other countries rising economically have a universal plan and the healthcare industry is flourishing in those countries. All I can say is I support the universal plan that benefits those who have a harder time affording coverage rather than the current plan where people like myself can afford coverage but those that have lower wages and a larger family cannot.

[BanginJimmy]

If that is the case then Malpractice Lawsuits should not be capped either, you can cap their liability but not their salary? Interesting..

Liability and damages are 2 different things. Liability should absolutely be capped while punitive damages should not be. With that said, tort reform is an absolute must if you want to have any shot and bringing healthcare costs down. Every sector of healthcare does excessive testing for nearly every illness because if the standard round of testing misses something, they will probably get sued for malpractice.

On Obama's plan, its one of those either you're against it or for it. If you're paying $200+ a month for medical insurance I don't see why anyone in that situation would be against reform. As I stated before, other countries rising economically have a universal plan and the healthcare industry is flourishing in those countries. All I can say is I support the universal plan that benefits those who have a harder time affording coverage rather than the current plan where people like myself can afford coverage but those that have lower wages and a larger family cannot.

As I have said before, if you are paying less than 300 a month for healthcare you will spend more with socialized healthcare and get lesser care in the process. Taxes will have to go up significantly to pay for this.

Next you will want to say we have a choice right? You could not possibly more wrong. This bill is designed to eliminate private insurance and force everyone onto the govt plan.

If I wasnt married, I wouldnt pay for anything more than a major medical plan that covers anything more than 2k or so. I VERY rarely goto the doc and I can afford a dentist visit every 6 months for less than I pay for insurance. Under the House plan, I would be fined an additional $2500 a year. How do you like that choice?

[tony]

Liability and damages are 2 different things. Liability should absolutely be capped while punitive damages should not be. With that said, tort reform is an absolute must if you want to have any shot and bringing healthcare costs down. Every sector of healthcare does excessive testing for nearly every illness because if the standard round of testing misses something, they will probably get sued for malpractice.



As I have said before, if you are paying less than 300 a month for healthcare you will spend more with socialized healthcare and get lesser care in the process. Taxes will have to go up significantly to pay for this.

Next you will want to say we have a choice right? You could not possibly more wrong. This bill is designed to eliminate private insurance and force everyone onto the govt plan.

If I wasnt married, I wouldnt pay for anything more than a major medical plan that covers anything more than 2k or so. I VERY rarely goto the doc and I can afford a dentist visit every 6 months for less than I pay for insurance. Under the House plan, I would be fined an additional $2500 a year. How do you like that choice?

Is it forcing or is it cheaper? As with the case in Hawaii people were not forced to move their children off of the plan they had, they CHOSE to go with the cheaper coverage, Capitalism right? Individuals still have the option to maintain their employer coverage or buy private insurance, nobody is being forced to do anything. Your verbiage sounds like it comes straight from Republican rhetoric rather than actual critical and factual arguments. Is the plan expensive? Yes it is but accomodations can be made (Such as the cut of the F-22 program for example) to better the quality of life of the people in this country.

On average the cost of the Uninsured as it is now is $1,000 per family (Source: https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstr...pdf?sequence=1) so while you may be afraid of the tax burden I'll be relieved that these people will have coverage AND I wont be taking up their uninsured costs any longer.

[BanginJimmy]

Is it forcing or is it cheaper?

The house plan does force people onto the govt option because of costs. First, there is a $2500 fine if you decide you dont want health insurance. Second, a private company is required to pay for health coverage or pay a fine equaling 8% of their payroll. Third, healthcare benefits will be taxed at the corporate income tax rate. Considering those last 2 things, a small to medium sized business is forced to drop their coverage and simply pay the 8% fine as it will be far cheaper.

As with the case in Hawaii people were not forced to move their children off of the plan they had, they CHOSE to go with the cheaper coverage, Capitalism right?

This isnt about competition, it is about using unfair business practices. Hawaii is actually a perfect example. It was designed to cover the kids without insurance, exactly like the house plan is. Instead, everyone moved to the free coverage. According to the Gov of hawaii, 85% of the kids on the plan had insurance before joining the govt one.

