Supporters of Obamacare

[Browning151]

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

4) the govt doesn't need to make a DIME. They can operate 11 trillion in the hole so no private company will be able to compete

The govt being involved in setting prices will do nothing more than drive companies out of business and more people out of jobs. No one in Washington understands what a budget is or how to come up with one, much less follow it if they had one. They will just continue to "lower prices" and operate at a loss and add that to the deficit, something that no private company has the luxury to do. That will end in total govt control of healthcare, this is just the first step.

Has anyone listened to or read Paul Ryans comments during the "healthcare summit"? Just wondering what everyones take on that was.

[BanginJimmy]

I said I would come back to this so here we go.

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

This isnt a fair playing field though. The Govt has no reason to return a profit. No stock holders and board to answer to.

We do agree about buying across state lines bringing in more competition though. The problem is, there isnt anything in the bill that would allow that, unless it was one of the changes Obama brought out yesterday.

2. By offering low cost care and expanding coverage for more preventative medicine, more costly procedures down the road can be prevented.

There is no evidence that preventative care leads to reduced costs.

Read this.

The only places that prevention would surely reduce costs is in the areas of personal habits such as smoking, weight, and inactivity. The author also includes colon cancer screenings, but I dont know if cancer can be prevented by anything. Catching it early may reduce costs some but a quick google tells me that there is no real way to know how much impact it would have.

3. Having a cheap option for lower income and high risk people will cause many of them to switch from the private insurers to the government option. This will reduce some of the most costly people from the private insurance pool and thus everyone's rates can be lower. This could kinda be seen as a wash for customers since lower premiums might be offset by the larger required government spending.

This isnt true because of the mandate that an insurer MUST cover them and they cannot charge them more because of a pre-existing condition. This will lead to MANY more people being added to the books of the insurance companies and no way for them to pay for them without a drastic rise in rates for everyone.


To add a little on to this though, I am a proponent of the provision that removes coverage caps and prevents an insurer from dropping someone from coverage. The only case where I can agree is a case in which an insurance company finds out about an UNDISCLOSED condition that is directly related to the current condition. IE: Dropping someone for not disclosing being treated for high blood pressure, then has a heart attack.

[BanginJimmy]

Has anyone listened to or read Paul Ryans comments during the "healthcare summit"? Just wondering what everyones take on that was.

I've heard bits and pieces of it. I really do hope he takes more of a lead than he has to this point.

[Browning151]

I've heard bits and pieces of it. I really do hope he takes more of a lead than he has to this point.

I would also like to see him step up, so far I haven't seen anyone else step up and address things the way he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=211od...eature=related

I have yet to see anyone refute anything that he said.

[bu villain]

Sounds like we agree on the first point.

There is no evidence that preventative care leads to reduced costs.

Read this.

The only places that prevention would surely reduce costs is in the areas of personal habits such as smoking, weight, and inactivity. The author also includes colon cancer screenings, but I dont know if cancer can be prevented by anything. Catching it early may reduce costs some but a quick google tells me that there is no real way to know how much impact it would have.

Good link. What it says is that many preventative measures ARE cost effective although many are not. If we only include those measures which have been studied to be cost effective, then that should lower costs right?

This isnt true because of the mandate that an insurer MUST cover them and they cannot charge them more because of a pre-existing condition. This will lead to MANY more people being added to the books of the insurance companies and no way for them to pay for them without a drastic rise in rates for everyone.

I agree with your analysis here but I think when I originally wrote about this issue it was assuming a government option, not government mandates on companies.

To add a little on to this though, I am a proponent of the provision that removes coverage caps and prevents an insurer from dropping someone from coverage. The only case where I can agree is a case in which an insurance company finds out about an UNDISCLOSED condition that is directly related to the current condition. IE: Dropping someone for not disclosing being treated for high blood pressure, then has a heart attack.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[BanginJimmy]

Good link. What it says is that many preventative measures ARE cost effective although many are not. If we only include those measures which have been studied to be cost effective, then that should lower costs right?

That would lower costs, but then we go back to defensive medicine. MANY tests and procedures are being done simply for a 'check in the box' as a standard test even though the docs know what the results will be ahead of time. The only reason they are doing it is so a patient cannot come back with a lawyer claiming the doc cut corners to save money. Without some form of tort reform that gives a doc greater protection against frivolous lawsuits, and therefore reduced malpractice insurance rates, reducing the number of covered tests and procedures will only result in those savings being negated by the costs of insurance.

