I like most of Obamacare, although I still have reservations about the individual mandate. On one hand, I don't like the idea of people being forced to buy a product, but on the other hand, I don't like having to help pay for ER visits for those who don't purchase insurance. I like that more people will be covered, and I like the fact that insurance carriers can't turn you down for pre-existing conditions.
There's something else that concerns me about the law. I have several close family members and friends in the HC field, and they all say the law will make the price of HC go up. One, BTW, is a PA who's a liberal Dem. I don't mind paying a little more in order for more people to be covered, but I can't afford to pay A LOT more.
I really don't want the law to be repealed, although I do think it should be "tweaked," with input from both parties. Romney says he will repeal the law, and that's somewhat pulling me away from him. I haven't checked on what he would replace it with. I still think Romney will be better for the economy, but now I'm somewhat torn. I'm still leaning Mitt, but this has definitely given me something to think about.
Just so you know, I have good health insurance from my teacher retirement and Medicare, but I worry about those who don't have insurance.
So why do you suppose that we could not have simply had a law that covered those who really needed it which was only about 30 million, not 300 million?
Would that not have been a happier solution?
Yes, I've wondered about that, too. I think that would have gotten more bipartisan support - from Congress and from the general public.
I personally believe folks like you and I should have had the right to directly vote on whether we had a law like this or not. Don't you?
Actually, I think citizens should be able to directly vote on everything!
No it's not practical for the people to actually have a voice is it?
Not practical because no one has devised a system which could possibly work to do it.
The politicians we vote for are supposed to vote the way WE want them to - that's the way it is supposed to work. We put the ones in office who are closest to the way we want to vote on issues. In a corrupted government, politicians vote the way they want to or the way they are forced to - that's how the healthcare bill was shoved down our throats.
This is why there is a movement afoot to enact a national referendum on ACA.
It's time for the people to actually be heard and represented.
This is what Democracy looks like! Ha!
Edit: sorry that is a bit small, the point is that the bill is supported, it's very controversial but it has enough support also Obama ran saying he would pass public healthcare and got a pretty safe win in the election, now he passed it, no drama, the democratic process is safe.
What is ACA. I guess I'm ignorant about what it means. Although if it has anything to do with the people being heard and represented, I"m all for it!
Obama runs saying I will nationalize healthcare, Obama wins easily, Obama passes nationalized healthcare...
Having said that i actually support the idea of a referendum (madness I know right) because I believe in democracy no matter who it serves and I am not hypocrite like some who call for referendum only when it suits their political view.
Unfortunately it will be a while before we will be ready for such a vote because as it stands hardly anyone knows what is in the bill.
Thank Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the politicians who didn't care what was in the bill.
I thank every American too lazy to read it or at least an unbiased summary and even worse who having not done so have the nerve to have an opinion on something they know nothing about based on snippets caught from the talking heads of either side.
Most people don't even know how the bill will be funded. (tax increase on people earning more than 200 000 yearly, a yearly levy on the insurance companies and an excise tax on any healthcare insurance plan that costs more than %27 000 yearly, 10% tax on sunbed operators and sunbeds plus some extra sundries on pharmaceutical companies)
Others still believe that if they are poor and cannot afford it they will have to buy healthcare, they will not it is free for low income earners.
Still others think it will give the government the right to euthanasia you, it will not.
No, it's just another example of that out of control liberal Obama. He's just a socialist who won't rest until we are all under his control.
What we really need to do is spend several hundred billion dollars each year on wars and stuff like that. That's what makes us such a free and prosperous nation.
Oh yea, playing the victim card too each time we don't get our way.
The bill was carefully crafted using RomneyCare as a model.
Too bad it's not the federal government's job to do that. Let the states decide.
Did you happen to read the Supreme Court's decision which says it is the federal government's job? You're entitled to your opinion for what it's worth--not much!
The states have the individual right to decide whether to implement or not. Many aren't and I am glad. Unfortunately mine hasn't gone there yet.
The individual states have the option of not implementing the increased Medicaid benefits and lose billions in federal money. They also have the right to not create health care insurance exchanges and let the federal government create the exchanges for them. Not sure what they would gain by going this route on the exchanges. And on the Medicaid program change they would have to be crazy to opt out of that program. The hospitals and other providers are already pressing Texas, North Carolina and Florida not to pass up the federal money.
I did read the part where the SCOTUS said that it's not in the federal government's power to force me to buy health insurance. Sure, they can now tax me if I don't(still a load of bull, a tax is a levy on a thing, like wages, or a product, or a service. You can't tax nothing), but they can't force me to buy it.
The federal government has been taking on more and more upon itself for a long time, but that doesn't make it right.
Simple free-market principles state that it is better to have 50 states competing with each other for healthcare coverage, than to have 1 federal government say what's what.
You mean "simplistic" free market principles. What we have now is a mishmash of state programs which provide the costliest health care in the world and among the poorest results. Take a look at the comparative statistics for life expectancy and infant mortality. Last time I looked the U.S. was at the very bottom of industrialized, civilized countries.
Moreover, under the bill the states will still have the power to regulate health care insurance provisions.
If you adjust for traffic accidents and homicides, the US leads in life expectancy and is at the top of the pack for infant mortality rates too.
Yes, we should create a situation that makes the healthcare market free. Allow states to compete with each other. Competition drives down prices.
Beyond that, tort reform is important, but we will never have European-prices for healthcare. We foot the bill for pharmaceutical research for the world, our drugs will always be more expensive unless other countries pay their fair share. Our doctors have double the salaries, so we have to pay for those too.
"If you adjust for traffic accidents and homicides, the US leads in life expectancy and is at the top of the pack for infant mortality rates too."
Just curious where did you get that? The bottom line figures show we are at the bottom, nowhere near the "top of the pack." The homicides are a result of our failure to regulate the manufacture and sale of weapons, hardly to our credit. I'm not aware that our traffic accident experience is a significant factor in life expectancy. Can you provide a citation? Who's doing the adjusting? ALEC?
Canada is quite similar to the US in many respects except for their single payer health care system which gets them better results at a much lower cost.
I'm in favor of tort reform. Many states have already passed tort reform laws. However, tort awards and insurance costs are a small part of the problem of skyrocketing health care costs. Many other factors are much more important--payments for tests and procedures results in unnecessary, costly and sometimes damage to patients' health, poor communication among health care providers, much too much costly emergency room care and so forth.
2006 study by Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider.
Traffic accidents are a huge factor in life expectancy in the US. Our rates are much higher than the OECD average.
It doesn't matter if we have higher homicide rates, it just matters that higher homicide rates lowers the life expectancy. Life expectancy isn't a good indication of healthcare efficacy.
Canada doesn't get better results. Wait times are longer. People get less screenings. Treatment of cancer isn't as efficient. High-tech equipment isn't as readily available. The 'fact' that US healthcare is bad is solely based on the WHO report, which puts very little weight into the results of a healthcare system.
Defensive medicine is a symptom of sue-happy America. The bigger costs come from higher healthcare professional salaries, higher cost of drugs, and having newer, expensive equipment. Having expensive equipment isn't such a bad thing, that's one reason why our cancer treatment is better than anyone else's.
Infant mortality is not affected by homicide or traffic accidents, in the past US infant mortality has been incomparable due to it counting children who are born seriously premature but as of last year the UN has collected data excluding the anomalies and and using the UN guide for infant mortality rates.
The US sits at number 34, remarkably similar to where it sits according to the WHO report for overall healthcare, infant mortality is considered one of the best guides as to the quality of a given healthcare system.
Wrong. Infant mortality rates are counted by looking at the number of babies who die before reaching 1 year old. Accidents are counted.
I would like a source for your claim that rates are adjusted for premature births. It actually seems like you are contradicted in that claim.
"The report’s conclusions about the United States are similar to those in a 2009 report by the federal government, which found that high rates of premature birth are the main reason this country has infant mortality rates higher than those of other wealthy countries. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/healt … .html?_r=1
That is from a NYTimes article about a WHO study on IMR. I'm still downloading the report, but it seems you are wrong.
As I said in my comment this is not the WHO report it's the UN Department of economic and social affairs report. It has been specifically altered to exclude the past anomalies.
I have something better now, I was thinking that the accident and homicide rate does factor in to infant mortality so I am going to use Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) which is:
The maternal mortality rate (MMR) is the annual number of female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes). The MMR includes deaths during pregnancy, childbirth, or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, for a specified year.
It excludes accidental causes and homicides so it should be far more indicative.
The US is 51st apparently
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … ank=156#as
Ok, let's look at what it means. You claim that a high maternal mortality rate is indicative of the quality of healthcare? To make that claim, you need to:
1 - Compare the causes of MMR from country to country.
2 - Compare the outcome, by cause, of MMR from country to country.