Individuals still have the option to maintain their employer coverage or buy private insurance, nobody is being forced to do anything.

Go back to my first response. And if you do decide to keep your own healthcare, you will be forced to pay for both plans instead of just your own.

Your verbiage sounds like it comes straight from Republican rhetoric rather than actual critical and factual arguments.

And yours are just as empty as Obama's talking points. Completely ignore details in favor of talking points and rhetoric. Read the bill. There is nothing in there that will maintain current care standards. There are provisions for an appointed board to determine what coverage levels certain people should get. There is also plenty of talk about heavily reducing a doctor's compensation to reduce costs.

Is the plan expensive? Yes it is but accomodations can be made (Such as the cut of the F-22 program for example) to better the quality of life of the people in this country.

Cutting the f-22 program completely will not pay 1% of the costs of this. All I have heard so far as ways to pay for this is cutting medicare and tax the rich.

On average the cost of the Uninsured as it is now is $1,000 per family (Source: https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstr...pdf?sequence=1) so while you may be afraid of the tax burden I'll be relieved that these people will have coverage AND I wont be taking up their uninsured costs any longer.

Why is it my responsibility to buy someone else's insurance? EVERY group, including the CBO, that has looked at the house plan says it will lower quality and raise costs.

[preferredduck]

The house plan does force people onto the govt option because of costs. First, there is a $2500 fine if you decide you dont want health insurance. Second, a private company is required to pay for health coverage or pay a fine equaling 8% of their payroll. Third, healthcare benefits will be taxed at the corporate income tax rate. Considering those last 2 things, a small to medium sized business is forced to drop their coverage and simply pay the 8% fine as it will be far cheaper.





This isnt about competition, it is about using unfair business practices. Hawaii is actually a perfect example. It was designed to cover the kids without insurance, exactly like the house plan is. Instead, everyone moved to the free coverage. According to the Gov of hawaii, 85% of the kids on the plan had insurance before joining the govt one.



Go back to my first response. And if you do decide to keep your own healthcare, you will be forced to pay for both plans instead of just your own.





And yours are just as empty as Obama's talking points. Completely ignore details in favor of talking points and rhetoric. Read the bill. There is nothing in there that will maintain current care standards. There are provisions for an appointed board to determine what coverage levels certain people should get. There is also plenty of talk about heavily reducing a doctor's compensation to reduce costs.




Cutting the f-22 program completely will not pay 1% of the costs of this. All I have heard so far as ways to pay for this is cutting medicare and tax the rich.



Why is it my responsibility to buy someone else's insurance? EVERY group, including the CBO, that has looked at the house plan says it will lower quality and raise costs.

by their standards it seems to me someone is still making money, and it won't be the doctors either. i heard about them forcing you to get insurance of you get fined. that is BS and as i stated someone has to be making a good return on their investment on this healthcare plan period.

[zspeed24]

If that is the case then Malpractice Lawsuits should not be capped either, you can cap their liability but not their salary? Interesting..

On Obama's plan, its one of those either you're against it or for it. If you're paying $200+ a month for medical insurance I don't see why anyone in that situation would be against reform. As I stated before, other countries rising economically have a universal plan and the healthcare industry is flourishing in those countries. All I can say is I support the universal plan that benefits those who have a harder time affording coverage rather than the current plan where people like myself can afford coverage but those that have lower wages and a larger family cannot.

Have you ever known someone that had to use another countries "universal(socialized)" health plan. I have family that lives in Ireland they have this kind of system. One of my in laws has had polio since she was a child and since this system has been started she can no longer recieve the treatment she is supposed to get to maintain a semi-normal life in the assisted living facility that she lives in. they now have deemed her to have lived far past her expected life span and have taken away 95 percent of her meds... all except her pain meds. I also had an uncle who had a hernia that needed surgery but because he wasn't a laborer and he worked in an office he was forced to wait nine months to recieve the surgery. Is this really the kind of system we need here. personally if i am sick and i need to be treated i should be able to get the treatment i need as soon as I can.
Just my exp/op though.