Who are the uninsured and why we need to repeal the health bill.

LOL let's all go bankrupt from healthcare spending which at over $800 billion and rising fast even before this massive spending bill passed, is more than 9 times as costly as the Iraq war which is winding down.
Dude you're a total ignoramous on this subject. Other nations who adopt these reforms spend a fraction on health care the what the US does. and acheive far superior results with what they do spend. You're just a cry baby hack who, essentially, doesn't even begin to understand this issue. If you really want to bankrupt our economy, you underbred nitwit, keep our current pay or suffer system which eats up nearly 20% of our GDP with costs sky rocketing the entire time and you'll see us go bankrupt.

You are so grossly uninformed on this issue it's just pathetically funny. Couldn't you take the time to actually study some real facts instead of reading what you want to from right wing web sites and do some original thinking instead of your copy and paste hackery?
 
Last edited:
Repeal is going to require veto proof majorities. That's not coming in 2010. Not in 2012. By that time, it will be for good unless it just breaks the US financially.
Socer, every modern industrialized nation who has adopted these three reforms, of which we just adopted the first one, has reduced their total spending on health care to between 6 and 8% of GDP and they achieve better results (THe US spends 16% of GDP, more than any nation on the planet and that cost is rising. We are also rated 37th by the WHO in the measures of wellness.).

#1. Require all persons to carry insurance with the government subsidizing those who cannot afford it.
#2. Provide a public health insurance option.
#3. Implement cost control measures.

The arguments that this reform will bankrupt us are so lame it aint even funny. There is a mountain of facts contradicting those claims. It is our current system which shall eventually bankrupt us. Why do you think we've implemented these reforms in the first place?
 
Last edited:
People WITH insurance go Bankrupt every year in this country from their healthcare spending. I don't think this bill was the answer but I am really tired of you conservatives looking at the dike with all the water coming through and telling us everything is ok.
I agree but as others have correctly pointed out, this is just the start of true reform. No one should ever be denied adequate access to health care due to lack of money nor should anyone have to go bankrupt because they got sick. That and reducing costs are the ultimate goals of health care reform.
 
That is indeed a sad situation but the problem I see is that someone has to pay for the treatment. The government has been doing so so far. Maybe they should keep doing so but take the restriction off of what they let the guy earn. I don't see how a business (insurance company) can pay out that sort of money per month and stay afloat for long. Again, I don't have the answers but "forcing" insurance companies to pay this, realizing that this isn't an isolated case but probably applies to several people, is a sure way to put them out of business...thus costing more jobs.
LR, that is why you have to have a requirement that all people carry health insurance. It broadens the economic pool so that these people can be covered and so can we when our health fails or declines. It's a numbers game and to many nations have learned that the only way you can provide an adequate level of health coverage for all citizens is to require all citizen be responsible and carry health insurance coverate. This is the first step that has to be taken to start controlling cost so that coverage can be expanded.
 
Socer, every modern industrialized nation who has adopted these three reforms, of which we just adopted the first one, has reduced their total spending on health care to between 6 and 8% of GDP and they achieve better results (THe US spends 16% of GDP, more than any nation on the planet and that cost is rising. We are also rated 37th by the WHO in the measures of wellness.).

#1. Require all persons to carry insurance with the government subsidizing those who cannot afford it.
#2. Provide a public health insurance option.
#3. Implement cost control measures.

The arguments that this reform will bankrupt us are so lame it aint even funny. There is a mountain of facts contradicting those claims. It is our current system which shall eventually bankrupt us. Why do you think we've implemented these reforms in the first place?

Oh really? Then why are so many countries in Europe having a health care cost crisis?
 
I'd say that those who are signing on now to repeal it are commiting political suicide. It won't take long after implementation that this legislation becomes very popular. If I was a republican...I'd tread carefully. To quote the shrub "They misunderestimate the American public and how fickle they are."


I disagree. This bill is not liked by the public, the "benefits" do not go into effect for the most part for another 4 years. The 'reform' does little to reduce the costs of health care. The public is growing increasing annoyed (to put it politely) with the insane spending in DC for the past decade.

The backlash coming in November will cost the Dems... my guess is they lose the House. The Senate will slide to 52-48 Dem majority.

If the Dems try to cram more crap down the throats of the public, they could lose the Senate as well.