As for causes, the WHO lists causes as:
Bleeding - 25%
Infections - 13%
Unsafe Abortions - 13%
Eclampsia - 12%
Obstructed Labor - 8%
Other Direct - 8%
Indirect - 20%
Other factors to consider when comparing countries:
Lastly, MMR is not as unified a measure as others. Reporting just within the US can vary state to state.
Now that we have that out of the way, you need to adjust for all those factors. The US has higher pre-term birth rates than European countries. The US has higher obesity rates than European countries. The US has higher c-section rates than many European countries.
Trying to use one statistic to compare healthcare systems doesn't really work, unless you can back up that one statistic with studies as to the relative causes across countries.
That's a very weak argument and you know it by far the predominant factor in maternal deaths is medical care and the quality of it and the US is nowhere near the top indeed it is below 50th so even allowing certain margin for unaccounted variables it presents a strong case, furthermore the rankings match up quite well with the WHO rankings and give much better results to public systems in general, you can try to wiggle out of if you want but you and I both know that this is very decent measure largely unaffected by most of the variables that affect other statistics.
You really think it is unaffected by variables?
First, that just shows how little respect you have for statistics. Statistics are ALL about the variables.
Did you know that black women are at a higher risk of maternal death due to increased risk of hypertension and other complications? Did you also know that black women in the US have an MMR rate around three to four times that of white women? If you control only for that racial variable, the US would rank better than the UK in MMR rates.
US leads the world in obesity rates. You don't think obesity has anything to do with it?
Obese women are 4-5 times more likely to die from childbirth
"Some of the most common causes of maternal death in this country are hemorrhage, postpartum blood clots and underlying cardiac disease.
The CDC cites the rise of obesity and elective cesarean rates as possible contributing factors to the problem. Hypertension, diabetes and asthma — all culprits in pregnancy-related complications — are all more common in obese women."
http://www.clinicaladvisor.com/obesity- … le/202427/
"Compared with normal or underweight women, the maternal mortality ratio for obese pregnant women was 4.6 times higher (23 versus 5), according to Susan M. Lanni, MD, of the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond, and colleagues."
You just want to find a statistic, without understanding it, to support your claims. I've shown multiple times that, after adjusting for homicide rates and accident rates, the US has the highest life expectancy in the world, even though we are the most obese. We're also the best at treating cancer. We provide more screenings than countries that supposedly have 'better access' to healthcare. We have 2-10 times the number of high-tech machines and equipment. Our wait times are lower. The list goes on and on.
The black population population argument is very weak, it can be compared to countries like France with an estimated 9% black population compared to the 12% in the US and yet France is light years ahead of the US in MRR.
As I have stated earlier and as the WHO has too obesity rates are a part of a healthcare failing in the US by failing to provide proper care, the US is far from the wealthiest nation in the world and yet it is the fattest. I already gave examples earlier in this thread on how healthcare systems can and do reduce obesity when they are affordable and geared for it.
Can you provide a source for the life expectancy claim?
We do have better equipment and quality care because we spend far more per person than any other country and yet as we have seen our stats are far from optimal in anything other than cancer care.
As far as I can tell, there is no official figure for the black population in France. Estimates range from 2.4 to 7.8. 2-3% in the UK. It makes a difference. You can't just say 'variables don't matter in statistics'.
The WHO says obesity in America is caused by poor healthcare? Source.
Obesity is caused mostly by diet and lifestyle.
IIRC, your examples were what, Australia? Remind me.
Yeah, I have in this thread. It's a 2006 study by Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider.
Cancer care... and life expectancy. Funny how we have the best life expectancy, even though we also have the worst rate of obesity.
Come on Josak.
Just one last thing to add about your best life expectancy claim, the OECD itself took the time to write that the findings were utterly false, they were sponsored by a conservative think tank, the data was suspect of tampering, the period was old enough to be obsolete 1980 to 99, and most importantly GDP was factored into the calculations which the OECD said was an intentional attempt to distort the figures, at the time the US had the 19th best life expectancy in the OECD 29 according to the OECD if the GDP factoring was removed the US remained at #17 when homicides and accidents were eliminated, only two places better.
In fact the OECD published a document listing 40 points on where either data incorrect, misinterpreted or incorrectly included or where research had been done wrong and conclusions were false.
If you were using that as a source you should be ashamed of not checking it.
Hmmm, maybe I did mess up. I didn't see anything about that study having been countered. I'll look into it, thanks. Unfortunately, I don't own either book, but it's the only study I've ever seen that adjusts for accidents.
I'll stop quoting that until I have a chance to look into the OECD response. It's strange they wouldn't make that available online if they actually crunched the numbers. I'm not going to buy that report for $50, shame.
Looking at the brief for the report, they don't actually give any indication that they adjusted for those variables, they simply state that the variables don't seem to have much effect. They go as far as to say that the high rate of obesity doesn't seem to have an effect either, which is just stupid. How bout you buy the book for me Josak
Canada does get better results, not better than Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic but better than the U.S. One of the main reasons why these other countries get so much better results is that the poor in this country get poor nutrition, poor prenatal care, poor infant and child care and poor care throughout their life. Your party is opposed to doing anything about poverty. Romney, as I recall said he doesn't worry about the poor, telling the truth for a change.
The truth is that both life expectancy and infant mortality are low in the US. Thirty million people can't afford health insurance. Our system is geared to the upper middle class and rich and toward the enrichment of the drug companies, insurance companies and for-profit providers. Our non-system is a model on inefficiency.
"the WHO report, which puts very little weight into the results of a healthcare system."
The WHO report measures the bottom line results of each country's health care system. The U.S. scores very poorly for a variety of reasons.
That is no excuse. Both of them suck and I wouldn't have wanted RomneyCare in my state.
It is what "some" call democracy but it's not American democracy, we don't make all our decisions by public vote rather we elect representatives to do so on our behalf.
Yes and they have gotten to suck at that really badly. That's why there will be a petition for a national referendum on ACA.
Which is why the founders were smart enough to avoid forming this type of democracy..
You might end up like this:
The law will have little or no effect on the people who currently have health care insurance, except that it will help retard the rate of increase in health care costs.
Doubling the amount of health care services being used by people that can pay only a pittance for them isn't going to retard the rate of increase in health care costs.
Unless you are figuring that shifting the burden of cost to the tax structure somehow reduces the cost we pay?
Well there is no reason for $16 aspirins but it happens.
A friend of mine with good health insurance was recently charged $65 for a mucus recovery device. When we got to the bottom of it she had been charged $65 for a box of Kleenex. About a dollar box of Kleenex.
There is so much fraud on the part of health care providers as far as billing goes.
Pharmaceutical companies rip the American people off for hundreds of millions of dollars a year for prescription drugs. Many pills sold at up to $10,000 a month for a thirty day supply cost a hundred dollars at most to make. And most times a lot less.
The Health Care System in America is a rip off of the American people.
I have been to many European Countries where they have it together as far as health care goes and guess what. Everyone there has health care. Health care is one place severe controls on prices need to be in place. And if doctors don't want to practice medicine here let them go to another country and rip those people off.
I hear you! What amazes me is that there are some brilliant ideas on both sides of the government - God forbid they actually work together and formulate something we all can agree on that helps the growing healthcare problem.
You mentioned that this bill will see the cost of HC rise - it is already rising by a huge amount already so I would say no change there!
The individual mandate was deemed to be unconstitutional, instead the mandate is now a tax, a tax on the people Obama said he wouldn't tax. This should be more troubling to you if you are a conservative moderate or not. When the government becomes so big that it can give you anything you need it has also become so big that it can take everything you have. Your confusion on who to vote for is very strange for someone who claims to be a moderate conservative.
As you should. Regardless of whether or not it's deemed a tax.
Do you realize you were paying for ER visits of other people before Obamacare? Right?
Yes, the "pre-existing" condition requirement is something that needed to be put in place anyways. However, are you aware that 15% of the population is homeless? Are these people covered as well? And how exactly is their ER visits going to be paid? As to how they were paid before Obamacare?
I have no problem with aiding others, I have dedicated my life to doing just that. And I have said this time and again, whenever the government interferes in individual aspects of citizens' life, then the entire pricing structure gets raised due to the effectiveness and efficient method government does with their policies, regulations and processes.
He isn't for equality or equal rights. That's enough for me.
Worry about those who don't have insurance? You place your worry in the wrong place. You should be worried about why Obamacare has to exist in the first place.
Yes. Do you have a problem with that? If so, then it's your problem. Not mine.
A 15% homeless rate would be roughly 47 million homeless... I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but I'd re-check your sources.
That's why I love you Habee!
Nodody can make you a Tin Soldier. Thank you for your honest evaluation of the health Care Act.
