Welcome to PatsFans.com

National Health care what is in the Bill?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Jul 16, 2009.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,840
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +232 / 8 / -13

    Well the Bill has been printed and the details are starting to leak out. there are a number of good articles talking about the reality of this bill.

    First a Chart of the bureaucratics structure that is going to 'save' money:

    [​IMG]
    Sorry the pdf doesn't appear here sorry.

    A nightmare...


    Next up the pork for political payoffs a democrat staple:

    Obamacare Bill FILLED With Gov?t Pork Projects &laquo Publius Forum

    Great I feel healthier already.

    Then there is this provision which would outlaw private health insurance for the peasants:

    IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- It's Not An Option

    Freedom is overrates anyway right, cause were gonna get something for nothing the rich will pay...

    Now more details check the article

    THESE PLANS WILL REDUCE YOUR CHOICE - New York Post

    Medicare reimbursment? Great that will drive a lot of hospitals out of business, hello health care rationing.

    No wonder the dem congress scum won't put their own families (or their union buddies) under this turkey.

    An article from CBS news on the effect on small business, a lot of people will lose their jobs, just what we need now...

    Small Businesses Balk at Health Care Plan - CBS Evening News - CBS News


    Geee all this free stuff is great. Glad there getting rich guys like this guy running a climbing guide business....

    A little on Romney care crushing hospitals:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16hospital.html?_r=2

    Can't wait till they do this to the rest of the country.


    A blogger with a number of good observations:

    Entitlement Syndrome


    So the money has to come from somewhere right, cut the payments to the providers, to avoid going out of business, they push the cost onto the people with private ins driving up the cost of these palns dramatically. As they go out of business, hello single payer and the required rationing.

    Good thing the congress scum won't have their families on this plan.. right?
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2009
  2. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,104
    Likes Received:
    470
    Ratings:
    +1,038 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    Bush used pork to get Congress to fund the war.

    Obama/Pelosi are using pork to fund this health care war.

    and we're moving forward how???
  3. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,524
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +555 / 7 / -9

    Well, let's see.

    "In a war I used a sharp metal object to kill a man. In an ER they used a sharp metal object to save a man's life. And we're moving forward how?"

    This is why this constant hew and cry about "pork" is and always has been silly. It's like complaining that a lubricant in your engine is messy. Unless you have a sail car handy there will be some lubricant in your engine (or motor, for the tiny fraction of people with all-electric vehicles.)

    "Pork" is a fraction of what is spent in these bills. So the major impact is not the pork, it is the bill itself.

    I notice that, contrary to the thread title, the actual substance of Obama's proposal, and the actual substance of the bill under discussion, are never talked about here.

    Up to this point the discussion was about places like Canada and England, and now the discussion is about any money in the bill spent on what the OP decided is pork.

    Now then, as to "broad definition" examples: if you have an obesity epidemic among kids, and you have projects that will preventively cut down on the predictable medical costs of childhood obesity, that feeds into (no pun intended) our national health system.

    Kids play on playgrounds. When kids play -- you know, physically, not on videogames or i-phone apps -- those negative obesity-related outcomes will be of lesser magnitude than if kids do not play.

    PFnV
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,055
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    I've seen the chart, and one supposes you could create something like that for any large organization, including the military or a large corporation. However, it's is a useful piece of propaganda, I'll give you that.

    Those darn Republicans. Blame Lowell Weiker for this one. According to the Globe article (referenced in your link) the particular piece of "pork" was inserted at the advice of Trust for America's Health, which argued that there are evidenced-based studies show that lighting is important to getting kids to be more exercise oriented, which is important to health and weight maintenance.

    Trust for America's Health Board of Directors - Trust for America's Health

    And that is simply bad or dishonest journalism. The section that IBD is quoting from refers only to grandfathered health insurance. The document states:

    "(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
    (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section
    2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage."

    The health insurance exchange is simply a place for consumers and small businesses to do comparison shopping. Now, tell me, do you think the right wing is lying here, or do you think they just don't have very good readers?
  5. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,524
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +555 / 7 / -9

    Rightist elites are primarily liars; their dupes are (often willingly) bad readers, adding further distortions until their final product appears in the marketplace of ideas.