I agree with your analysis here but I think when I originally wrote about this issue it was assuming a government option, not government mandates on companies.

The mandates were in there from the start of the process in the House and they were actually added to in the Senate by the additional tax on 'Cadillac' plans.

[BanginJimmy]

Blurred, you seem to have forgotten about this thread. Please refer back to posts 77 and 80. I will be waiting your response about Obama and the single payer system.

[Total_Blender]

If Obama's goal is single payer, then why have a mandate to buy insurance from PRIVATE companies? I remember hearing Obama's remarks on single payer (and to be honest I'm all for SP). But I don't see how adding 30 or 40 million people to the private system is gonna get us anywhere closer to a 100% public single payer system.

[Vteckidd]

Let's see if you can connect the dots

this "govt pool" he's talking about aka insurance exchange where rates will be lower and more affordable and will keep "insurance companies honest".....

Where will they get these lower cheaper rates from? How will they come up with it? Who are you buyng insurance from in the "govt pool" the govt or private insurance?

[BanginJimmy]

Let's see if you can connect the dots

this "govt pool" he's talking about aka insurance exchange where rates will be lower and more affordable and will keep "insurance companies honest".....

Where will they get these lower cheaper rates from? How will they come up with it? Who are you buyng insurance from in the "govt pool" the govt or private insurance?

I'll add onto this.

The mandates on the insurance companies will drastically raise rates for everyone. There is really no possible way for them not to rise when you consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will be added to the insurer's roles and they will not be able to charge them a proportionate amount.

To those additional costs there are the added fees and taxes that will be imposed by the bill. As we all know, corporations dont pay taxes, they simply transfer their burden to their customers. An additional tax burden, just means another rate hike.

To add to THOSE additional costs, the docs that are treating patients will need to raise their prices. This price hike will be to cover the gap between what medicare/medicaid pays and what a procedure really costs. The docs arent going to lose money to treat those patients as we all know. There may even come a time where docs quit accepting medicare/medicaid if the gap gets to be too large to cover with the raised prices on insurers.

[David88vert]

I'll add onto this.

The mandates on the insurance companies will drastically raise rates for everyone. There is really no possible way for them not to rise when you consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will be added to the insurer's roles and they will not be able to charge them a proportionate amount.

To those additional costs there are the added fees and taxes that will be imposed by the bill. As we all know, corporations dont pay taxes, they simply transfer their burden to their customers. An additional tax burden, just means another rate hike.

To add to THOSE additional costs, the docs that are treating patients will need to raise their prices. This price hike will be to cover the gap between what medicare/medicaid pays and what a procedure really costs. The docs arent going to lose money to treat those patients as we all know. There may even come a time where docs quit accepting medicare/medicaid if the gap gets to be too large to cover with the raised prices on insurers.

With a larger pool of people, the risk dispersed amongst a larger base, so you cannot just say that costs will rise. You would need some hard numbers to properly speculate on this. It is probable that the rates will rise - as they currently do - simply because the insurance companies need to show growth to their shareholders to have their stock prices increase. Nothing will change that.

Additional fees will be added on - with or without the additional people being insured by private companies - this is already happening. Taxes will rise whether or not this healthcare bill passes. That is a known issue that we will have to face.

Doctors are already refusing to take Medicare, as Medicare is reducing payments by 21% - I posted an article on this a few days ago.

[Total_Blender]

There is no evidence that preventative care leads to reduced costs.

Read this.

Findings that some cost-saving or highly efficient measures are underused would indicate that current practice is inconsistent with the efficient delivery of health care. Other services might be identified as overused, and such findings would underscore the importance of fashioning policies that provide incentives to shift practice toward more cost-effective delivery of health care. In the face of increasingly constrained resources, there is a realistic way of achieving better health results: conduct careful analysis to identify evidence-based opportunities for more efficient delivery of health care — whether prevention or treatment — and then restructure the system to create incentives that encourage the appropriate delivery of efficient interventions.

You are wrong in saying that there is absolutely no evidence that prevention reduces cost. What your article says is that the evidence is mixed and that in some instances it reduces cost and in some it doesn't. The author suggests that we can identify the services of preventative care that DO work to reduce costs and employ those.

