Will Obamacare become law this week?

[jthomas666]

I'm fairly certain that if my health policy professors were to read this thread, they would collectively die.

Does that make us a death panel?

 

[CharminTide]

If Obamacare passes they probably will.:wink:

I see what you did there.

 

[CharminTide]

Does that make us a death panel?

Nah, I think those are all too busy pulling the plugs on poor Republican grandmas against the wishes of their families, then using the cost savings to treat younger and more virile illegal immigrants.

 

[crimson fan man]

I am just excited about all the money I am going to get back from the government taking control of healthcare. What a joke about washington saving the day. People on this board has ask the question, what government program has really worked? The answer is none!!!! I'm a simply person but the proof is in the pudding.

 

[BamaInMo1]

Well, how many pages of problems are there? Are there people who currently abuse the system? Sure. There are also people who are worthy of additional assistance who are getting crushed by the system. And here's a newsflash--having Medicaid doesn't guarantee prompt medical care--many doctors do not accept Medicaid patients, forcing people to use ERs as a source of primary healthcare, which strains resources and wastes money.

As for the people in between who don't have healthcare? In many cases, they can't afford it. It is a touch pricey, particularly if you have to get it on your own.

Well, if medicaide ( Gvt run I believe ) isn't reliable/doesn't work right then how in all of God's green Earth are we supposed to believe the GVT is gonna do any better running ALL of our health care? Please tell me how.

 

[BAMA-SLC]

If anybody cares about actual statistical evidence, here is a pretty good report from the Urban Institute out today. Bottom line = if our healthcare system continues current trends, the middle class is going to suffer the worst consequences over the next 10 years, though all classes will be noticeably worse off.

FWIW - Not sure if I would hang my hat on any un-biased info coming out of the Urban Institute. They are weel funded by left leaning organizations.

 

[BAMA-SLC]

OK, what do you think is a reasonable timetable to hire the necessary people and make all the necessary regulatory decisions?

It's a "Budget Gimmick" to hide costs. The cost is 2 trillion in 10 years, add in the illegals, which will soon be granted amnesty, the true cost is 3.5 trillion +/-. From where??? The country is bankrupt. WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS PERIOD. Don't care if it is 2000 pages or 1 page. You are foolish to even think this money will go to healthcare. Why is Obama so desperate? The money for the bill which has not even been passed has been earmarked in the general fund. Take your pick. It will become another piggy bank. So who is really protecting the status quo here?

 

[It's On A Slab]

FWIW - Not sure if I would hang my hat on any un-biased info coming out of the Urban Institute. They are weel funded by left leaning organizations.

Both the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Urban Institute are well-respected organizations, and I've never heard claims of bias labeled against them.

 

[Bamaro]

That is simply not true. I have a friend who doesn't have insurance and had to get an operation. Once the bills started coming they were able to negotiate a much lower price for him to pay. I know you love Rush so much so I'll also use him as an example. During his healthcare crisis in Hawaii he paid lower because he paid without insurance.

Thats my point. Most dont know they may be able to negotiate a lower rate and either pay nothing (meaning we pay) or pay the full amount. Insurance companies have basically pre-negotiated the amount. Its fine to negotiate a lower rate for one large bill but takes many hours to have to negotiate every little thing.

 

[Bama Reb]

In 2008 Rush Limbaugh signed a new $400 Million contract. He now makes more money than Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Dianne Sawyer - combined.
Why would he buy insurance?

 

[jthomas666]

That is simply not true. I have a friend who doesn't have insurance and had to get an operation. Once the bills started coming they were able to negotiate a much lower price for him to pay. I know you love Rush so much so I'll also use him as an example. During his healthcare crisis in Hawaii he paid lower because he paid without insurance.

Why yes, a friend of mine was in a similar situation when, without health insurance, he had to have a pacemaker installed. And yes, the hospital reduced his bill from $100,000 to $50,000.

I suspect he would have paid even less with health insurance.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Both the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Urban Institute are well-respected organizations, and I've never heard claims of bias labeled against them.

The Urban Institute gets about 2/3 of its funding from the federal government. Might be a conflict of interest there.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I'm fairly certain that if my health policy professors were to read this thread, they would collectively die.

I bet I would get a chuckle if your health policy professors voiced constitutional and economic opinions.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Grist for the mill

Organizing for America Claim: "Even if you currently have health insurance, there will be new protections from insurance company abuses, and tax credits will make coverage more affordable."