Habee it started going up two years ago, the past two years our renewal is at least 20% more each time, and I'm terrified because I didn't read all the print in the big envelope two years ago that I needed to sign in a timely manner in order to be 'grandfathered in' with our current costly BCBS insurance, so NOW we are theoretically subject to the new health care, it is quite confusing and scary. We've dropped our coverage to almost catastrophic as rates went up so high. A person would need a minimum wage job just to cover our rates, therefore we might as well smoke ourselves to death now, or get a gun, or drop the insurance all together. It isn't a good thing. Those who don't have insurance well deserve to be worried about, but those who do/or did have insurance deserve equal concern, and it is those non-gov't regular folks paying for this bill who are NOW already paying out the nose for insurance that are hurt the worst in this. We'll soon join the uninsured as we don't have a tidy retirement plan and can't pay for it anymore - and that was not the case three years ago and more, and we are both in good health. So something stinks and stinks really bad in all this.
I been saying since Romney decided to do it here in Mass. It's a dirty low ball way of accumulating more tax revenue for something which will not reduce health insurance to an affordable level for those who are already having trouble affording health insurance coverage.
My mother is semi-retired, she collects a Social Security check each month and because she is, she isn't allowed to earn more than $14,120 per year, otherwise she is required to payback $1 for every $2 she goes over it.
When she semi-retired, she dropped her hours because her current rate of pay and working 30+ hours would pose problems. She could keep her insurance at work by working a minimum of 20 hours, but even that's too many hours. Aside from that, her work increased the minimum works required to work in order to gain the ability to participate in the insurance programs offered to employees. So, she was dropped off and had to go to the RomneyCare Health Connector Network to get insurance because she was unable to get affordable coverage elsewhere.
Her insurance through the Health Connector Network was $40 per month more than her insurance was through work. I considered that not good. You can consider it however you like.
Yes, I agree. Something stinks.
Without Obamacare your teacher retirement health insurance plan can legally dump you for having a pre-existing condition--at least in many states. They have not because the unions still have power to fight back for retiree. With the nationwide Republican attack on government union workers--teachers, firefighters, police, transportation workes--you'll see that medical protection end.
Why would you be upset about 1% of the populationm paying a $95 tax in April 2025? That would be the folks who can afford healthcare insurance, but use the emergency rooms at your expense. I guess you have low preiums. But the average policy in the U.S. charges $1400 extra per year to cover ER visits.
By the way, Romney endorses the Ryan budget and the downsizing of Medicare, Social Security, and the elimination of Medicaid. He wants it all privatized or put into block grants.
The Bill could -- but most likely will not -- help the ER problem, especially with illegals. The Bill reads they can join in the mandate by choice but are not required to do so and we're left with what we've got now -- they'll still be going to the ER, using up what indigent funds are available and U.S. citizens will still be paying for it so that problem is far from fixed. Both Georgia and Arizona have passed laws making it more difficult for illegals to remain in this country without papers but the federal government has struck that down and says those laws are unforceable...so, it's difficult to see how Obamacare will change the illegal situation one way or another and we'll not only be paying for Obamacare but skyrocketing ER costs, too.
The bill, with the mandate is a carbon copy of Romneys in Mass. He said more then once in order for the plan to work the mandate had to stay. That's right, Romney said it. NO American should be without health insurance. This at least is a beginning, to showing the world we actually care about our citizens! That every American, not some! That all have the same medical resources available to them.
For the average American, who at present has little to no health care protection I feel that Obama's Health care plan is a good thing, as affordable mandatory health care so that anyone can get treated if needed.
In my opinion Health Care Insurance is a smarter move than "Life Insurance" which is only collectable once you die.
Ok this is the third time I have heard this today and I am starting to feel a bit crazy. What in the world am I missing here?!? How do tax payers pay the hospital ER visits that those with no insurance. Hospitals are not government run. If someone doesn't pay the bill the hospital loses that money. The government in NO way pays bills for those without the ability to pay unless that person is part of medicaid or medicare. According to part of obama care states will have a right to Opt in for expanded medicaid, increasing the amount of people who will be covered by the government, which will increase tax payers paying for ER visits. So either I have completly missed something or this whole talk everywhere about tax payers paying for the uninsured ER visits is being fed to the people by the media. What am I missing?
My thoughts are as a (tax payer) is through our taxes. For those of us who do not receive money back each year we wouldn't notice any change. If people are used to receiving large tax returns, than they may see a reduction.
Many hospitals that I have worked for are protected by the non-profit blanket and receive donations and write-offs on their tax returns. I don't believe hospitals would take a huge loss in profits when someone visits an ER; I believe they will remain stable with the donations they receive.
The positive side of ObamaCare is Insurance companies cannot deny anyone health care, even with Pre-existing conditions. People who can't afford healthcare will receive a tax credit and the middle class will finally be able to buy affordable healthcare.
Our States will not be able to deny anyone health coverage due to Pre-existing conditions like our state did to several people and they died. She stated she had to make cuts in our State budget; however we are paying for juror and employee shuttles, new furniture and $60,000 vehicles that state employees drive around. Mmmmm.... our governor is a mess!
habee...you can save your time and energy. There's nothing to check on in terms of the Republicans and an "alternate plan" to Obamacare. This will be a wonderful and fascinating campaign.....we have choices to make....Dem or Rep....Obamacare or NOTHING, economy boost....drop or stalemate....who knows...who can we trust?....war on terror...? Better treatment of our Veterans and families? Mormon or Christian? black or white, new or old.....Potus or wealthy businessman? for or against Gay marriage? I won't go on. I have no doubt you can keep the list going..Thanks for this question and for sharing your own opinion. Peace.
I don't understand how people can be so against all Americans having access to healthcare. I personally have healthcare, so this is not about me. However, from where I sit, the poor have healthcare and the rich have healthcare. The only ones who do not are the working middle class who can't afford the premiums -- and those with "pre-existing" conditions who can't get insured. Having a little granddaughter with a brain tumor makes me see this issue from the side of Anybody USA who, whether they have good insurance or not, may ultimately have a grown son or daughter or grandchild who cannot get coverage for some reason. We are fortunate now to have insurance, but if my granddaughter lives, at some point she will be ineligible for her current insurance and will have to look elsewhere. If the nay-sayers get their way, she will be denied due to a pre-existing condition. She then would have to be declared indigent in order to get healthcare and you all would be paying for it anyway. And to whoever said that the ERs would be overrun needs to think again....many more people would have access to a doctor and not have to use ERs for primary physician services.
Connie Smith, hope your granddaughter is doing well. Unfortunately unless the ones against a healthcare for all, are inpacted, they just don't get it. Most don't even know what a lifetime benefit is. But the Republican illusionists have them convinced President Obama's healthcare plan is a bad thing.The only taxes being raised and those above $250,000.00 not the middle class! How anyone could put "Money" over someone's life, is beyond me!
It's all supposed to bring about your fear of being sick and dying. Didn't you know that theirs is the ONLY way?
Well that is whats at stake, 45 000 people do die every year in this country because the measure has not been enacted, it's not an idle thought.
45,000 people will most likely continue to die after it is enacted.
These are politicians and this is now tax money. It will go some other direction. It always does.
45 000 die because they have no insurance, now everyone will, end of story tens of thousands more die because their insurance limits run out, insurance limits no longer exist as of 2014, and they are 750 000 now. Any excuse not to acknowledge that millions upon millions are dead because this measure was not passed decades ago like it should have been under Kennedy.
45,000 die because they have no insurance. Hmmm...interesting how they came to that conclusion, considering more people die for other reasons which are actually more important than whether or not they buy a product from some company.
people dying is important no matter what the reason, especially when a tiny tax increase can prevent it, especially when it's tens of thousands of lives, tens of thousands of families destroyed, homes lost etc. I know there are other reasons people die, we should fix those too.
Also just to re-iterate on your homelessness is 15% comment:
The problem is you are wrong, you know facts and all that? According to the homeless annual report to congress it's less than 1%. For the second time today, checking your facts is a good habit.
A tiny tax? Upon the thousands of other taxes already implemented. Do you think these things don't add up?
Yet again, I'll ask...where do you think the payment for those who are homeless that go into an ER and get treatment, goes? or comes from?
How do you think those services are going to be paid for? You don't seriously think a tiny tax is going to cover what must be done?
Every homeless person can now walk into a hospital, get treatment, go back to being homeless. I guess at least the homeless would be healthy, but still would be homeless.
Yeah the tax is quite small, if you are earning 60 000 a year it's only less than two hundred dollars.
For the one percent of the population who is homeless about 0.1% are homeless every night this year and the rest are struggling to make rent but will move back into housing. it's a small fraction, many of the homeless re former taxpayers, a disproportionate amount are veterans, the tax will be higher on those with high income to allow the very poor to survive, it is worth noting that many of the homeless are children. The tax will cover the expenses, by consolidating medicare payments, shifting some costs onto insurance providers and reducing the number of people that overstretch their insurance coverage thus needing government assistance the bill will reduce costs, add to that the many years of labor hours that will be rescued by healthcare allowing people to get back to work sooner (or not die) and the Treasury as well as independent reviews calculate that the bill will actually save the country money.