Another cost saving measure that has been proposed would be advance directives, which would save doctors and hospitals from legal troubles such as in the case of Terri Schaivo.

And theres also HR 1706, that prohibits name brand drug companies from paying the smaller drug companies for withholding the release of generic drugs.

Theres another bill that has something to do with the way prescription drugs are wholesaled... From what I heard, it will allow for more buying direct from the manufacturers. And it will also make for more accurate reporting of any discounts and incentive deals that happen between insurance companies, medicare, and big pharma.

[Total_Blender]

I'll add onto this.

The mandates on the insurance companies will drastically raise rates for everyone. There is really no possible way for them not to rise when you consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will be added to the insurer's roles and they will not be able to charge them a proportionate amount.

Aren't you all saying that the insurance pools benefit from healthy people? Throwing 30-40 million more people into the private system will give them a ton more revenue compared to the added payouts. You all are the ones saying the private system can operate more efficiently, but under the current system they don't have any incentive to do so.

I imagine that not everyone will qualify for the public plan. The public plan will probably have an income limit or something to where its just for those who are marginalized by the private system, don't have employer provided coverage, or can't afford the coverage their employer provides. Also, as I understand it the public plan will operate like a regular insurance plan in that most users will still make a monthly payment. So while the plan might operate at a loss, it probably won't operate at as great of a loss as you all are projecting.

[BanginJimmy]

With a larger pool of people, the risk dispersed amongst a larger base, so you cannot just say that costs will rise. You would need some hard numbers to properly speculate on this. It is probable that the rates will rise - as they currently do - simply because the insurance companies need to show growth to their shareholders to have their stock prices increase. Nothing will change that.

Many of those people that are currently uninsured are not covered because they are high risk and an existing condition makes the rates too high for them, or they are denied coverage. Add those people to the roles of insurance companies and forcing insurance companies to charge them the same rate as everyone else in that demographic will lead to rise in rates.

Additional fees will be added on - with or without the additional people being insured by private companies - this is already happening. Taxes will rise whether or not this healthcare bill passes. That is a known issue that we will have to face.

OK, so we have the inevitable rise in taxes on insurance companies. Then you want to add even more risk to those companies? I thought this bill was about lowering health care costs, not raising them. Oh yea, the people pushing this hardest have already said they want a single payer system.

Doctors are already refusing to take Medicare, as Medicare is reducing payments by 21% - I posted an article on this a few days ago.

I missed the article, but makes my point even stronger. You have the so called "doctor fix", then an additional 500B in cuts to medicare. How many more docs are going to just quit accepting it? 3 years after benefits start on this bill, I see Congress coming out with a bill that requires all docs to accept medicare because so many will drop it to keep their prices lower and profits higher.

[BanginJimmy]

Aren't you all saying that the insurance pools benefit from healthy people? Throwing 30-40 million more people into the private system will give them a ton more revenue compared to the added payouts. You all are the ones saying the private system can operate more efficiently, but under the current system they don't have any incentive to do so.

You are assuming that all 30-40 million (your number) are healthy. All it takes is for a few hundred cancer patients to be added to the insurance company's roles before ALL revenue generated by the added numbers is used up.

I imagine that not everyone will qualify for the public plan. The public plan will probably have an income limit or something to where its just for those who are marginalized by the private system, don't have employer provided coverage, or can't afford the coverage their employer provides. Also, as I understand it the public plan will operate like a regular insurance plan in that most users will still make a monthly payment. So while the plan might operate at a loss, it probably won't operate at as great of a loss as you all are projecting.

There is no govt option in the current bill.

[BanginJimmy]

You are wrong in saying that there is absolutely no evidence that prevention reduces cost. What your article says is that the evidence is mixed and that in some instances it reduces cost and in some it doesn't. The author suggests that we can identify the services of preventative care that DO work to reduce costs and employ those.

There is still no evidence that prevention , in general, are a way to reduce costs. Yes, there are specific things that can be done to prevent costs, but as a whole, prevention is not a cost saver.

Another cost saving measure that has been proposed would be advance directives, which would save doctors and hospitals from legal troubles such as in the case of Terri Schaivo.