That said, I do agree that the public is fickle... but they do really hate it when the politicians tell them what is good for them despite the public continually showing displeasure for what the politicians are doing. It crushed the Reps in 06 and again in 08. It will hammer the Dems in 2010.
 
I disagree. This bill is not liked by the public, the "benefits" do not go into effect for the most part for another 4 years. The 'reform' does little to reduce the costs of health care. The public is growing increasing annoyed (to put it politely) with the insane spending in DC for the past decade.

The backlash coming in November will cost the Dems... my guess is they lose the House. The Senate will slide to 52-48 Dem majority.

If the Dems try to cram more crap down the throats of the public, they could lose the Senate as well.

That said, I do agree that the public is fickle... but they do really hate it when the politicians tell them what is good for them despite the public continually showing displeasure for what the politicians are doing. It crushed the Reps in 06 and again in 08. It will hammer the Dems in 2010.

I pray you are right, cause then we could get some gridlock. Everytime something big passes I feel a tug on my wallet.
 
What about people like this, who fall through the cracks?

"Ken Haney is caught in the kind of vicious cycle that's supposed to end under the health insurance reform legislation passed Sunday night by the House of Representatives. He's had to choose between making a living and getting life-saving health care. Of course he's chosen the latter, but he would rather do both...

Mr. Haney has multiple sclerosis. He is being kept relatively functional by monthly infusions that cost $3,000 each, paid for by Medicaid because he couldn't get health insurance due to his pre-existing condition. He wants to work full time, but if he earns more than $200 a month he won't qualify for Medicaid. Without treatment, he'll become too disabled to work...

"I would like to work full time, earn a living and have a normal life," he said. "The treatments are working well, and I'm so much better than I was before. I ride my bike everywhere and don't have a problem with the steps in my house...

"I had health insurance, but it didn't actually pay for any of my medical expenses. I tried to get a better policy but they turned me down...

"If I could get affordable health care coverage, I could work and still be covered. With what's passed, maybe it will provide me with that option. As of now I don't have any options."


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10082/1044944-455.stm#ixzz0j19YAaeF
I could come up with individual cases of people dying waiting for healthcare in universal healthcare systems. But overall I gave you the facts and it clearly shows that the numbers of the real uninsured like the person above is very very small.

We all know that their are chances of what could go wrong and we each have choice over how much coverage we want to spend our money on and where else we want to spend that money. It's unfortunate his choice didn't work out but that is his responsibility. Has he tried looking for other kinds of work, for other companies insurance, for charity? Too many people think they are caught in a false dilemna before exploring their options.
Also why could he
 
Dude you're a total ignoramous on this subject. Other nations who adopt these reforms spend a fraction on health care the what the US does. and acheive far superior results with what they do spend. You're just a cry baby hack who, essentially, doesn't even begin to understand this issue. If you really want to bankrupt our economy, you underbred nitwit, keep our current pay or suffer system which eats up nearly 20% of our GDP with costs sky rocketing the entire time and you'll see us go bankrupt.

You are so grossly uninformed on this issue it's just pathetically funny. Couldn't you take the time to actually study some real facts instead of reading what you want to from right wing web sites and do some original thinking instead of your copy and paste hackery?
You are just making up numbers and hurling insults.

US Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007 and over $800 billion of that is Medicare/Medicaid which covers 1/3rd of the population. Which means that the government is MORE inefficient at covering the healthcare needs of the public than the private sector is - even with having to put up with the immense amount of regulation that virtually no other sector of the economy deals with.
Besides the Patients Rights Act (you remember the one the Dems passed in the late 90's that was supposed to fix healthcare before?) de facto bans cheaper healthcare because it is so easy to sue for offering it.
You either have to pay for the best expensive healthcare or none at all - which is what got us here.
 
You are just making up numbers and hurling insults.

US Spent $2.2 Trillion, 16.2% of GDP, on Health Care in 2007 and over $800 billion of that is Medicare/Medicaid which covers 1/3rd of the population. Which means that the government is MORE inefficient at covering the healthcare needs of the public than the private sector is - even with having to put up with the immense amount of regulation that virtually no other sector of the economy deals with.
Besides the Patients Rights Act (you remember the one the Dems passed in the late 90's that was supposed to fix healthcare before?) de facto bans cheaper healthcare because it is so easy to sue for offering it.
You either have to pay for the best expensive healthcare or none at all - which is what got us here.