Do you really believe you can provide unlimited health care services for all the uninsured people in the country by taking $200 per year from anyone making more than $60,000?
Bear in mind that the people that are uninsured generally need more services than those that are insured. There's a reason they don't have insurance, ranging from poverty (poor diet, lack of exercise, poor living conditions, etc.) to pre-existing conditions that will dictate massive health care expenditures in the future.
However...as I have been saying.....it's a tax.
It won't go where it's supposed to go or do what it's supposed to do.
Now we have all known it would be a tax and are not surprised but the administration went through hell and back to not make it seem to be a tax. Why?
Because anyone over the age of ten knows how it will go.
Yes! Because Nancy Pelosi is personal friends with the unicorns and they will see to it!
The only way to fix it and fix it right is to change the way health care works in America. At the same time there are other things that need to be fixed.
1. Marijuana needs to be legalized with a heavy tax put on it to be used for health care and for fixing our roads and bridges.
2. A cap on what a prescription drug sells for in America needs to be put in place. This needed to be done years ago but it is going to have to be done. Its the only way its ever going to work.
3. There needs to be a set cost on a doctors visit. Now it's all over the board. Price gouging is one reason that American health care has spiraled out of control.
4. We need to subsidize the education of doctors and other health care professionals and they need to have to work for a number of years at a greatly reduced rate.
5. We need to provide homes or places to live for every American. And any that won't take a place to live need to be put back into the Mental Health System the Regan Administration threw them out of.
6. We need term limits on senators and congress so we have no career politicians.
7. We must outlaw lobbyists.
8. Instead of locking up 90 percent of the people we currently lock up in the USA they need to be put into a civilian work corps and made to help with repairing our roads and bridges and cleaning up our roads.
9. We need to cap imports at 20 percent. If for instance textiles can be made in America then 80 percent of them would have to be. The same with steel and automobiles. NAFTA was done by Republicans and Democrats and we need to end it.
Those are some of the things that will have to be done to restore the American Dream. It won't work any other way. To fix America it is going to take radical change.
You know, there's just way too much in this post I could say something about. However, the length of the post would be ridiculous.
With that said, I will not agree with everything you've said and I don't disagree with everything you said either.
Yes, there's a radical change needed for America and it has nothing to do with what other countries are doing presently.
(a) It's about establishing true citizen power. It's about establishing that the Constitution isn't just a piece of paper with writing on it that means nothing.
(b) It's about establishing equality in America's economy, so people can have a legitimate shot at bringing a product/good or service to market.
(c) It's about Equal rights for every living Man, Woman, adult or child actively contributing to growth in America.
When those in government who are in a usurped position refuses to do what is in the best interest of society, then they are no longer fit to hold office.
I have to disagree with most of your points for the following reasons:
1. Legalize all you want, but do not tax one particular segment (weed smokers) for the general needs of all people. Not reasonable.
2. Cap drug prices and you will lose discovery and production of new drugs. An alternative is to reduce required testing - that would help considerably in research costs - but do we really want to do that?
3. If you don't like what a doctor charges, find another doctor. Our economy is designed around free trade, not govt. controls and works better than any form of socialism or communism. Leave it alone.
Subsidizing doctors education and then requiring them to pay it back by working for peanuts leaves you right where you are now; becoming a doctor is extremely expensive. Will you back off the payback by running up the deficit more?
5. And you will pay for this how? By running up the deficit even more? All while taking away the freedom this country is founded upon by declaring that anyone wishing to live outside of the norm is mentally ill.
8. No, we don't need a slave class in the US. We did away with that long ago and don't want it back.
9. Generally speaking, trade wars do not end well for any of the participants. Limit Chinese imports like that and you will likely no longer receive the natural resources only they can produce in any quantity. NAFTA may or may not have been a good idea, but it will take decades to find out.
NAFTA was not a good ideal. In 1977 there were 300,000 textile jobs in the Belmont area of North Carolina. They recently lost the last 300 jobs. How could this be good.
A cap on prescription drug prices will have to come. If not then it's going to continue to spiral out of control.
If we legalized marijuana it would save huge dollars in state to state prosecution costs. Many small towns live on this now. But it needs to go. A tax on cigarettes is already in place. A tax on pot smokers is not that out of hand.
There is huge fraud in drug and doctor charges. This needs to be addressed.
Our government does not work and never will. We have huge problems that are in no way being addressed.
There are tens of thousands of unused homes and government buildings where homeless people could be housed long term.
We may have to seize foreclosed homes and businesses and use them for the good of the people. Why leave them there being stripped of copper and falling down.
We lock up more people than any other country. Their is no reason for this. Only violent offenders should see the inside of a prison. The rest should go to a work camp.
You know if we don't do anything about the things outlined they are eventually going to bring down the America we know. It won't work the way it is so it must be fixed. Or we let it all slide out of control. And America breaks up like Russia did. And don't think it won't happen because that day is coming.
*Sigh* neither of you have read the budgeting scheme have you? The truth is medicare covers a lot of the expense already, Treasury estimates that including the hours of taxable income that will be gained by the country by providing healthcare it will actually turn out net profitable, the insurance companies are about to get a whole lot more customers which is why some of the expenses are being moved to them thus saving more money.
Josak....I can read three budgeting schemes and none of them will work because it will be tax money going into the coffers of Congress. It will vanish.
Why then can so many countries with proportionately bigger governments do it?
More corrupt than the governments of all the countries who run successful public healthcare?
The US Government is the most corrupt government there probably is among the so called free countries.
Term limits and getting rid of lobbyists would take care of most of the problem. But they will still figure out a way to get a finger in the pie.
America is way out of control. It has gotten worse every year over the last forty years or so. Then they sold out America and sent all the Textile, Steel, and Automobile jobs overseas.
If you've never been to large former Textile cities in the American south I'll tell you they are now Ghost Towns. The Belmont area of NC once had three hundred thousand textile jobs. In the last year they lost their last 300 jobs.
How the average American can stand by while our country slowly but surely crumbles around us is sad. The politicians want to keep the SPIN GAME going as long as they can because they know the game is about up.
America today sets right on the edge of going under and all it will take is a major event like a major Hurricane or Earth Quake to push it over the edge.
Our country is in real trouble but the average person doesn't want to accept that. It will break up in to several smaller countries in the next twenty years unless radical change takes place. And if the change is too radical we may have to fight China but that day is coming. The politicians sold the US out and now they know the end will come.
For decades the liberal politicians annually come to the podium. People dying , people poor, people sick, people uneducated.
They always get their bill passed and signed because the other politicians want to be re-elected.
But all those people remain in the same state they were in. And the next year those same people come to the podiums and give the same tired speeches and get more tax dollars.
Where does it all go Josak? Not where it's supposed to.
I think we had this conversation once and I talked about Bob Geldof and Live Aid and the unintended consequences there.
Where is this different?
Things like medicare have saved millions of lives, the numbers are there, we can look at other countries and see it works, want to know how many people die every year because they can't afford care in Australia (where I am now)? absolutely none.
We have medicare. What's the problem? We have thus saved millions of lives.
It was a great first step, now we are improving the healthcare system.
SCOTUS made this a tax. It will be like the rest and get robbed for other political ideas.
Now we let this ride and about a year after it was all implemented....hey....wow.....guess what...it's not enough.
We need more taxes for this and you heartless Conservatives better not disagree or else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And on and on. They get more tax money and it get siphoned off a different direction.
Why do you think the administration didn't want it characterized as a tax?
Yes we do.
It's trillions in subsidized debt.
Yes it has. And those millions of lives have done nothing but live without helping growth expand in America. It has keep a lot of people in check(living in poverty).
P.S. This post wasn't directed at you JSChams. Your post was just a means to explain the above. A lot of people think Medicare is the greatest thing and it's not.
Oh I agree and have no problem with you using that. Let me know when you do because you know how reactionary I can get.
You realize that medicare saves hundreds of thousand of children and babies right, which then go on to become tax payers? Are you suggesting they are not worth saving because they are poor?
Medicare?? Cite your source. I do not mean it in a I am challenging way, I would just like to read about it. I have several question that a study that produces those results might answer. Much like the study that reveals the 45,000 that will be saved if Obamacare is enacted, which most of it already has.
Yes, I realize at least 1/10 of those people would become taxpayers at some point. However, how much they pay in taxes is another thing and what is done with those taxes, such as pay-down the trillions in debt Medicare is, otherwise, it's irrelevant.
Borrowed or subsidized money needs to be recouped, otherwise it builds. It cannot BUILD forever.
That is a very nice way of trying to make me look bad. Good show on you.