It isnt the govt's decision whether you should have one or not. That is a purely personal choice.

And theres also HR 1706, that prohibits name brand drug companies from paying the smaller drug companies for withholding the release of generic drugs.

Theres another bill that has something to do with the way prescription drugs are wholesaled... From what I heard, it will allow for more buying direct from the manufacturers. And it will also make for more accurate reporting of any discounts and incentive deals that happen between insurance companies, medicare, and big pharma.

I am all for tighter restrictions on pharmaceuticals, but where do we draw the line? Big pharma might spend 2 or 3B to develop a single drug that may or may not be a success, should they be required to immediately allow for a generic to be marketed?


I'm not going to quote our quote from the article, but here is a quote from the preceding paragraph.

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.

[David88vert]

And theres also HR 1706, that prohibits name brand drug companies from paying the smaller drug companies for withholding the release of generic drugs.

That bill last moved from subcommittee to full commmittee on 6/3/2009.
There are plenty of lobbyists involved in it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/bil...lname=H.R.1706

[David88vert]

Many of those people that are currently uninsured are not covered because they are high risk and an existing condition makes the rates too high for them, or they are denied coverage. Add those people to the roles of insurance companies and forcing insurance companies to charge them the same rate as everyone else in that demographic will lead to rise in rates.

OK, so we have the inevitable rise in taxes on insurance companies. Then you want to add even more risk to those companies? I thought this bill was about lowering health care costs, not raising them. Oh yea, the people pushing this hardest have already said they want a single payer system.

I missed the article, but makes my point even stronger. You have the so called "doctor fix", then an additional 500B in cuts to medicare. How many more docs are going to just quit accepting it? 3 years after benefits start on this bill, I see Congress coming out with a bill that requires all docs to accept medicare because so many will drop it to keep their prices lower and profits higher.

Many that are currently not insured are those who choose not to purchase insurance, due to the cost vs the perceived amount of risk. Young people tend to opt out of spending on insurance as much. That is fact. Adding these will lower the risk, allowing insurance companies to balance out the higher risk insured that you mentioned. This could allow insurance companies to have the ability not to raise rates on a whole.

The reason that rates will rise has nothing to do with insurance claims. It has to do with profit. Private insurance companies are typically publically traded, and funded through their stockholders. These stockholders expect a postive return on their investment, so the company must show growth and profit. Rates will continue to rise to show increase in profit driven by revenue. As soon as your company stops growing, your investors will leave you for another company.

Medicare is broken, that cannot be denied. I am not a fan of government run healthcare, but I am able to look at the problem outside of the partisan lines.

[tony]

The reason that rates will rise has nothing to do with insurance claims. It has to do with profit. Private insurance companies are typically publically traded, and funded through their stockholders. These stockholders expect a postive return on their investment, so the company must show growth and profit. Rates will continue to rise to show increase in profit driven by revenue. As soon as your company stops growing, your investors will leave you for another company.

Even as a shareholder who has invested in Pharmaceutical companies that is so much of a conflict of interest that it is sickening. In a publicly traded company the shareholders are important but when it concerns the wellbeing of citizens the stakeholders and most notably the customers should be the first concern.

[ahmonrah]

i'm watching Cspan right now, and the health care bill leaves out the cost of paying doctors.......to the tune of $367billion, that's on TOP of the projected cost right now.

i'm gonna fuckin puke.

[ahmonrah]

Many that are currently not insured are those who choose not to purchase insurance, due to the cost vs the perceived amount of risk. Young people tend to opt out of spending on insurance as much. That is fact. Adding these will lower the risk, allowing insurance companies to balance out the higher risk insured that you mentioned. This could allow insurance companies to have the ability not to raise rates on a whole.

The reason that rates will rise has nothing to do with insurance claims. It has to do with profit. Private insurance companies are typically publically traded, and funded through their stockholders. These stockholders expect a postive return on their investment, so the company must show growth and profit. Rates will continue to rise to show increase in profit driven by revenue. As soon as your company stops growing, your investors will leave you for another company.

