Bush tax cuts cost 2.5x House healthcare bill

[razor2025]

Well, did you love Iraq? Do you like how DC is doing these days? How about bailing out financial institutions with no strings attached? From my perspective UHC isn't the issue. It's that the same people who will take over all of medicine are the ones who gave you all the above. The same ones who have created a couple thousand page document of legislation without first bothering to understand the smallest bit of the most complex system on earth, which is the American medical system. These are the same people who want to let private industry take over NASAs functions because they believe something as simple as getting people to the Moon would better be done by them.

Simply put I don't want fools irrevocably taking over one of the most important aspects of our lives. That they have the hubris to do so in ignorance and claim theirs is the solution proves my point about them.

I'll pass.

We can go on and on about past things, but I want to focus on UHC.

So you're WILLINGLY throw-out a perfectly good idea, because you think that the government is corrupt, incompetent, and useless? Hey guys, stop those UHC attack ads! We don't need them anymore, no one thinks it'll work ANYWAY!

I really don't understand this. You ALREADY don't have CONTROL WHATSOEVER in the current system to begin with. You would rather give the control of your health-care in hands of voting shareholders, who isn't you, and you have 0% chance of influencing, rather than somewhat corrupt government that might have 1% chance of influencing. Yet, you give up willy-nilly, 100% sure it won't work, 100% sure it won't improve the care, 100% satisfied with the status-quo.

If you disagree, then by all means, let your local politician know, your friends know, your co-workers know. Stop suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Stop thinking "oh they won't listen", BECAUSE THAT"S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK.

 

[razor2025]

Whats wrong with UHC? You're giving health care to people who dont work for it. Universal implies health care for everyone. The guy eating a burger while collecting welfare gets the same health care as you do.

I think you're just trolling from your other posts, so I'll refrain myself from replying to you.

With that said, I'll use this post to illustrate how FLAWED your logic is.

Sure, my health-care is shared by a fat, PS3 playing, unemployed bastard. But I get to have a chance to save my life from disastrous medical need, even if I may not afford it!

See? That wasn't so hard. It's called a COLLECTIVE SOCIETY. You give a little, you take a little. This idea is taught in PRESCHOOL for crying out loud.

Ah, but wait, government suxxxx! right?

A Day in the Life of An Anti Health Care Reformist

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet — which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration — and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Incorrect. Those inherited issues $Cost. Sorry, but that's the Facts.

OK so Obama takes no blame in increasing the deficit in the past year? All Bush's fault?

Right

Go ahead and twist the facts all you want to suit your agenda. That's the best thing you democrats are good at.

 

[sandorski]

hehe, nice

 

[sandorski]

OK so Obama takes no blame in increasing the deficit in the past year? All Bush's fault?

Right

Go ahead and twist the facts all you want to suit your agenda. That's the best thing you democrats are good at.

oy vey.

 

[ProfJohn]

Razor... nice straw man.

Everything you did in your day was done with or by a privately owned business, except for your water and mail.

And perhaps you fail to understand what some of the regulations proposed by congress would do to the private healthcare industry.

For example:
Forcing insurance companies to cover people's previous conditions would be similar to telling the power company that they have to keep your power on even if you don't pay the bill on time, or only pay $10 a month even though you use $100 a month in power.

That provision combined with the way the fine structure is set up for people who don't have healthcare could kill private insurance. (which is what the Dems want anyway.)

For example:
Let's say the cost for me to get health insurance is $1000 a year, but the fine for not having it is only $750 a year. So being a cheap ass I skip out on insurance and just pay the fine.

However, a couple years down the road I find out I have cancer. So I quickly sign up for private health insurance and start getting cancer treatment costing the insurance company thousands of dollars, and thanks to the government they can't deny me coverage

Removing the pre-existing conditions clause would essentially be the same as driving around in your car with out insurance, hitting a tree, quickly signing up for insurance and then filing a claim to get your car fixed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is stupid logic. Pick out the Bad(Reall or in one's Opinion), ignore any Good, then conclude that whatever else will be done will also be Bad.

Tell me just how good Medicaid functions? That the program has been around for a few generations, and the chronic and serious problems are addressed by pretending they don't exist.

Sorry, but you haven't seen the mess that this cluster is, and DC is helpless to correct it.

Certainly they got something right. After all there are enough pages that something had to be good.

