jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (31 posts)

A few of the conservative reasons why healthcare bill is bad...

  1. SparklingJewel profile image68
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    I truly want to know if these are valid reasons...or are they perspective on what "could" happen, or just totally absurd possibilities.
    If you have proof to validate or deny these reasonings, I genuinely would like to hear them?

    Here are just some of them, from a conservatives view:

        * The government will take over 1/6 of the American economy, and put government bureaucrats between you and your 
    family's health care providers.
        * It will cost $2.3 trillion over 10 years when fully implemented and dump a huge debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren (Senate Budget Committee).
        * It creates more than 110 new agencies and bureaucracies in the federal government.
        * It will cut $500 billion from Medicare and $170 billion from Medicare Advantage, resulting in rationed and inferior medical care for senior citizens.
        * It is "the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation that has ever come to the House floor for a vote" and contains numerous "federal pro-abortion mandates and federal subsidies for abortion" (Doug Johnson, National Right to Life Committee).
        * It will require taxpayer funding for abortion, and will even require purchasers of private plans to pay a monthly fee to pay for other people's abortions.
        * It contains no conscience protections for health care providers who do not want to be coerced into performing abortions.

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The cost when fully operational can't possibly be known. We do know it is estimated to cost 1 trillion over the first 10 years but benefits don't kick in until after four years and all of the benefits won't be fully implemented until 2018. Some estimate the cost when fully operational over 10 years to be 6 trillion!

      Read the bill, it's an absolute take over perhaps more accurately, will certainly lead to one. Remember Obama's own words on the campaign trail, he was for a single payer system.

      I couldn't count the amount of new bureaucracies created but I was shocked at the plans for health care panels etc. Some of this was already enacted by the stimulus bill! Basically the gov will be collecting digital medical records on all of us and a panel will decide what care and treatments are most appropriate. There is also a panel for prevention. You can see where it's all leading, it's frightening!

      Cuts in medicare are being used as the major funding for this new entitlement program. What they will actually be cutting is reimbursements to doctors. Many doctors are already turning away any new medicare patients because the reimbursements are too low, this will make it worse. Supposedly there is another 200 billion dollar bill they will pass after this one to fix that. It was separated out to bring the CBO cost estimate for this bill below 1 trillion.

      I haven't looked into the abortion stuff, but let's face it, how can you realistically extract abortion from health care? If a woman needs an abortion in order to save her life will she be denied?

    2. ErictheGator profile image60
      ErictheGatorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Read the bill for yourself and make your own mind up. Don't allow Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or any of the talking heads on radio. Assuming others have the rigjt answers is a mistake, rely on you! You can also use fact check to help you verify what's a fact or bs.

  2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    You left out the most obvious answer-

    Paranoia fueled by talking heads, readily accepted by gullible rubes.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image68
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...and do you think your perspective was established in a vacuum?
      who influenced you? smile  seriously

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Che, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez!

  3. livewithrichard profile image83
    livewithrichardposted 7 years ago

    From what I have heard, you will be given a fine if you don't purchase health insurance. However, the fine will be less than the cost of an annual policy and since there is a mandate that nobody can be turned down for insurance, all one has to do is wait until they're in an accident or become seriously ill then purchase the insurance.  This bill effectively takes away any incentive to have health insurance and all it is, is a huge tax ranging from $800 to $5000 per person x the 50 million+ required to purchase it. The rest are on medicade, medicare, and va. Is it going to reduce costs through waste and fraud? Not with 110 new agencies and bureaucracies dipping their dirty little fingers in the pot.

    1. Padrino profile image60
      Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Don't forget the 16,000 new IRS agents!

      1. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The IRS collected fine does not start until 2014.

        1. Padrino profile image60
          Padrinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So? The expense of creating bigger government falls on the taxpayer, every taxpayer, not just those making 250,000 or more.

          In other words, hope and change translates to more of the same plus!

          1. LiamBean profile image89
            LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I knew you'd provide us with a bright outlook! Thanks.

  4. MikeNV profile image73
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    "Improper payments totaled an estimated $54 billion in 2009. They range from simple errors such as duplicate billing to elaborate schemes operated by fraudsters peddling everything from wheelchairs to hospice care."

    And you want to turn health care over to an organization that has continually PROVEN and inability to manage the existing programs and contain costs on any level?

    Look what they did with the Bank Bailout.  They handed out $700 Billion (yes I know it has not all been given out yet and some has been paid back) with statements written into the handout that do not require accountability for the money.  Much of this money will never ever be paid back!