Medicare is broken, that cannot be denied. I am not a fan of government run healthcare, but I am able to look at the problem outside of the partisan lines.

i'm a fan of G healthcare, so long as it's used from the 35-40% that's already being taken from income taxes....i mean dayum.

question. does anyone have a definitive and non-biased synopsis of the government ran healthcare systems of the UK and Canada, France and Cuba?

from what i've seen before, England began theirs after the obliteration of WW2, when their country was FUBAR. unless someone corrects me, their medical professionals are still well paid...

Canada? i personally have no idea. though it takes longer to be treated(C-span )

France...no clue exactly but it's rolled into their taxes.

reduce the frickin defense budget...actually, citizens need to go to DC, find every lobbyist and toss their asses out into the streets. but back to the defense budget...$663.7billion?? what enemies do we have? i mean, i know we have an empire....700 worldwide facilities attests to that. but do we have any enemies that warrant that $$? not that i know of. how about we have our services @ home, training as usual, occupying bases in the US for what they are for, defense of this land. i'm sure if all our forces were home, this in service would be happier, plus im sure the border hopping would stop fast as hell, seeing marines doing desert training @ the border. and i know, the military charter states they arent to operate inside the borders....take the fight to the enemy, but we are, IMO, spread thin as hell our back doors open.

then kick the bankers in the balls, get our money back, kick our Reps in their asses too...they work for us, not lobbyists


i'm frustrated as hell about this countrys current standings...... it's looking very, very, very bad.

[tony]

My unbiased understanding of healthcare in the countries you've mentioned. I know individuals who have lived in Canada, the U.K and France.

My Canadian friend likes her healthcare. She still pays for $120 a month for full coverage but she understands it could be much more. Has never had a problem with wait times or service.

The U.K system as I understand it has a lot of problems. Wait times suck unless you require critical care and they are taxed to all hell.

France has a very good system, again highly taxed but isn't run as bad as the U.K. Will you get the cutting edge technology that we have here in America? No but your treatment isn't going to be anything close to outdated either.

[David88vert]

My unbiased understanding of healthcare in the countries you've mentioned. I know individuals who have lived in Canada, the U.K and France.

My Canadian friend likes her healthcare. She still pays for $120 a month for full coverage but she understands it could be much more. Has never had a problem with wait times or service.

The U.K system as I understand it has a lot of problems. Wait times suck unless you require critical care and they are taxed to all hell.

France has a very good system, again highly taxed but isn't run as bad as the U.K. Will you get the cutting edge technology that we have here in America? No but your treatment isn't going to be anything close to outdated either.

Canadians often travel to the US, if they need healthcare.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...h.care.system/
Key Detail: "Because the government system is the only health care option for Canadians, she says she had no choice but to have the surgery in the U.S."

UK has long waits also.

France is rated to have the best system bar-none. It is very expensive. It is not without problems though, and is currently being modified to be more like the US system.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92419273
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm

[BanginJimmy]

Will you get the cutting edge technology that we have here in America? No but your treatment isn't going to be anything close to outdated either.

This is part of the problem everywhere. People want the latest and greatest procedures even if their are far less expensive alternatives that are just as good.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm a fan of G healthcare, so long as it's used from the 35-40% that's already being taken from income taxes....i mean dayum.

If the govt takes it over, expect you income taxes to go up to around 55-60%. You can also expect a sizable jump in your insurance rates, and your medicare taxes.

Hell, your current 35-40% is resulting in a 1.5T deficit, what do you think another 200B+ a year in spending is going to do?

reduce the frickin defense budget...actually, citizens need to go to DC, find every lobbyist and toss their asses out into the streets. but back to the defense budget...$663.7billion?? what enemies do we have? i mean, i know we have an empire....700 worldwide facilities attests to that. but do we have any enemies that warrant that $$? not that i know of. how about we have our services @ home, training as usual, occupying bases in the US for what they are for, defense of this land. i'm sure if all our forces were home, this in service would be happier, plus im sure the border hopping would stop fast as hell, seeing marines doing desert training @ the border. and i know, the military charter states they arent to operate inside the borders....take the fight to the enemy, but we are, IMO, spread thin as hell our back doors open.

You really have no clue where the defense budget is spent do you? More than 2/3 is spent on personnel and all of the things needed to support them, such as housing and medical care. The only place to really cut defense spending is in the acquisition process. I can tell you from my own experience, that entire process pushes the cost of anything to more than double what it should be.