How about this. We hand a book about surgery to someone who doesn't know about it. This would be a very smart person for our purposes. Think about it. It would be very economical. Of course one might die, but look on the bright side.

Sorry, but I provide health care and I've seen the good the bad and the ugly, and it spooks the crap out of me when I see what's already been done.

 

[razor2025]

Razor... nice straw man.

Oh really?

Everything you did in your day was done with or by a privately owned business, except for your water and mail.

Really? FDA was started off by private food inspectors? Private business launched GPS satellites? IHS wasn't government project? OHSA was private? DOT was private? Please where's the strawman in that?

And perhaps you fail to understand what some of the regulations proposed by congress would do to the private healthcare industry.

For example:
Forcing insurance companies to cover people's previous conditions would be similar to telling the power company that they have to keep your power on even if you don't pay the bill on time, or only pay $10 a month even though you use $100 a month in power.

That provision combined with the way the fine structure is set up for people who don't have healthcare could kill private insurance. (which is what the Dems want anyway.)

Well, I can already tell you that your example is faulty, because there are numerous state and local laws in place to prevent gas company from cutting service during winter for households who are late/unable to pay their bill in full! Holy crap! Be mindful of what path you tread.

Killing ineffective private service is bad why? No, really. I'm asking you this from completely economic standpoint.

For example:
Let's say the cost for me to get health insurance is $1000 a year, but the fine for not having it is only $750 a year. So being a cheap ass I skip out on insurance and just pay the fine.

However, a couple years down the road I find out I have cancer. So I quickly sign up for private health insurance and start getting cancer treatment costing the insurance company thousands of dollars, and thanks to the government they can't deny me coverage

Removing the pre-existing conditions clause would essentially be the same as driving around in your car with out insurance, hitting a tree, quickly signing up for insurance and then filing a claim to get your car fixed.

Then raise the fine. Obviously the punishment isn't harsh enough for someone who wants to game the system. Or... did you believe that with private insurance that you paid $1000 years for past 10 years, won't drop you like rock when they find out you have cancer? But... but... I PAID THE PREMIUM! Laughable example at best. Using the same car analogy, pre-existing condition clause, is where your auto-insurance denies your claim, citing that you nudged your mail box on the way out of your drive way (because man, that small paint chip on your bumper was SO OBVIOUS!) as grounds for the denial (you LIED ABOUT NOT TELLING EVERYTHING).

 

[razor2025]

Tell me just how good Medicaid functions? That the program has been around for a few generations, and the chronic and serious problems are addressed by pretending they don't exist.

And private insurance doesn't hide their own dirt? Let me tell you how this debate (for this point) will end. Numbers will be cited, and sources will be attacked. Yet, you will be 100% unconvinced, because your innate bias will shield your own sources due to anecdotal experience reinforced by your own ideology. Of course, you will conclude with satisfaction that you are perfectly okay with leaving your own health at hands of those who have no interesting in your well-being nor be influenced by you in any way. No? Do I have this wrong?

Sorry, but you haven't seen the mess that this cluster is, and DC is helpless to correct it.

Certainly they got something right. After all there are enough pages that something had to be good.

Ah, of course. Throw the baby with the bath water fallacy.

How about this. We hand a book about surgery to someone who doesn't know about it. This would be a very smart person for our purposes. Think about it. It would be very economical. Of course one might die, but look on the bright side.

I hope I have this right. You believe that the private insurance bureaucrats, are medically trained?! And that they would rather lose money instead of saving one life (could be yours!) Oh boy, do I have a bridge to sell to you..... If I have interpreted this wrong, sorry.

Sorry, but I provide health care and I've seen the good the bad and the ugly, and it spooks the crap out of me when I see what's already been done.

I don't work in health care, but I'm also spooked by what's been done by using it. Are you against UHC because of its ugly shape right now? If so, then you should be fighting to have it restored back in its original incarnation.

 

[Bitek]

I think you're just trolling from your other posts, so I'll refrain myself from replying to you.

With that said, I'll use this post to illustrate how FLAWED your logic is.

Sure, my health-care is shared by a fat, PS3 playing, unemployed bastard. But I get to have a chance to save my life from disastrous medical need, even if I may not afford it!

See? That wasn't so hard. It's called a COLLECTIVE SOCIETY. You give a little, you take a little. This idea is taught in PRESCHOOL for crying out loud.