And, to answer the pathetic question- No, I am not. I suggesting that government isn't effective at governing and it's inefficient at basic operation.
Destroying America isn't the plan for me. Restoring it to the greatest heights it's ever seen is my ultimate goal.
Can you even prove that it did not save money? Irrespective human lives come first.
Other governments all around the world have accomplished this there is no reason why ours cannot.
Prove it didn't save money? It's IN debt.
Is debt saved money?
This involves real lives that will be saved because they have medical insurance and can get life saving medical care. Some people are denied treatment under their current policy; that will end. These are real live people that will live to fight another day.
This is not just another back and forth intellectual debate anymore! Your neighbors life is on the line.
So because it's Democrat thing it will 100% work with no snafu and all the tax money goes where it's supposed to go and does what it's supposed to do?
Have you read Romney's proposed health care bill. It is virtually the same bill as Obama's. But I don't support either of them. Neither of them are willing to do the radical change that will be needed to save America.
Naive statement my! Old saying can't fix ! Believe what you want!
It's not a naive statement.
What if you were with out health care and you had a tooth break off and they told you that even though you were in horrific pain that there was nothing they could do for you. This happens in the homeless population in our country everyday.
Or what if you were a 55 year old woman out of work and you kept having bladder infections over and over but no heath care was available for you.
Or your a 60 year old man who has no health care insurance and you need blood pressure pills but no one will or can help.
I have had those three problems and many many more come across my desk in the last week. I bought the man thirty days of blood pressure pills. I could not help the woman with the repeated bladder infections and we paid to have the 27 year old man's tooth extracted.
Why should these people not be covered by health care. It's a myth that the ER will help anyone. That is not true.
Every American citizen deserves health care and yes those of us who have more should help pay for it. Not one dime should go out of this country until every American has health care. Not one dime should go out of this country as long as we have hunger. Today is the last day of the month and I'm looking out the window at about a thousand or more people in the soup kitchen line waiting to eat. This should not be going on here in America. There are children every where in that line.
A lot of these people are homeless. They should have a place to live.
And yes it should be the responsibility of each and every American.
I am a retired US Naval Officer and a Vietnam Veteran. I so men fight and die so these things wouldn't happen here in the USA. I have health care , I have a place to live and food in the refrigerator but many many Americans do not and shame on anyone that doesn't want to help.
Keep letting the Republicans and the Democrats play SPIN GAMES with you or stand up and be counted as a American who cares about his fellow American.
"You realize that medicare saves hundreds of thousand of children and babies right, which then go on to become tax payers?"
The Health Care Act was not designed to hurt you. Stop looking at it from a completely selfish point of veiw and see what great things your tax money
helps to accomplish. Somebody may live because of the 5 extra cents you might have to pay next year?
(just a guess)
If I believed that nickel went where it was supposed to I might not be so against it.
But it won't because it's run by politicians .
If you really believe that, then you truly have your eyes closed to government action.
Again Cagsil, that's not the point. I don't care how bad government works, sometimes it stumbles onto something really helpful. This is a good pile the government stepped into.
Actually, that is the point Friendlyword. Government is ineffective and inefficient, and has been since it's inception.
Have you ever asked yourself why it has remained that way for over 200+ years? Last time I checked, humans learn, adapt and improve, yet government hasn't.
Actually, they are so used to the general public being willful ignorant, so they are not stumbling onto anything really helpful. It's dressed up that way, but as usual, it has the same level of transparency as elections do.
The government couldn't step in s**t and come out smelling like a rose, even on it's best day. Why? Politicians are nothing but mere puppets for a completely different agenda. That agenda isn't in the best interests of society, but is so specific few can absorb more taxpayer dollars without increase the value of any product/goods or service.
And he said it so quickly... and yet much of it is modeled after his own Romney care. So another double standard from Romney? I don't trust him at all.
Another probable plus for the AFC act is that it no longer traps people in jobs that they only keep for their health benefits. How many Americans stay in jobs for this reason??
That's a good point. Most couldn't afford the cobra plan if they left a company. Now one can move on and not have their health care interrupted while looking or starting a new job! Many stay in jobs they don't like just because of the healthcare benefit.
How does it do that? If you could not afford Cobra, how will you afford any insurance
You do realize insurance will be subsidized for low earners right? Depending on low low his income is it might even be free.
I do, but does everyone else? All I hear is how "everyone will have health care and it will save tax money because the poor will be covered"
Do people realize Obama's plan is to make the rolls of Medicare and Medicaid larger, and where does that funding come from? That's right, the taxpayers who will now be paying higher premiums on their policy and higher taxes to cover those that are added to the Medicare/Medicaid rolls.
Do people realize Obama's plan is to make the rolls of Medicare and Medicaid larger, and where does that funding come from? That's right, the taxpayers who will now be paying higher premiums on their policy and higher taxes to cover those that are added to the Medicare/Medicaid rolls."
My friend and I make about the same in salary. I pay 80 dollars a month for my health insurance.
My neighbor with his special needs daughter pays 700 hundred dollars a month for his health care. Tomorrow, My neighbor will go looking for insurance that won't charge him an insane premium because of his daughters' pre-existing condition. Tuesday, my friend will be able to feed his family on his own.
I'll believe that when I see it. Pre existing conditions? If that's all he's paying he's got a good deal. Been there, done that. And you pay 80? As a single payer and not thru your job? From who? ANd if that's the first years monthly premium you're in for a bigsurprise when the plan renews.
Half from my job and half from my union. We won't know what an individual pays until the exchanges are set up.
When I was replaced by two 21 year olds at age 50, the cobra was out of my reach. If I have affordable insurance under President Obama's plan, I would be able to pick up a policy right a way while securing another job.. Insurance companies fool you at the gate now. When I left I bought Ga blue cross for $300.00 a month. Couldn't use it first year due to high blood pressure. After the first year, my renewal went to $1,250.00 a month which I couldn't afford.
Young people are at less risk for certain medical conditions compared to someone your age or older and therefore cheaper to insure as a whole. Some folks never take this into consideration when discussing these things. Yeah, nothing personal, they say. But this is part of the problem. Nothing seems personal enough these days. We are merely statistics in many books.
We hear "patriotism" and "love thy neighbor" among other lofty sayings bandied about by some of the same people who are griping about helping sick people, many who cannot afford the" best medical treatment in the world" which is another of the favored boasts of those touting our superiority in medical science.
It's one thing for political parties to disagree on taxes, religion, spending, and many other things, but to oppose each other along ideological lines when sick adults--and especially children--are suffering or dying, is the closest thing to the complete failure of our country I can imagine.
We must get out from under the thumb of those using greed to extort money from the sick. A profit is one thing, but putting needed medicine out of the reach of those who need it, just because they can, is akin to murder.
Yes, I'm ticked off at the cost of medicine and treatment in this greedy country. The Hippocratic Oath is almost a myth today. Rant over! Sorry Screaming, I got carried away!
"Yes, I'm ticked off at the cost of medicine and treatment in this greedy country."
Would it not make more sense to attack the problem at its roots? Would it not make sense to attack the high cost of medicine and treatments, its cause and fix that. What does Obamacare do to fix that, nothing.
There can be nothing done to deal with the pharmaceutical companies until the entire system is organized enough make the same deals other countries get for buying American produced drugs. We pay at least twice as much for the same medicines as they do. Rationalize that for me if you can. We have to start somewhere, AV. I can buy my medication from Canada or Mexico for less than I can get it here with paying exorbitant insurance premiums.
One of the 2 glaucoma medicines I take finally went generic--no thanks to Dubya who extended the patents on some medications--and now the brand name costs less than the generic.
And are you suggesting conservatives will come up with something better? people are dying in this country. Healthy people are more productive workers. They pay taxes when they work. The people ARE the country. Medical care should be the number one priority for the country. Both sides need their asps kicked, I agree on that. It should NOT be a party thing.
"There can be nothing done to deal with the pharmaceutical companies"
Well that is where you make your first mistake. Obama has taxed and regulated pharmaceutical companies and there is another round coming into effect January 1,2013. That is a part of the rate increases policies have been seeing over the last several years.
Seems Obama thinks that is the answer
So do your homework and see why the cons didn't want us to be able to deal with the drug companies like the other countries do and come back and straighten me out. There was a reason drug companies were paying lobbyists over a million a day to stop this from happening. We are their bread and butter suckers. Bit I'll await your reply. You tend to try to occasionally answer questions, unlike JS.
There is nothing to answer, you said the drug companies are not regulated and I showed you they were under Obamacare and you are paying for it.
If there is something else you want to say, show it or straighten us out.
I suppose if they paid a miniscule amount of taxes and simply upped the rates to compensate for it then this could be considered regulation, right? Are they prohibited from raising the prices, AV? Is this what Obama wanted to happen at the very beginning, or is this the only way he could get the bill passed. Who wanted the present form of dealing with the drug companies in lieu of what other countries are doing? Who fought like heck to prevent a rational plan like the other countries have?