A better idea would be to reduce spending on entitlements. All of that money is simply money that is wasted on those that have no intention of doing anything more than living off the govt tit.

then kick the bankers in the balls, get our money back, kick our Reps in their asses too...they work for us, not lobbyists

You also need to add the people that bought houses they couldnt afford and racked up crazy debt in the process.

Kick congress in the balls again for their credit card bill. As a result of that bill, 2 of my 3 CC's had an interest rate jump of better than 10% right before it kicked in.

i'm frustrated as hell about this countrys current standings...... it's looking very, very, very bad.

From a business and jobs sense, things will get better after cap and trade and health care legislation is killed. Also, after the Nov elections, the entire Obama platform will be over with, giving further confidence to businesses.

[dallasb84]

qft jimmy.... your on the money .....exactly...

if i may add my two cents.... obama's plan is and has always been supported by minority voters as well as younger age demographics for the soul purpose of majority acceptance... the problem is his "ideas" are merely a trick to turn the nations debt on the people who enacted and voted in this legislature.

his healthcare reform is nothing more than a ponzi scheme..... the same deal bernie maddoff created.

obamacare will be paid for by the next generation of tax payers......majority of which are born from minority families.

the only way for a healthcare reform to work is to have an exponential population growth of taxpayers able to pay for the last generations debt.


sorry obama


oh and one thing obama didnt see...... virginia has passed a state law banning healthcare reform.....

yeaayyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


if i were HNIC.... i would have federal funded emergency service hospitals....

to treat accidental injury, life threatening injuries, and life threatening trama and cancer treatment.

ONLY.

specialized medacine should be paid for by the idividual.....general health treated by the government.

[BanginJimmy]

I love how quickly people disappear and avoid admitting they are wrong.

Come on you Obama worshippers, at least you can admit that this legislation has less to do with cost controls than it does with additional govt control. We won't even get into the process they are using to shove this down our throats.

[tony]

lol You think people stop posting to avoid admitting wrong? Maybe its because the same conversation comes up with the same points with the same results.. no objectivity. I mean I could break down the responses but for what? We have a difference in ideology and many have shown that they will stick to their partisan beliefs rather than approach the subject objectively.

[Vteckidd]

Let them pass it like pelosi wants, the American people aren't stupid. This passes like they are talking it will be the end of democrats in power for a long time

[BanginJimmy]

That might be true but then we are still stuck with it. After its law no one will have the balls to go after repealing it as they would immediately be targeted saying they are against the poor and they are against minorities. You know, the same things we have been hearing since this started.

I actually wish there was a chance that the dems wouldn't be routed this year no matter what happens. Many of these dems already know they are gone, no matter hoq they vote, so what do they have to lose? Their job is to toe the line and take the hit. Obama will probably offer them jobs in his admin after they are voted out.

[Total_Blender]

I am all for tighter restrictions on pharmaceuticals, but where do we draw the line? Big pharma might spend 2 or 3B to develop a single drug that may or may not be a success, should they be required to immediately allow for a generic to be marketed?

If the smaller drug companies can come up with generics at a much lower cost than the big boys, why not allow them to compete? If the goal is to make the system more efficient, why are we allowing the big drug companies to hold back the companies that are actually efficient?

It isnt the govt's decision whether you should have one or not. That is a purely personal choice.

The legislation that proposed including advanced directives said that they are not mandatory. All it says is that you can bill your insurance for time you spend discussing end-of life options with your doctor and other healthcare professionals. Is an optional fucking consultation, you choose whether to have one or not. FUCKING FUCK, when will you rightwingers understand this?!!!!

Anyway, said directives will help hospitals and doctors from legal battles, and it will make the end-of-life care process more efficient.

As far as premiums go, your premiums are currently inflated because you're paying for those uninsured who go to the emergency rooms and have their services billed to indigent care. So having something outside of private insurance and the hospitals themselves to pay for this care will lower premiums. Granted, that money will still be coming out of somebody's pocket in some way or another, but it won't be an added cost.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5...a9ef5f12d43979

[article]
The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.
For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now.
The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.[/article]

[Vteckidd]

If it's such an awesome bill why can't dems pass it? Surely all you libs feel the same way and this is such a great bill and piece of legislation why can't you pass it? Why do you have to emplore backdoor reconciliation and now a exclusion process making sure no one in the senate has to vote on a bill they don't want to pass.