    You want to let the Government decide who does and doesn't get health care?

    It's nearly impossible to find an qualified specialist who accepts medicare.  I know of real life patients on medicare who opted to have surgeries that were not the best surgery for their intended condition because they could not find a specialist who could perform the surgery that would be best... a specialist that accepted medicare. This is subpar and the standard not the norm.

    The Democratic Party is demonizing Health Insurers. And while there are abuses by some companies... much of it due to laws which allow Monopolies... most Health Insurance companies are operating like any other corporate business.

    Most are paying their executives like any other Corporate Entity.

    Many are NOT turning a profit.

    In 2008 Kaiser LOST over $700 million.  Nobody was complaining about that!

    I worked for one of the countries largest health insurers.  I had access to actuarial information.  People who have insurance use it and over use it.  They want every test under the sun performed for the simplistic problem. They go to the doctor for every thing because they are "covered". That is the reality of the system.

    Health insurance is not Health Care.  Health care is taking care of your body and PREVENTING disease.  Doctors can only Cut and Drug and by the time you get to that point it's very expensive because the options are limited.

    The Government continues to subsidize food crops that encourage low prices on beef and corn.  There is not effort by the Government to subsidize healthy food choices.

  5. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    * The government will take over 1/6 of the American economy, and put government bureaucrats between you and your 
    family's health care providers.

    ---------------------------------------------
    There are NO bureaucrats between you and your doctor. Anybody who claims differently needs to back it up. Palin backed down from her 'death panel' claim in less than a week - substituting a totally different and equally lame excuse.

    From NY Times  - A documented takeover of 2.8% of the economy.

    "How could this be so?

    Start with the $950 billion price tag over the next decade for federal subsidies toward the purchase of private health insurance.  Divide that amount by $34 trillion, the current projection for total national health spending over the next decade even in the absence of health reform.

    You will get 2.8 percent.  Does that, then, constitute a government takeover of our health system?"

    -------------------------------------------------


        * It will cost $2.3 trillion over 10 years when fully implemented and dump a huge debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren (Senate Budget Committee).

    --------------------------------------------------

    To quote Sarah Palin - "Ya can't just make stuff up."
    I am going to quote the Chairman of the Congressional Budget Office from his blog on the Senate Bill. This is long but it's comprehensive and it's from the non-partisan office that does this stuff. If you skip over the quote - I summarize after.

    "According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits.   ...............

    "All told, the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $12 billion in 2019, CBO and JCT estimate. After that, the added revenues and cost savings are projected to grow more rapidly than the cost of the coverage expansion. Consequently, CBO expects that the proposal, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP."

    Let me pull out the key figures - you can check it against the source above. I don't make stuff up and twist it.

    Total Net Cost (2010 - 2019) - 829 billion (Anyone who wants to round that up to 1 Trillion is in the real world - but 2.3 is fantasyland.)

    Reduce the deficit in 2019 - by 12 Billion

    NET reduction in deficits (2010 - 2019) - 81 Billion

    Savings in the next decade (2020 - 2029) at .25 to .50 of GDP translate conservatively to 700 billion to 1 Trillion in DEFICIT REDUCTION in the first FULL decade that the program is enacted. There is no 'huge burden of debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren'. It reduces the deficit nearly a trillion dollars!!!!! Do you understand English????????

    ---------------------------------------
         * It creates more than 110 new agencies and bureaucracies in the federal government.

    The cost of these agencies (some are temporary) is included in the CBO estimates. The benefit of these agencies is to provide insurance for over 30 million Americans, save 45,000 lives every year, reduce the budget in the first full decade it's enacted by a Trillion dollars - WITHOUT increasing the national debt. Sorry, we won't get it done by borrowing 2 elderly GS9 secretaries from the Pentagon.

    ------------------------------------------

        * It will cut $500 billion from Medicare and $170 billion from Medicare Advantage, resulting in rationed and inferior medical care for senior citizens.

    Pilot programs have shown the cost and degree of fraud, waste and errors in Medicare. Medicare advantage was a GOP giveaway to private insurers (corporate welfare) where they get a cut of medicare for doing wastefully what Medicare does efficiently.

    Democrats created Medicare over the opposition of the GOP - there's no way in hell democrats are are going to hurt Seniors.

    (Can you say 'scare tactic'?)

    1. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      As a well known television doctor said recently "They are arguing over pennies. We should be talking about the care of our health rather than health-care."