Identical drugs sold in Canada cost only a fraction of what they cost in the U.S.
The health care bill isn't perfect, but we've got to start somewhere. The U.S. has the most expensive health care of all advanced countries and the poorest results.
And now it will be the largest bureaucracy in the world with the biggest price tag, the most taxes and the most regulations.
Most first world countries run public healthcare with much better results and lower costs than US healthcare ran while private, if they can do it so can we.
Oh yea those systems are the beaken of the world. That's why they come here when they have true major health issues, because our health care sucks. I do not have to wait 6 months for an appointment like they do in Canada
Don't take my word for it read the World health org report, they put US healthcare at number 37 in in the world. I am in Australia as a citizen, i can walk into the emergency room, (or be picked up by s free ambulance) receive care and walk out without ever paying a dime, I might get a prescription which is free if i have a low income and costs a fraction of what it would if i have a good income, the Australian economy is still one of the strongest in the world and has had this scheme for decades, anyone who suggests getting id of it would no longer be a viable candidate, it works.
Wow! How does all those poor people in your mentioned countries afford the trip here and the cost of our exorbitant medical care, AV? Oh, you mean the rich people from those countries, right? Like those wealthy folks here who can afford it, I suppose. Gimme a break!
No question that the majority of those that come here are wealthy, but many countries do send their poor here for healthcare. Truth is Sweden is the biggest reciever of people that go their for health care. We have several hospital that accept people from other countries healthcare, one is in Cleveland, one is in Washington. I am sure there are more, I just know of those two
Sure, but are those poor countries who send their poor here? If not, then how can they send them here when they can can barely feed them? A list of the countries would help to see why they send them here. Because we have certain treatments that our own poor cannot afford?
Thank you CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS for your humanity and strength of heart!
Sorry then Cagsil. But it is my belief that every American should have Health Care.
I'm of the same understand that every American should have health care.
However, the quality of said care is questionable when you depend on government's ineffectiveness and inefficiency which has plagued American for generation, after generation.
It's not likely to turn out, as hoped or thought.
Crazyhorse, Just curious here and excuse my butting in but Do you think it should be given to them or forced on them or just the Option to have it? You said a lot up there I agree on but I couldn't tell if you just want it affordable for all or handed out. Curious as to your opinion. Thanks!
In the end it's the only Government you have so deal with it. (Voting would be a great start!)
Do you really have a choice in who you vote for?
Independent, Republican, Democrat? Who is backing these people? It's not the majority of the citizens. It's the minority of citizens which are the puppet masters of those who are shown to the public as running mates.
You would have get serious about what voting truly means. The present system where you get to pick and choose between rich folk is getting boring and doing more damage than worth.
A trillion dollar deficit.
A multi-trillion dollar national debt.
A government stripping rights replaced by laws.
A status quo which is pure corruption at it's best.
A government that wastes billions with no hope or recovering that money.
A government which refuses to address poverty.
A government which refuses to address homelessness.
A government which refuses to address starving people here, but spends billions upon billions to aid the starving abroad.
Not to mention, whenever the government spends money it has to borrow money because the government doesn't make money(a surplus).
You want to know who is in control in America, look at the bankers or look at the upper 1% of the world's wealthiest, not only America's upper 1%, and then you'll know who is in control.
If there are people who can not pay then it should indeed be given to them. I work with the poor, hungry, and homeless every day and there are a lot of people in this country with no income.
The unemployment rate reported is not right because it only counts people who are looking for work and receiving unemployment benefits.
We should cut out any foriegn aid, any payments to the UN and any payments to rebuild countries we destroyed in war as long as their is one American citizen with out health care, one homeless American or one hungry American. We fed over a thousand hungry Americans tonight in Charlotte NC, 2041 in New Orleans, 1741 in Jacksonville Florida all tonight. It is always higher at the end of the month. Many of these people have no where to live and no where to sleep tonight.
No American citizen should have to sleep under a bridge.
Much is being hidden from the average American citizen.
Do You Know
There are over 15,000 homeless people on the streets of New Orleans tonight.
Another 300,000 people never came back to New Orleans because they have no home to come home to. And it's hurricane season again.
There are 2,700 homeless in Charlotte NC
One in six Americans are hungry at least twice in a month. That includes children.
There are an estimated 1,000,000 homeless people in California. They feed thousands every night in downtown San Francisco.
I could go on and on.
Many many Americans about 30 million have no health care and most of those do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare and they are barely able to buy shelter and food so healthcare is out.
What if you had to live like that.
NAFTA destroyed the American Textile Industry.
American is a broken country and the politicians play SPIN games to try to take peoples minds off the real problems.
If America goes for the next twenty years the way it has the last twenty years it will break up into several smaller countries just like Russia did.
Our roads and bridges are falling down. And no one is fixing them.
BUT THE POLITICAL SPIN GAME GOES ON.
Shame on any American that plays into it.
I was as surprised as most people of the outcome of the supreme court ruling in favor of Obamacare. I believe it is a good thing for the country. There are simply too many benefits to the health care plan to be overlooked or voted down.
Where are you from, JS? And did you vote for McCain/Palin? Just wondering about your judgement on things.
Randy let me just help you along here and you can get back to your beer.
I am only voting for Mitt Romney because Barack Obama is on the other side of the ticket and I will get laughed at if I write in my cat Lucky.
Basically I am for whoever is running against him. Except Ron Paul.
It is amazing those who want to accuse others of voting party line when they themselves would never vote against their party. They just cannot understand people will vote against Obama due to his horrible policies.
I often wonder what Democrats would be saying if Obama was a Republican.
I have always seen Conservatives accused of lock step behavior.
Try to get one of these folk to even discuss voting other than for Barack.
I learned my lesson when Hilary did not challenge him even tough everyone on this planet knows she wants to. It's sad and almost Soviet.
So why is it that Democrats are always the ones who are willing to compromise? Conservatives lately seem to just hold their breath until they get what they want like spoiled children.
Show me something the Republicans have held their breath on lately. I am curious
Uh....the whole healthcare thing.
Education that includes any mention of scientific theories such as evolution
Ya know, the basic stuff.
Other than the horrible Obamacare bill, show me the bills before the congress now on education mentioning scientific studies, Bills about unions, ya know, the basic stuff.
See you will not be able too because there are none. You are talking ideologies of both parties. And as it goes for Obamacare, the Republicans were helpless to stop it.
So my question stands, show me something the Republicans are holding their breath over.
Did you miss the personhood amendment in the transportation bill? That was fascinating.
Hmmm, I do not see that in the federal transportation bill
Right, because you have read it....correct? If so, please send me the bill number so I can research it as well.
The bill is HR 14. it was passed by both the House and Senate on Friday, if you pay attention you would have known that, and is waiting for the President to sign it.
The bill is 1621 pages long and yes I did read it it. There is no "personhood amendment" attached to it.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rand-p … ance-bill/
Flood insurance bill.....but you're right, deny it enough and maybe it goes away?
The RESTORE the Gulf Coast States Act is the flood insurance bill you are reffering to and once more if you were paying attention it passed on Friday. Bill S 1400.and there is nothing in that bill either.
I am sure you know how getting bills through works so I do not have to explain how amendments work.
Did you notice not one credible source ran with that story, not even MSNBC which would have been all over this to bury Republicans. Know why, because your link did not give you the whole story. It was a threat from Paul that if Reid would not allow Personhood be brought to the floor for debate and a vote, he would attach it to a bill "such as flood insurance". Of course Reid ran with it, Dems put their spin on it and Boom, a bogus story is born. Notice Paul's partial quote where he says " if Reid would just give him a vote".
Cody, we may not agree on issues, but I know you are smarter than to fall for those kind of stunts that both sides play.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m … w/47971583
And even if it was just a threat, that's exactly the kind of crap that the GOP would try to pull when they don't get their way. Seriously, try to hijack a flood insurance bill just for a petty political stunt.
Yea Cody, The Dems never do anything like that. Perhaps if Her Reid allowed the bills to be voted on Paul would not have to play games
Hey Dems control the Senate, so if the bill really sucks as you say the republicans bills do, Reid would have nothing to worry about. The Dems would vote them all down.
BTW, it was Reid who said if an amendment was added he would shut the bill down. You know what it takes to get an amendment added to a bill, Paul's threat never would have made it as an amendment even if he tried for real
I will have to search for that visoe later if I have time, the link you provided did not work.
I'd be shocked that a member of the GOP in this political climate could exercise common sense while actually looking out for the people as opposed to the corporations.