    Fortunately for the right, the marketplace of ideas as expressed on the innertubes is a true "marketplace," functioning as a sort of supply-and-demand system. As long as there are frothing rightists trying to gainsay anything the current president says, there will be a demand for this nonsense.

    Unfortunately for the rest of us, this demand has nothing to do with the truth.

    PFnV
  6. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Prepare for rationing, incredibly onerous waiting periods for the opportunity to see someone, anyone, and the reduction of innovation of drugs and equipment.

    It has long been understood by many that Canada and other single payers have been "free riders" on our system--they benefit from our innovation, whose cost we bear.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,055
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    Actually, it would be curious to know how much evidence there is of that. While it's true our nation is awfully innovative, what have other nations contributed to medical science? We were certainly not leaders in this area until fairly modern times. This table seems to show that while we have a dominant position, probably not significantly so relative to our size:

    List of pharmaceutical companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    My own opinion your assumption that single payers have been free riders on our system is not based on much, other than ethnocentrism.
  8. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    John Stossel rebuttal here:
    Canada does have a lot of innovation--in vet hospitals--but those are private.
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,055
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    I don't know about Canada. Canada is a small country and small countries tend to specialized rather than generalize. I know France and English, both of which have national health care, have done a lot in the area of medical sciences. Have they done proportionate to their size as much as we have, I don't know. And just because someone says we do a lot, does not make it so. When I lived in Europe, most of the prescription drugs I came across were not American. They have their own treatments for illnesses. As far as medical technology goes, I have no idea who the primary inventors are, but my guess they are in countries like the US and Japan (which has national health care).
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,840
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +232 / 8 / -13


    Excellent article, shows the consequences of rationing and what our future under Obamacare would be like the only response seem tp talk about Ira.... sad.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,524
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +555 / 7 / -9

    It's funny that we want to talk about "becomming Canada" as opposed to becomming a country with a public-sector backstop for a primarily private-sector health system (yes, even after reform.)

    But leaving aside that point, the other interesting thing is that we always talk about those Canadians who come here for their surgeries because of one or another outgrowth of the Canadian system. We don't like to talk, however, about people who go to Canada for their prescription drugs or some treatments.

    Evidently the current US system not only has the slight drawback of leaving about 1/6 of our people completely out in the cold, it also has areas of poor performance as compared against the "bogeyman" systems of Canada and England.

    The Reagan theory of public policy is that anecdotes matter, and statistical outcomes do not. We see it in full bloom in the health care "debate" such as it is.

    What we do not see is any explanation beyond partisan posturing of why a country that spends more per capita on health care than anyone else in the industrial world -- that's us, by the way -- performs so poorly in any statistical analysis of infant mortality, prevention of preventable deaths, etc., society-wide.

    We don't pay attention to the tens of millions of available American horror stories, not because they're not horrifying, but because they're not "people like us." We convince ourselves they've "chosen not to have insurance" or "chosen to be poor," and that they deserve whatever happens to them. Or like a lot of the rose-colored-glasses crowd we declare everybody to have just peachy health care in America, despite the fact that 47 million have no insurance whatsoever.

    To hear people on this board tell it, illegal immigrants have access to the most advanced treatment money can buy, yet for some reason nice middle class native-born Americans still "choose" to buy insurance, because they would not be treated, having been born here... or, because they are not "poor enough" to be treated.

    Wake up. Over 60% of all personal bankruptcies filed in 2007 were the direct result of medical catastrophe; of those, over 85% were insured. The point here is that among those we call "insured," insurance is often insufficient (the so-called "underinsured.")

    We all have nice long catharses to the effect that evil unions drove our automakers out of business, but what are the biggest legacy costs that saddled the old GM and the old Chrysler? Employee health cost promises.

    You know, contracts. Promises. Those things that are sacred if they're bonuses paid to a rich investment banker.

    Well, if those promises are made to a line worker, they're greedy union labor.

    Okay that's another argument.

    But the real point to bringing it up is this: let's say we don't make those crazy employer health arrangements. What the hell arrangements are left? We're "uncompetitive" if we offer insurance through employers, and we're "socialists" if we provide insurance through the state.

    Anybody who wants to insist that every individual go out and buy health insurance needs to look at average household and per-capita income in this country, then look at the average cost of adequate insurance.

    And God forbid you've ever been sick before in your life, if you're shopping individually.