  6. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    That $700 billion bank bail-out was Bush/Paulson.
    Obama was the Stimulus.
    Not one repub that I heard called Bush a socialist.

    And if healthcare is 1/6 of the economy, than that's 1/6 of the economy that has been controlled by the Insurance companies....for profit.
    Why no cries of corporate Take-Over?
    Cause cons like it.
    Cause that's what they want.
    money money money makes za vorld go arrround.

    1. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Because the government is the one forcing this corporate take-over.

    2. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I simply find it fundamentally troubling that the health of American citizens is in the hands of for-profit corporations. And because of that business structure both the treatment and prevention aspects of healthcare will be doled out or granted strictly from a profit for service basis.

      Such a model insures that only profitable drugs are produced, only profitable surgeries are performed, and only profitable treatments are prescribed.

      A certain recipe for health disaster.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Part of what happened in handing ove 30 million new customers to the insurance companies is the CONTROLS that the government imposed on the industry. Controls on the percent of premiums that MUST be spent on care (not administartion and profits). And inclusion of people with pre-existing conditions and people who become ill.

        What we had was a disaster.  What Health Care Reform provides is the first step twoard sanity in health care.

        There were other better options but they suffered from a fatal flaw - they couldn't have been passed.

        1. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The problem with the 15% profit cap you mention is that it only applies to "large group policies." I have yet to find a definition for "large" in the bill.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It blows the minds of conservatives that we won't know all the exact ramifications of a bill that ran over 2000 pages - until after  it's implmented. Volumes of regualtions that define 'large group policy' have yet to be written. And when the law and the regulations are in place, there will be unintended consequences.  So there will have to be some tweaks to the bill in years to come.

            To a wingnut, what I said is proof nothing should have been done.

            To a liberal, the same statement says something great has begun.

            1. Sab Oh profile image59
              Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "It blows the minds of conservatives that we won't know all the exact ramifications of a bill that ran over 2000 pages -"

              Forget "ramifications," the a-holes who 'passed' (but not really) the bill didn't even know what was in it when they voted! Do you really think that's the way something so important ought to be done?

              1. LiamBean profile image89
                LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Oddly I agree with you. Congress critters count on their staffs to read, interpret, and pass on what's in a bill. But there's nothing as good as reading something yourself.

                Law, and the passage of it, is entirely too complicated. And complicating a bill is just part of the "game" these days.

          2. JON EWALL profile image48
            JON EWALLposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            LiamBean
            You Say
            The problem with the 15% profit cap you mention is that it only applies to "large group policies." I have yet to find a definition for "large" in the bill.
            ------------------------------------------
            The insurance companies profits are between 2% and 4%, the cap means nothing simply because it's not possible in the way the bill is written.
            Profit is what's left after paying the bills including the overhead to manage the company. Note that the government takes maybe 35% of the profit leaving yet a smaller percentage.
            Who actually is the company making a return on their investment in the stock of the company? Keep in mind, if there is a capital gain involved in a transaction, the government will  get a slice of the gain in taxation.
            For all that  is happening going down the line, it appears that the government ( so called taxpayers ) may be receiving as much as or maybe more of the profits than the investors. Oh yes, the investors pay  personal taxes on their profits too.

            Here's the real problem.  If you and many others who think profit is bad please take the time to understand how private business works. Get beyond what the politicians want you to believe.
            Wake up America, find the truth about what the government is doing to private industries. Without a profit businesses will not expand ( hire more people ) , will not invest in equipment or provide the service needed to respond to the needs of the people.
            The government not for profit insurance ( Medicare, Medicaid and  the VA ) companies are going broke and fraud is a big problem (no or little overhead to manage ),if they need more money they go to the taxpayer.
            A private company don't have that luxury, they go broke, layoff the employees, no profit for the government to tax and because of supply and demand most likely  insurance premiums would rise.
            In closing the debate, time will tell if the bill is unconstitutional ,taxes will rise, insurance premiums will increase and to who will accept the blame for creating a mess.
            Surely President Obama will not take the blame. The people are still waiting for JOBS.

            1. LiamBean profile image89
              LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Jon. Nice to hear from you.

              I do believe that part of that "net profit" is after paying stock-holder dividends.  Here's where the problem comes in. How on earth can a human being's health take a backseat to profit?

              What I was attempting to point out is that the 15% cap is on a very narrow part of the insurance industries business. There are also provisions in the law that allow the company to declare administrative expenses that do not get rolled into that 15% limitation.