Wow! Both you and JS are apparently psychic to know how I would vote or have voted. See, this is why I ASK before assuming such things. I give the benefit of the doubt until questions and answers ascertain my suspicions. You guys, on the other hand, assume I'm a "beer drinkin' party line towin' socialist" because I disagree with you on this. No wonder you guys are so confused on this subject. I'll bet you guys voted independent the last few elections, right? See, I can make wrong assumptions with the best of you guys. I choose not to though.
"How in the heck did he get nominated to the republican party! That's why I voted for him!" Or something to the effect.
No, why should your response make me happy? Why can't you help both you and I along by responding to my questions? JS. You've ignored most them and instead make more statements.
Did I ask you if you were voting for Mitt? That's a no-brainer if one reads your posts. Duh! And the "you can get back to your beer" inference was really cute too.
And I'd vote for the cat if I were you, it has a much better chance of winning.
rotflmao....It's amazing to me also Randy. You ask them a question and they quickly take an about face and they shoot you a question off topic. Avoiding answering the question at hand!
It's because they have no answers, Screaming. For them, it's better to do nothing at all rather than accept any type of universal health care which would inhibit the untold graft from the medical related industry. And this is what is is now. No humanitarianism anymore, merely "what's the profit margin to the big boys."
"Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court say its constitutional doesn't mean it is."-Rand Paul
"Umm....Yea, It Does"-Supreme Court
And IF you had a completely different panel of Judges, do you think it would work out the same way still? If so, then please do a little bit more thinking than that of yourself and try to see what is in the best interest of society.
Your post assume too much. Even the Supreme Court does have it's limits and just because they say something is Constitutional, doesn't actually mean it's RIGHT nor does it mean it is in the best interest of the society it governs over laws.
All the Supreme Court did was make something legal. Doesn't mean it's right or Constitutional. They circumvented Constitutionality by calling it a tax instead, because it's easier to escape the Constitutional issue of whether or not it's a violation. Which it is, if it's not a tax.
They made it a point to say they weren't deciding on whether or not it was good policy. They just said it was legal. And since the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter of legal matters, I would say you would have little recourse to challenge the legality of the law. Whining only makes you look petty at this point.
What if there had been different judges? So what, maybe they rule a different way. However, they didn't so what's your point?
I laugh when you say they circumvented the Constitution. Again, that's there job to determine what the document says.
Also, who says I'm not thinking of all of society? Isn't that what people who don't support this law are doing?
There's always recourse. Don't forget your place as a citizen.
I'm not whining. Children whine. Grow up.
The point being that you've taken a position which is false. Duh!
Determine what the document says? Or what it doesn't say too? How limited of thought you are. Sad to see.
I said you're not thinking of all of society. Just a little old sheep.
No. The people who don't support the law are interested in getting government OUT of the lives of the citizens on an individual level. Duh!
Recourse...such as a constitutional amendment to get rid of the court?
I understand that most conservatives are going to try to repeal the law, but you can't just say the court is invalid because a ruling doesn't go your way. Yes, that IS whining.
I don't understand why you are taking such issue with the role of the court. It is their job to interpret the document. Has been for 200 years. Should we overturn Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Education or how about getting rid of Miranda rights too while we are at it? As long as you don't agree I guess it just means that those pesky judges are re-writing the Constitution.
The Affordable Care Act (or affordable care CAT to some people) is not going to be an intrusion into your life. You realize that you can keep your insurance if you like it. If you have it, there is no tax. Maybe if insurance companies did something about controlling costs it wouldn't have had to get this far.
BTW, don't assume that I don't think for myself. If I couldn't I'd probably be against this law.
Good to know. You're a walking example of most people in America. A person who truly knows nothing about the power of being a citizen. Good job.
Is this because I don't agree with you?
Rotflmao....Cody, you can't win against anyone who has tunnel vision or faux vision. If he understood the power of being a good citizen, everyone would have healthcare and we wouldn't be having this discussion!.
It's interesting too, because we COULD pay for this rather easily. Just skim 10-20 percent off the defense budget and you would have anywhere from 70-140 billion dollars right there.
Of course, it only seems to be THEIR tax dollars when it comes to social issues.
Oh, so now the states don't matter? So I guess its OK that in Texas the children are being taught to not think critically so the Christian belief system their parents teach them won't ever be questioned?
In Virginia, there is a law that takes effect today that requires a woman to get an ultrasound before having an abortion. There was another proposed law that would have legally defined a person as a person from the day of conception. Unfortunately, that would have violated the law. Why does that matter? The Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, is a potential VP candidate for Mitt Romney.
How is Obamacare terrible? Oh, I forgot its YOUR tax dollars and YOUR tax dollars only that are going to POSSIBLY be paying for a health care bill that will benefit the entire country. Nevermind the fact that Mitt Romney was for it before he was against it.
Ann1Az2....I believed that when I voted for President Bush. He convinced me giving the wealthy and corporate america tax breaks more jobs would be created. HE LIED! He also promised to sign a bill where small same type businesses could group together for better healthcare rates! HE LIED! And the Romney Crew and Republicans continue to LIE that the healthcare bill will hurt middle class! THEY ARE LIEING! But it will add taxes to big business and the top 1 percent!
See you make the fallacious error in believing most of us would vote for Romney for his policies.
We will vote for Romney to oust Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh....not just Barack. His entire administration.
IT'S NOT A "TAX"! IT'S A FINE FOR FREELOADING! IT WILL BE DEPOSITED IN A FUND TO HELP DEFRAY THE HIGHER HEALTHCARE AND INSURANCE COSTS ALL RESPONSIBLE AMERICANS PAY, EVERY TIME AN UNINSURED FREELOADER (TEA PARTY REPUBLICAN?) CONSUMES ULTRA-EXPENSIVE EMERGENCY CARE THEY CAN'T PAY FOR. TOTALLY FAIR AND SENSIBLE.
Most people do not realize that we have had Government ran healthcare in this country for years and years. Just go to a Indian Hospital on a reservation. Or talk to older people that came from countries such as England. I have seen many people die in Indian Hospitals or not get well because it's a cattle call. The doctors are paid set rates, they burn out fast. People are pushed through like cattle.
Now having said all that, you can read the entire Obamacare plan online, and if you read it you will find little fine print items. Such as the elderly can be refused medical treatment because they are expendable, same for certain handicaps. Any time we start to devalue life, I think we need to come up with a new system.
Please understand I am not saying that we do not already have doctors who treat people this way or are just there for the pay, but instead of creating a bigger circus of these providers, lets pass laws or enact something that protects the patient.
I find that very hard to believe. Do you have a source for that? (other than having to read the entire plan). Sounds like fear-mongering misinformation, along the lines of Sarah Palin and her mythical *death panels*.
Rather than take that stance, why not read the bill yourself? Even Pelosi had no idea what was in it, you want to just have faith that it is a 'good bill'?
Gotta love that huh?
On a side note- Ask Jane where she is from or is currently living? See, if that changes your view. I'm not saying it will, but it's a thought.
I read the bill and found no such extension of that. It already happens to a certain extent, if you are 90 and need heart transplant you will be behind in the waiting line compared to someone in their 30s, it's simply mathematics but other than that, I don't think that's true.
Just do a search they have had the obamacare posted on a .gov site for quite some time now. And as for the other information, I am originally from the reservations and grew up with the indian hospitals. Go live on a reservation for more than a year and make friends. Go take your friend to the hospital next time she's sick and than decide if you want government ran hospital care. Take a poll among vets what most of them think of the VA hospitals. Don't get me wrong.. some are great, but some might as well be a concentration camp for all the care they get.
Read about IPAB in the Obama care. Or you can look at http://www.akdart.com/obama185.html this breaks it down, and than you can go back and read the Obamacare again.
Here is another link that is a good read
https://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/201 … r-surgery/
I know several veterans who speak highly of VA hospitals.
me too... but I also know equal amounts that can tell you horror stories. My family has a lot of military in it. My dad was, my brother, my ex husband, his brother, his father, my husband's father, his uncles... aunts. I have some uncles and aunts.
I lost a uncle because of the fact that it was government ran and he was denied a life saving operation. My children's great grandma died in England because of socialized medicine, she too was denied the proper care because she was ran through like cattle. And coming from a reservation I can't even begin to express the horrors I have seen.
Not all VA's are bad. But ask most doctors what they think about Obamacare and how it will affect them. You aren't going to get many positive responses.
I could tell you several horror stories about regular hospitals. A woman recently got a flesh-eating bacterial infection following surgery in a Detroit area hospital. And of course hospitals are the most likely place to get staph infections because the staff fails to wash their hands.
You know I only posted that because you insist on all the graphic lies.
I don't see much truth in the above statement. it's already been shown that Obama has spent more during his 4 years than the last how many presidents combined?
2nd I live in a Republican State supposedly... we are big into Green Energy.
Last people I heard pressing Global Warning was Al Gore... and it's the Democrats that say Global Warming exists despite scientific evidence to the contrary or that their records were exposed two or three years ago.