This is deploreable and I have lost all faith I'm our legislative process. The point of passing legislation is doing it as above board as possible with a majority of votes to pass laws. What they are doing is saying "we will pass this anyway possible regardless of what everyone else thinks"

pelosi even said yesterday she likes the exclusionary process because "people won't have to attach their name to the senate bill" meaning they can look their constituents in the eye and say " technically I didn't vote for that"

this is the tactics and process we have reduced ourselves too?

[tony]

Many dems oppose it because it does not go far enough, they feel there should be a public option. Just got into a heated debate with a very liberal friend about this.

[Vteckidd]

That doesn't answer my question

if it's that big of an issue why are they trying to pass it? You're own party is obviously very divided over the issue, why pass it ?

So you're saying they should railroad their own party?

[tony]

This is deploreable and I have lost all faith I'm our legislative process. The point of passing legislation is doing it as above board as possible with a majority of votes to pass laws. What they are doing is saying "we will pass this anyway possible regardless of what everyone else thinks"

this is the tactics and process we have reduced ourselves too?

If your beef truly is with the legislative process then where was this sentiment during the Bush administration? Reconcilliation was a very common tool to push through legislation that would never pass through congress.

[tony]

That doesn't answer my question

if it's that big of an issue why are they trying to pass it? You're own party is obviously very divided over the issue, why pass it ?

So you're saying they should railroad their own party?

That is the rationale, it is why Kucinich held out till this point. They're divided because they are lifelong politicians and wont touch anything that threatens their position as such. This bill is a kamikaze bill for many Democrats, yeah the mission will get done but they wont be around to see it because they will get voted out, or maybe not but they don't want to risk it. Those who support it feel it is a step toward comprehensive health reform, ultimately it will pass but by a slim margin. I'm not a Democrat btw.

[Vteckidd]

If your beef truly is with the legislative process then where was this sentiment during the Bush administration? Reconcilliation was a very common tool to push through legislation that would never pass through congress.

Respectfully I have 2 opinions:

1) the use of reconciliation THEN is not even comparable to the use of it now. You can't possibly compare tax cuts to a total overhaul of 1/6th of our economy. Is this pandoras box now? Why vote on anything anymore just use reconciliation. Furthermore tax cuts is reducing existing tax rules, healthcare reform isn't reducing existing taxes ONLY, or reducing BUDGETARY excesses. Sure some will argue fey are the same thing but any rationale human being knows that the bush tax cuts is not even in the same arena of healthcare reform.

2) If bush was wrong in your mind then the dems are no different. I never get this argument "bush did it" so it's ok if Obama does it. I never said I agreed with bush using it either but again in my mind ita not even in the same arena. If bush used reconciliation to pass oh I don't know, the war on Iraq, or homeland security agency, then it would be a similar argument

[tony]

Legislative process is legislative process without variation in initiatives. Doesn't matter if it is Tax Cuts or Healthcare. You assume because you think I'm a Democrat that I was against reconciliation in the past but that couldn't be further from the truth. I have no problem with reconciliation, I never even said I had a problem with the tax cuts, while they did result in a growing deficit I don't fault the cuts for the economic collapse. All I was asking is, if the process is so broken where was the gripe then when it was being used then?

[BanginJimmy]

lol You think people stop posting to avoid admitting wrong?

In the case of Blurred Vision, yes.

Maybe its because the same conversation comes up with the same points with the same results.. no objectivity. I mean I could break down the responses but for what? We have a difference in ideology and

The convo is me asking what provisions will reduce costs for insurance companies, and therefore, those that are insured by them. To this point, I have seen one response to that question and I then debunked it. In fact, the original poster of that, Bu Villain, admitted that he was wrong on that point.

many have shown that they will stick to their partisan beliefs rather than approach the subject objectively.

Just making sure you include yourself in this.

[tony]

I have partisan views? Obviously on some level we all do but I go out of my way to minimize that influence. I form my own opinions on issues like healthcare, and on that issue I don't feel it should be a for profit industry. I feel there is a great conflict of interest when you mix in the interest of shareholders and profits when you are dealing with factors that determines whether an individual lives or dies. Did I get that view from Obama or Pelosi? No.. believe it or not some of us are able to form an opinion based on our own research and experiences.