              Add to that the fact that "large" could mean a number of things. I'd like to see a very specific description of "large."

              All that aside, this is the provision that declares the 15% profit cap. Any policies that does not meet the "large group policy" definition are excluded.



              Like to see some figures on that if you don't mind.



              The investor of course. It's in every corporate charter. This means that by law the investor (depending on the stock purchased) is guaranteed a return on investment.



              I know pretty well how private business works. That private business somehow got into the health and quality of life of non-investors is the problem.

              ROI and services for premimums paid one of the two will take the backseat. We both know who that will be.



              A private company is also limited in its liability. No one can sue such a company for more than is invested in it. This protects individuals associated with or in charge of running that company. That's what incorporating does; it limits liability to the corporation itself.

      2. Friendlyword profile image60
        Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "Such a model insures that only profitable drugs are produced, only profitable surgeries are performed, and only profitable treatments are prescribed."

        There may be alot more to this statement than you realize. I don't know this as fact; but I heard stories of a scientist that came up with a cure for Aids and some Cancers and was killed because he would cost the insurance companies alot of money. A cure is not as profitable as continued treatment.

        1. Sab Oh profile image59
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          " I heard stories of a scientist that came up with a cure for Aids and some Cancers and was killed because he would cost the insurance companies alot of money"


          Got any proof of that whatsoever? No? Next.

        2. LiamBean profile image89
          LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know if any of that is true; however, I do know that certain drugs are no longer available simply because their patent protections ran out.  I also know that some drugs whose patent protections ran out have been slightly modified in formulation or dosages in order to renew or create a new patent. This insures the manufacturer remains the sole provider or can charge a licensing fee for their product.

          And why would any corporation risk millions of dollars, years of research & development and approval time on a drug that does not virtually grantee profitability. They'd be crazy to invest in anything else.

          But therein lies a problem.

        3. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I can believe that friendlyword. Remember all those deaths of biologists in 2001? That was creepy and unexplained and un-reported! Only heard of it through places like rense.com and coast-to-coast am.

          "List of murdered scientists..

          #!.dec. 2001.. Dr. David Schwartz.. murdered at home.. #2 Dr Benito Que... dead in the street...3 Dr.Set Van Nguyen..dead in airlock refrigerator. 4 DR.Don Wiley.. vanished.. car abandoned...5 Dr. Vladimer Pasechnik Dead near his home.  ..... Feb.  2002...6 Dr. Ian Langford .Russian.. beaten to death in his home...7.  DR. V  Korshunov... Russian..head bashed in... 8  Dr A Bushlinski Russian.. murdered.. 9.. Dr. I Glebov.. Russian.. Bandit attack....    Also reported that in plane from Isreal to Russia 4 or 5 microbiologists were aboard.. The plane that crashed in the sea near Russia.. that was brought down by  missle.. Their names not published.. (that I  know of )....
          What did these scientists know that was so important that they had to be silenced..????.                                                                       

          (OR, what CURE could they have come up with to what's about to be DELIBERATELY RELEASED??)"


          Never ever underestimate the power of money and what people will do to keep it.
          Just look at the insane propaganda we are experiencing now.
          And just wait....with that new supreme court ruling, the ads haven't even started yet!
          Get ready for Bizarro World....on steroids!

  7. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Not true.
    Corporations have already taken over LONG ago...it's now a process to ease up the control...and at least give people the product they are paying for!

  8. pylos26 profile image77
    pylos26posted 7 years ago

    * The government has always patrolled 100% of the economy.

    * $2.3 trillion…is just numbers…can you say what a dollar will buy in 10 years? This                   brand of argument is so cliché.   

    * So it creates new jobs…that’s wonderful.

    * Senior citizens have always had less than perfect medical care.

    * Pro-abortion…so what…that’s good economics.

    * How else would the expanding lower class get an abortion?

    * “no conscience protection” for an insurance company. Wow…I do feel bad about that.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
    Jewel…I offer no disrespect in my answers…but the idea of religion in national healthcare... needs its own plan.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    The average person who is insured through his employer won't  experience much change. Neither will those eligible for Medicare. The biggest benefits will accrue to people who lose their jobs, those who have children under age 27? 26?, the uninsured because of pre-existing conditions, or who have been canceled by their insurance company because of fine print restrictions and those who are too poor to afford health care insurance. Hopefully, some of the bill's provisions such as electronic records, effectiveness studies and others will retard cost increases and improve the quality of care.

 
working