People need to get off this Republican/Democrat crud and do what's best for the US. Instead of them trying to stop each other and not caring if one side or the other came up with a good solution they need to work together.
I don't vote by Republican or Democrat.. i vote for who represents what I believe in. And the evict the GOP should be evict them all... and get all new people in who will represent what the majority wants instead of all being bought off.
First people must realize that there's NO difference between Republican and Democrat before the citizens can do anything about it.
Both Republican and Democrat, flip side of the same coin. An illusion of representatives with supposedly different ideologies.
However, both oppress people and that is what should matter.
"there's NO difference between Republican and Democrat before the citizens can do anything about it."
Just curious, where'd you get that idea? For openers, the Democrats supported the health care reform act, and the GOP wants to repeal it. The Dems passed Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill, and the GOP wants to gut it in response to objections from JPMorganChase and the rest of the banksters. I'm not going to spoon feed you, but there are plenty of other significant differences between the two parties although they both share some of the same flaws such as two ready to use military action on situations that don't require it and/or are susceptible to diplomacy. And both of them to a certain extent have allowed the bankers, drug companies, coal companies, electric power companies, and others co-opt the regulatory process. They are similar in that they both support a democratic private enterprise system. However, the Democratic party is more inclined to regulate to insure that markets deliver honestly and fairly on their promise of efficient allocation of resources. Also, the DEMS are much more inclined to tax and spend money on public goods--roads, bridges, rapid transit and other infrastructure, parks, education, and so forth while the GOP in the persons of Grover Norquist and his little pull-toy, Paul Ryan want to cut taxes and vital public services.
When I am ready to reveal my solution, I will. Until then, I'm just trying to increase awareness and knowledge of citizens, as to the BS of the land.
I haven't finished putting together everything I need. There are going to be problems putting some of it in place. I will need assistance from citizens for implementation.
Once I have everything outlined, then I will write the Hub(s) with it. There are a lot of factors involved and not to mention, the puppet masters are not going to want anything but what is in place already. Which will evidently make my work harder.
"Last people I heard pressing Global Warning was Al Gore... and it's the Democrats that say Global Warming exists despite scientific evidence to the contrary or that their records were exposed two or three years ago."
IMHO, you need to broaden your sources of information. It is the scientists who have demonstrated that global warming "exists." Secondly, are you aware of who is financing Mitt Romney's campaign: a bunch of billionaires, e.g., the Koch brothers who made most of their money in the oil business, a bunch of Texas oil men who are funding Karl Rove's super pac, the National Rifle Association which is funded mostly by gun manufacturers who don't want any laws that slow down their gun sales pipeline to the Mexican drug lords. And of course there's Sheldon Adelman who made his billions with casinos in Macau where prostitutes lure the suckers to the gaming tables. Do these guys seem like they are better qualified than you and me to pick our next president? Well, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that "corporations are people" and have the same first amendment rights to contribute unlimited amounts to political campaigns our elections have become a billionaire's game.
And can you honestly say who ALL funded Obama's last campaign and this one... cause they were all billionaires too... and half of them with the UN in their pockets.
Number 2... Global warming is bunk to a LARGE degree. This I know for fact because my first cousin is the top in his field.
You don't see the truth because you don't want to . . .
Here are the facts graphically:
I am not just talking about his federal spending.. I am talking his spending ALL in all on our tax payer dollars. Our senators, governors, Presidents are mostly self made millionaires. They get benefits that our military doesn't even get... ALL on our tax payer dollars. They should be serving this country for free or darn near. They should not be getting what they are.. and why are they exempt from Obamacare???? If those men would forgo their salaries and stop using tax payer dollars for everything.. it would set a great example and would be a good place to start cutting back.
You really... *sigh*
Look no one is except from Obamacare I know you vaguely heard that there were exceptions and took that as gospel without knowing what it means. The exceptions just mean that until 2014 the companies unions and governemnt bodies (about 2000 I believe) don't have to raise their insurance coverage to 750 000, in 2014 the exceptions will become void and all companies/unions/governemnt bodies and officials will have NO limit on their insurance coverage, Pretty much everyone who applied for an exemption got one, all you had to prove was A either your healthcare plan limit is better than 750 000 (this was the case for some of the unions) or that you would suffer from not having time to change gradually.
many politicians including most governors etc do forgo their wages but I am not convinced that is a good thing, the reason those wages exists is so that you don't have to be rich to be a politician, unfortunately they all are so we get no representative balance.
Yea....there isn't much scientific evidence to the contrary...
Socialism is a workers movement with the above taglines, socialism was a movement begun by people who worked 16 hours a day and lived on average to about the age of forty because of how hard and dangerous their work was and they didn't want less work, they wanted to be able to make enough money after working 16 hours a day six days a week to feed their families.
Habee is finally thinking about the others! ALLELUIAH! She is human thank you lord, you do EXIST! Obamacare is for the others TOO.
And why would Habee with her teacher salary vote for the billionnaires' mascot?
I think Habee has always thought about others. She, I think, is a conservative but moderate in tone and a pragmatist. Habee thinks aloud and I like that, she asks questions and walks people through what she is thinking and why. You wouldn't normally hear me say this, but when I encountered Habee, I think I met an intelligent right winger...And that's rare.
The only problem is that for someone who is intelligent , she will vote against her interest and therefore favor Mitt. Where is her rationale?
The president lies, and we get the biggest tax hike in American history. I know what my vote will be in November.
Here Josak, let's show how controlling for variables affects the data.
MMR for non-hispanic white women in the US is 10.5
~33% of white women are obese
Obese women are 4.5 times more likely to die from pregnancy.
So, of 10.5, 3.46 are obese. Of those 3.46, only 0.76(3.46/4.5) would have died if they weren't obese. 3.46 - 0.76 = 2.7/10.5 = 25% of the MMR rate in white non-hispanic women is directly attributable to obesity.
MMR for non-hispanic black women in the US is 28.4
~55% of black women are obese
Obese women are 4.5 times more likely to die from pregnancy.
So, of 28.4, 15.62 are obese. Of those 15.62, only 3.47(15.62/4.5) would have died if they weren't obese. 15.62 - 3.47 = 12.15/28.4 = 42% of the MMR rate in black non-hispanic women is directly attributable to obesity.
That's one variable. Variables affect statistics.
It's become astoundingly clear that you are grasping at straws, I have already addressed the race issue by comparisons with France. Obesity rates are as I said in my last comment a healthcare failing. Continuing this conversation is pointless as you are simply desperately attempting to muddy the facts that don't suit you.
In answer to all these objections above all the neutralizing factors that many of the have (like the ethnic similarities of France) is the simple fact that the US spends twice the GDP percentage and nearly three times the amount of money per person on healthcare and still gets results that are very much in dispute and according to international bodies in charge of measuring them painfully bad.
The evidence supporting public healthcare as superior is thus incontrovertible.
1 - Comparison with 1 country.
2 - Actual estimates put the population at 2-7%, there is no official figure that I could find.
You simply can't accept the fact that there are variables, and comparing country to country isn't necessarily apples to apples.
In fact, the ONE instance I have provided of comparing apples to apples(cancer to cancer), you poo-poo away.
Ok, how does healthcare treat obesity? How does France's healthcare system keep obesity at 1/3 the rate of America?
I've been over all of this with you Josak. You ignore or dismiss facts when I present them to you, just as you completely dismissed me showing you the effect of obesity only on MMR rates.
Incontrovertible... if you want longer wait times for treatment, equipment, specialists. If you want lower survival rates for cancer, and lower life expectancy.
Keep clinging to your 'facts'. You have perfectly, undoubtably shown your unwillingness to consider anything other than what you already think.
You have shown that you will use statistics, but you don't think variables matter.
You even think that the US has high obesity rates because of poor healthcare... that's just sad. The US has high obesity because of poor diet and lifestyle.
Besides, if you want to pick apart my sources, it would do you some good to look at peer-reviews of the WHO's healthcare system ranking. Less than 25% of their ranking has anything to do with the actual treatment a system provides. There are a lot of great research articles addressing the problems with the WHO ranking.
Politics in America is actually quite funny and depressing all at the same time.
Remaining optimistic and keeping a humorous side is all too important nowadays.
I agree and I hope the R's come to the same realization.
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
What are the 6 ways Obama"care" is a total waste of time, energy, and money where there arehospitals and/or other medical facilities that offer very low cost and/or free health care?The "purpose" that President Obama "intended" for his to be implemented...
by ElSeductor 6 years ago
Why are some people so eager to take away healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...
by edita 7 years ago
Do you think ObamaCare is constitutional? Why?
by ga anderson 5 years ago
The gist of the new Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), report on the effects of Obamacare on the U.S. economy is that it will cause a reduction in works hours equivalent to about 2 million jobs by 2017.Here is just one link from a Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|