Fact Check: False.

Explanation: While for a small minority of people, who buy insurance individually, there may be some benefits from insurance market reforms, the vast majority of Americans receive health benefits through their employers, and the majority of them are beneficiaries of self-insured ERISA plans. These people will see no change in the new so-called "protections" other than higher costs resulting from a loss of plan flexibility and onerous new requirements and mandates on health insurance providers. Further, the President and White House staff have independently admitted that for many Americans, health insurance will become more expensive, but claimed that this is acceptable because Americans would be required to purchase more comprehensive plans. While the merit of forcing more comprehensive plans can be debated (the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports allowing individuals to purchase high-deductible and more basic, affordable plans), the Administration has already conceded that health insurance will be more expensive for many Americans.

The ChamberPost: Myth and Fact: Organizing for America Misinformation on Health Care Bill

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Grist for the mill

The ChamberPost: Myth and Fact: Organizing for America Misinformation on Health Care Bill

Hold on. So you imply that the Urban Institute and Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is biased - even though they both have impeccable reputations in their respective fields - and then post a myopic and intentionally vague "fact check" from the Chamber of Commerce?

Those with employer-sponsored health insurance will see premium increases on par with what they've seen in previous years. HOWEVER, people should now (by that I mean as soon as reforms are implemented) have realistic options outside of the employer-group market.

 

[swoop10]

Hold on. So you imply that the Urban Institute and Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is biased - even though they both have impeccable reputations in their respective fields - and then post a myopic and intentionally vague "fact check" from the Chamber of Commerce?

Those with employer-sponsored health insurance will see premium increases on par with what they've seen in previous years. HOWEVER, people should now (by that I mean as soon as reforms are implemented) have realistic options outside of the employer-group market.

So are you saying that Democrats hate all businesses?:conf2:

 

[Bodhisattva]

Hold on. So you imply that the Urban Institute and Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is biased - even though they both have impeccable reputations in their respective fields - and then post a myopic and intentionally vague "fact check" from the Chamber of Commerce?

Those with employer-sponsored health insurance will see premium increases on par with what they've seen in previous years. HOWEVER, people should now (by that I mean as soon as reforms are implemented) have realistic options outside of the employer-group market.

I merely wrote that an organization that's beholding to the government for it's funding might produce opinion pieces that are favorable to the government. But, since you say they are impeccable, then, of course, they are.

And premiums will be higher under Obamacare than what we currently have.

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where the Constitution justifies federal involvement in health care.

But, don't any of these issues interfere with your Obama-worship. Carry on.

 

[BAMA-SLC]

It's a "Budget Gimmick" to hide costs. The cost is 2 trillion in 10 years, add in the illegals, which will soon be granted amnesty, the true cost is 3.5 trillion +/-. From where??? The country is bankrupt. WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS PERIOD. Don't care if it is 2000 pages or 1 page. You are foolish to even think this money will go to healthcare. Why is Obama so desperate? The money for the bill which has not even been passed has been earmarked in the general fund. Take your pick. It will become another piggy bank. So who is really protecting the status quo here?

No responses??? Amazing that those drinking the Healthcare koolaid do not want to deal in reality.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

If anybody cares to actually see the reconciliation bill, here it is - but I don't want anybody here to let the facts get in the way of a good scare story.

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28572026/Text-of-the-Reconciliation-Act-of-2010"]Text of the Reconciliation Act of 2010[/ame]

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

I merely wrote that an organization that's beholding to the government for it's funding might produce opinion pieces that are favorable to the government. But, since you say they are impeccable, then, of course, they are.

And premiums will be higher under Obamacare than what we currently have.

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where the Constitution justifies federal involvement in health care.

But, don't any of these issues interfere with your Obama-worship. Carry on.

Well, Urban now gets about 56% of funding from federal sources (BTW I think you meant "beholden") and the amount doesn't really change too much over the years. However, they started out as an independent federal panel and, regardless of whether it was Repubs or Dems in charge, their position has remained solidly nonpartisan. They've always been respected as such.

Premiums for group insurance under ANYTHING will be higher next year than they are now. It's the individual market where we'll see the fastest benefits.

I think health insurance reform falls pretty safely within the Commerce Clause. The Republicans sure weren't complaining when they pushed ERISA through years ago, which was a national reform of health insurance that drastically reduced states' powers to regulate health insurance and consolidated power over all employer-insured health insurance in the federal gov't. ERISA has survived challenge after challenge over the years.