Mandate Health Insurance?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

IB, you and al go fuck each others thread-jackin asses

the grownups are about

Fuck you CBJ7. You are no more a grown up than that fuck-up, Af-Fuckup, who maligned the service of a man who did his duty; so fuck you again.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by blue3122

CJ, I think you are missing the point. The government is going to pay Medicaid rates for services now paid by insurance companies at 3 to 10 times that rate. This is going to lead to many doctors/hospitals not taking the government plan or walking away. Do you think that 890,000 new jobs will be Drs? No, just administrators/paper pushers. But how can you generate new jobs and not increase costs? Remember that is part of the plan. The simple answer is that it can't happen. Given what is already written, we now that the government will increase bureaucracy by 3 to 4 times what insurance companies have for handling paperwork. The "reinvention" will be a soviet style bureaucracy. (i.e. inefficient). This is not conjecture, it is already written as regulations that have been put forth by HHS. The entire scheme will, probably within 10 years, create a schism of haves/have nots. The haves are those who have private insurance and see doctors/hospitals who take private insurance and not government insurance. This will be a small group consisting of the upper 20% of the socio-economic stratus. The rest will have government insurance where the government is paying doctors/hospitals very low rates and doctors (presumably lower quality doctors than with private insurance) will have much larger patient loads. Expect patient care to go down for this 80%. Hospitals will be rationing due to lack of beds/surgeons/nurses. Or trying to cut costs in unsafe ways. The backfill on all of this is $$$. And those $$$ will come in the form of higher taxes. Not just on income but on a lot of different government services. If the shift is to the states, expect sales/property and other taxes to double or triple in 10 years.

It all comes down to the basic questions "How are you going to pay?" and "Have you thought about the consequences?"

The intended result is healthcare for all, the unintended consequence is that most will get less health care. Please save this and re-read in 2020.

The number of ambulatory healthcare professionals (physicians, dentists, and other healthcare practitioners) needed will increase by 330,000.

An additional 327,000 staff will be required to work in hospitals.

Some 157,000 more nurses (net of retirements) will be needed to staff doctors’ offices, outpatient clinics, and other provider locations.


And payrolls at insurance companies will expand by 76,000 workers


I am of the opinion, with the influx of new patients and kids graduating med school every year, should the old Dr's decide to opt out their replacements are waiting in the wings, and ARMED with STARVING attitudes. For Dr's to simply stop seeing patients because they make a little less would be like oil companies stopping production because oil went from 100 to 90 a barrel ..

there are parts of the bill I like and some I dont, the outcome will have little effect on me either way. I also understand the "projection" you offered is just that ... more "probably's" than absolutes, and your purchased projections are more or less quelled by more than a few credible sources.

Iam also of the opinion "WOLF" has been cried by the faaaaaar right wing imaginations for so long, its hard to take anything from anyone who even remotely aligns themselves in that direction serious, or think what theyre saying isnt a farce or outright lie ... no offense to you personally sir. It is refreshing to read your post/s presented in an adult fashion. Thank you.

[Don't Be Daft!]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

The below post is what I posted on the experiment thread. It applys here and I didn't feel like writting a new one so here ya go.




As my part in this experiment I have been listening to Ed shultz and alex bennitt.

I like both of them for the most part.

I gotta say guys... based SOLELY on what they SAY, I'd side with them. If I didn't know all the nitty gritty guts of what the right has said, I'd be a full blown democrat.

Of course I want everyone to have access to affordable healthcare. I don't know anyone who wouldn't want the very old, the sick and the young to have good access... People my age should also have access, but I have no idea how to fix the problem here. I get the concept of this only working with everyone pitching in.

Please keep in mind I've been listening to the guts of the bill for the last 2 years. The increase of the size and scope of government is unacceptable. You never get back a freedom once it's given to the government. I'm against this bill because of all the shit they aren't broadcasting, not the idea of healthcare for everyone.

I think the Right wants all the same things as the blue left, we just don't agree on how to make it happen. The few good things about this bill do not outweigh all the bad. If you only listen to the Left, you really have no idea why the Right is so adamant about this bills removal. They make the right look soooo terrible. Who wouldn't want to lynch a bunch of fat cats getting rich on the poor. That's not where most of us stand. It's almost as if the left looks only on the surface and ignores the guts on purpose.

Listening to these guys I'd even be HAPPY to pay for the insurance. Man ignorance is bliss. I think if everyone actually learned how much power this would give the government you'd agree it's a bad bill. The concept is not bad, but what they put in it that's hiding behind the good, is bad.

The democrats won't always be in power. Do you really want the republicans having the kind of power this gives them? Republicans suck as badly, if not more so than democrats when it comes to power.



PS. If I were actually a democrat, af freak would be so embarrassing to me I'd change sides.

So what is the big, bad government going to do besides give poor blokes much needed medical insurance?