    Get real people. There is an enormous problem out there. You can't wish it away and you can't bloviate it away.

    If you can't insure people through individual arrangements because people can't afford it, and you can't insure people through their employers because the employers will go under, and you can't insure people through any kind of national health care plan, because that's socialism, exactly how are we supposed to get medical care in this country?

    And more to the point, how is it that every other county in the mother-loving industrial world seems capable of insuring its populace???

    I have about had it with the whining, self-serving forktards on this forum acting like everything is about 10 bucks falling off their biweekly check -- or for that matter, more. Some things you do because you're a freaking MENSCH not a whiny, fearful, self-serving twit justifying your own greed through whatever argument is handy at the time. From topic to topic they're not even consistent, as in the automakers going broke because greedy unions got health care for employees, morphing into everybody being adequately insured if you're talking about national health care.

    BING, reality, motherfu(kers! Public policy is not about a bunch of fairly well off guys sitting around and complaining that in one or another case one or another country's system had this or that failing. It is about examining our outcomes and improving them. There is a lot of room for improvement here.

    PFnV
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,840
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +232 / 8 / -13

    The truth is oozing out, P Singer a supporters of nationalized health care coming clean about HEalth Care rationing. I don't want the state deciding whether I deserve health care or not...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=health&st=cse


    So when you are no longer of use to the state...euthanisa anyone? Maybe it will depend on your voting record?
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,524
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +555 / 7 / -9

    Oh of course. The most extreme sci-fi paranoid imaginings will immediately become reality... everyone will have a crystal in his palm and it will start blinking when you're 29 and go black when you're 30 and that'll be that :rolleyes:

    Dude, if you're 80 and you want a new liver, you're not at the top of the list as it is, no matter who you are. (And if there is a bribe that can get you that liver instead of some clean-living 30 year-old, that's an obscenity.)

    That's a perfect example of a scarce resource, organ donation. We have rationing for that. For other services what you're saying, per your clip, is that our current system, whereby the well-insured get good care, the wealthy get great care, the inadequately insured get some care, and the uninsured get no care, is a form of rationing; that's his point.

    As a society we spend the majority of health dollars on the first year and the last year of life.

    Yeah, makes perfect sense.
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,840
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +232 / 8 / -13

    Mr Singer is a big time medical ethicist from Princeton. You may trust bureaucrats, I don't. I would rather be free to make my own choices.

    Of course as a union employee of the government you aren't being corralled into this healthcare system, so why should you care if we get screwed.

    If you are gonna put you family in then your views have credibility. Of course you and your politican friends aren't going to do that.
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,524
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +555 / 7 / -9

    Once again, 13, try to stick to the topic at hand. And once again, I am not a bargaining-unit (union) employee -- not that it's your business, or that it's at all relevant to this topic.
  16. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,301
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1 / -0

    There are people whom have health care insurance, whom are happy with it. Then there are those whom don't have health insurance. So we are willing to bring down the level of care. Why? Why are we not finding a way to bring the level of care up for those whom don't have it. There is nothing "progressive" about this health care plan. If it's such a big problem we should take our time to solve it. Yet, we rush these programs through ,why? To make the disenfranchised beholden to a group, the democratic party.
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,840
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +232 / 8 / -13



    This article I referenced with respect to rationing was printed by the propaganda arm of the dem party the NYT.


    Since you are not going to be subject to the obamacare plan it is easy for you to posture about a plan the rest of us will get shoved into when we lose out private plans.
  18. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,301
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1 / -0

    I don't know what you mean. We are all going to be affected by this plan. If they wanted to make things better they could do so. They would rather trap us all and make us beholden. When I say them I mean both. They are both playing the same game just not on this issue.
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,840
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +232 / 8 / -13


    Government Employees and congress (& the UAW) won't be subject to the Obamacare, they will continue with their present plan.

    For non gov employees, you are grandfathered into your present plan, when you change employers or you plan you are forced into Obamacare. Private insurance will be put out of business. How you ask? Simple the way the Feds are going to 'reduce cost' is to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals as they are doing with Medicare & Medicaid, so the reduced revenue will be covered by transferring the cost to people with non gov insurance, this will effective get the gov to their desired endgame national healthcare, with the decisions made by the bureauracy, bye bye innovation.
  20. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,301
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1 / -0

    I know it's scary!

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>