Your argument is essentially that the government is inefficient because it spends a lot of money on healthcare for old, sick people?

Jesus. That's fucking stupiud.
 
Your argument is essentially that the government is inefficient because it spends a lot of money on healthcare for old, sick people?

Jesus. That's fucking stupiud.
No old and poor dolt.
The old use more and the poor use less (mainly because the poor are generally younger).

The bigger point is that government does not have a good record on managing healthcare costs. We've all seen the stories on the enormous amount of fraud in Medicaid but I'm sure you will pretend they aren't much so here are SOME.

Medicare and Medicaid made an estimated $23.7 billion in improper payments in 2007. These included $10.8 billion for Medicare and $12.9 billion for Medicaid. Medicare’s fee-for-service reduced its error rate from 4.4 percent to 3.9 percent. (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 2008)

Medicare and Medicaid lose an estimated $60 billion or more annually to fraud, including $2.5 billion in South Florida. (Miami Herald, August 11, 2008)
Every $1 the U.S. government invests in combating Medicare and Medicaid fraud saves $1.55. (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2009)

Medicare paid dead physicians 478,500 claims totaling up to $92 million from 2000 to 2007. These claims included 16,548 to 18,240 deceased physicians. (U.S. Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations, 2008)

Nearly one of three claims (29 percent) Medicare paid for durable medical equipment was erroneous in FY 2006. (Inspector General report, Department of Health and Human Services, August 2008)

Medicare and private health insurers pay up to $16 billion a year for needless imaging tests ordered by doctors. (American College of Radiology, 2004)
http://www.insurancefraud.org/medicarefraud.htm
 
I disagree. This bill is not liked by the public, the "benefits" do not go into effect for the most part for another 4 years. The 'reform' does little to reduce the costs of health care. The public is growing increasing annoyed (to put it politely) with the insane spending in DC for the past decade.

The backlash coming in November will cost the Dems... my guess is they lose the House. The Senate will slide to 52-48 Dem majority.

If the Dems try to cram more crap down the throats of the public, they could lose the Senate as well.

That said, I do agree that the public is fickle... but they do really hate it when the politicians tell them what is good for them despite the public continually showing displeasure for what the politicians are doing. It crushed the Reps in 06 and again in 08. It will hammer the Dems in 2010.

We'll win the house and senate in 2010, and we'll win it in 2012. GOPers are just born losers.
 
I'd say that those who are signing on now to repeal it are commiting political suicide. It won't take long after implementation that this legislation becomes very popular. If I was a republican...I'd tread carefully. To quote the shrub "They misunderestimate the American public and how fickle they are."

In 2012 Republicans will be attacking Democratic deficit reduction schemes by saying "Look! They're trying to cut your Obamacare!"
 
Repeal is going to require veto proof majorities. That's not coming in 2010. Not in 2012. By that time, it will be for good unless it just breaks the US financially.
It won't. First, Dano is incapable of independant thinking. He's just drinking the kool-aid. Third, math aint his strong point.

There will be no repeal of this bill...pandora's box is now open. were going to do what we should of done 40 years ago. Keep in mind that Obama's plan is slightly to the right of the one proposed by Richard Nixon so it's only just a begining.

As for the cost, Dano is a blythering idiot. If health care reform can eventually reduce national health care cost to around 8% of GDP, which is what most modern industrialized nations spend and improve outcomes to put our health care industry back into first world status then the savings from health care reform alone could pay off our national debt. In other words, we can't afford to NOT reform health care in this nation.

Dano just wants to drink the kool-aid and look under his bed at night for socialist so that he can be a good little goose-stepping Republican.
 
We'll win the house and senate in 2010, and we'll win it in 2012. GOPers are just born losers.
Oh I think there will be midterm loses for Dems but nothing to dramatic. Gerrymandering has made sure of that. Dems won't lose their majorities.

Republicans have to fear what happens 4 or 6 years down the pike when Health Care reforms become real popular and Dems make political hay out of the fact that they opposed them.

Don't underestimate how huge this is for Dems. This is the biggest piece of domestic legislation since the civil rights legislation of the 60's. Conservatives were on the wrong side of history then and their on the wrong side of history now.
 
Back
Top