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by liberaldevil

So what is the big, bad government going to do besides give poor blokes much needed medical insurance?

Oh, I don't know, maybe steal the money to do it, then let people die while waiting for care (like another English speaking country we're both familiar with).

Are you jolly well alright with the idea of a third of all Frenchmen using Britain's free healthcare? Because that's about the number of illegals here from Mexico, an estimated 20% of their national population.

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom of Britain for the last several hundred years, most of us prefer doing things our own way.

I see in one of your previous posts that you are glad that "some" Americans have sympathy for their fellow man. Pretty rich considering the Marshal plan and the fact that Africa would be an unpopulated petting zoo without American charity. Not much of an argument at all really, which is why, I'm sure, you resorted to threats of violence to enforce your opinion.

Thanks,

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Oh, I don't know, maybe steal the money to do it, then let people die while waiting for care (like another English speaking country we're both familiar with).

Are you jolly well alright with the idea of a third of all Frenchmen using Britain's free healthcare? Because that's about the number of illegals here from Mexico, an estimated 20% of their national population.

Contrary to the prevailing wisdom of Britain for the last several hundred years, most of us prefer doing things our own way.

I see in one of your previous posts that you are glad that "some" Americans have sympathy for their fellow man. Pretty rich considering the Marshal plan and the fact that Africa would be an unpopulated petting zoo without American charity. Not much of an argument at all really, which is why, I'm sure, you resorted to threats of violence to enforce your opinion.

Thanks,

are you jolly well alright with the illegals here wont be able to aquire credits and buy healthcare at the citizens expense?

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by CJ7

are you jolly well alright with the illegals here wont be able to aquire credits and buy healthcare at the citizens expense?

Prove it, I think you'll be surprised.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Prove it, I think you'll be surprised.

surprise



SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by CJ7

surprise



SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.

Surprise:
There is no way to verify their illegal status thanks to the democrats shooting down every law requiring federal ID.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Surprise:
There is no way to verify their illegal status thanks to the democrats shooting down every law requiring federal ID.

that could and should change when/if the bill takes effect

better yet

no ID no healthcare, sans life saving emergency that everyone is entitled to anyway.

[Iaintliein]

Could've Would've Should've

Hell if the people who voted for it don't know how the hell it's supposed to work how do you?

The puffed up numbers to justify the whole non-issue of "health care reform" always included the illegals, always.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Could've Would've Should've

Hell if the people who voted for it don't know how the hell it's supposed to work how do you?

The puffed up numbers to justify the whole non-issue of "health care reform" always included the illegals, always.

uh huh, I see.

thanks for playing anyway

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Grifter

It really sounds to me like we need to stop requiring hospitals to treat people who cant pay for it.

The logistics of this i think would be impossible. Not having insurance doesn't mean you are unable to pay for medical treatment. What are we going to do, perform a credit check and require everyone to show their last 4 pay stubs before they'll get treatment?

Originally Posted by Grifter

Do you understand that I dont oppose everyone having care available to them but I dont want the legal precedent set that the government can mandate that you buy a product from a private company.

You sound as if you're trying to be sensible, so i'll press this question with all sincerity. Given the dynamics of what responsibilities can be created from car ownership, would you have a problem with requiring people to purchase car insurance if circumstances were somehow such that everyone needed to have a car? Yes or no.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Doove

You sound as if you're trying to be sensible, so i'll press this question with all sincerity. Given the dynamics of what responsibilities can be created from car ownership, would you have a problem with requiring people to purchase car insurance if circumstances were somehow such that everyone needed to have a car? Yes or no.

Yes, on a federal level. We have a judicial system available in every state to handle criminal acts, and civil liabilities due to driver error and people driving without insurance.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Yes, on a federal level. We have a judicial system available in every state to handle criminal acts, and civil liabilities due to driver error and people driving without insurance.

+1

It was an all too obvious flaw in reasoning, and you jumped on it "like a duck on a June bug."

[Doove]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

Yes, on a federal level. We have a judicial system available in every state to handle criminal acts, and civil liabilities due to driver error and people driving without insurance.

First, this situation exists now, yet it's overlooked. So if that's a legitimate justification to not force everyone to buy insurance, why isn't it a legitimate justification to not force 80% of adults to buy insurance?

I'll tell ya why. Because it's a ridiculous concept. If your driving negligence confines me to a wheelchair for the rest of my life, i hardly think i'll be made whole by what you can afford to pay me.

Secondly, your response fails to account for the circumstance of people buying insurance subsidizing the people who don't.

Third, i'll say it again. People are 1000X more likely to ultimately use their health insurance than they are to use the car insurance....that they are mandated to buy.

The fact is, health insurance is, simply put, eminently unique beyond anything else we are required to deal with - so it needs solutions that are eminently unique beyond anything else that we are required to deal with.