Ah, but wait, government suxxxx! right?

lol... that's seriously funny stuff

 

[Bitek]

And the Bush tax cuts put a lot of money back into everybody's pockets, which is a very good thing. Healthcare bill just took from their pockets.

That so called "cost" is because it's OUR MONEY to start with. Letting me keep more of MY MONEY is always a good thing.

hahaha... you can't borrow money and then call it yours. If it was yours, you would not have to borrow it.

Its China's money, and its our children's money. And no, its not a good thing.

Edit: Epic Lulz

We need to restore the time when taking a handout is shameful and needs to be publicaly shunned. See somebody using food stamps - embarass them, call them out, call attention to them. Follow them out to their nice car in a mob and shame them to let them know that shit is wrong.

That shit's wrong. Thanks Pops.

 

[Bitek]

Hypocrisy or not, it doesnt matter. Bush is long, long gone.

Too bad his pile of IOU's and unfunded obligations aren't...


But you are right, that was so 2008.

 

[Throckmorton]

Edit: misread

 

[Throckmorton]

Razor... nice straw man.

Everything you did in your day was done with or by a privately owned business, except for your water and mail.

And perhaps you fail to understand what some of the regulations proposed by congress would do to the private healthcare industry.

For example:
Forcing insurance companies to cover people's previous conditions would be similar to telling the power company that they have to keep your power on even if you don't pay the bill on time, or only pay $10 a month even though you use $100 a month in power.

That provision combined with the way the fine structure is set up for people who don't have healthcare could kill private insurance. (which is what the Dems want anyway.)

For example:
Let's say the cost for me to get health insurance is $1000 a year, but the fine for not having it is only $750 a year. So being a cheap ass I skip out on insurance and just pay the fine.

However, a couple years down the road I find out I have cancer. So I quickly sign up for private health insurance and start getting cancer treatment costing the insurance company thousands of dollars, and thanks to the government they can't deny me coverage

Removing the pre-existing conditions clause would essentially be the same as driving around in your car with out insurance, hitting a tree, quickly signing up for insurance and then filing a claim to get your car fixed.

How do you know the fee is $750 and insurance costs $1000?

 

[piasabird]

This is Baloney. When was the last time the government made an estimate of cost and the cost was less or about what they estimated?

Answer is NEVER!

Take any estimate they computed and multiply by 3 to ten.

Whenever you are giving money away, expect the line to get longer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And private insurance doesn't hide their own dirt? Let me tell you how this debate (for this point) will end. Numbers will be cited, and sources will be attacked. Yet, you will be 100% unconvinced, because your innate bias will shield your own sources due to anecdotal experience reinforced by your own ideology. Of course, you will conclude with satisfaction that you are perfectly okay with leaving your own health at hands of those who have no interesting in your well-being nor be influenced by you in any way. No? Do I have this wrong?




Ah, of course. Throw the baby with the bath water fallacy.



I hope I have this right. You believe that the private insurance bureaucrats, are medically trained?! And that they would rather lose money instead of saving one life (could be yours!) Oh boy, do I have a bridge to sell to you..... If I have interpreted this wrong, sorry.



I don't work in health care, but I'm also spooked by what's been done by using it. Are you against UHC because of its ugly shape right now? If so, then you should be fighting to have it restored back in its original incarnation.

I believe you are new here. My position is that the government should have tapped recognized leaders in the various disciplines of health care. Practitioners of all types, actuaries who have dealt with determining costs, public health care advocates to keep everything honest, etc.

Give them the task of determining the specific needs of health care, what specific options we have to address it, and list the cost of each option along with the pros and cons.

THEN when a full public report is made to Congress, that body has a detailed expert analysis from which to draft legislation.

That is precisely what was NOT done. The "experts" were party men and women who don't understand the system, don't know what is possible or even desirable. Legislation from ignorance.

No, a "well let's get something in and we'll change it around" has never worked because it's not done. Again, see Medicaid.


If you want UHC badly enough then you want it done right. If you want it done right then you need to understand what is going on, and not just at a surface or nickle and dime level. You need people who actually DO health care, people with a clue as well as those who have dealt with the system on a day to day basis and understand what is good and what needs reform.

If this is so important, why do you insist on ignorance?

 

[razor2025]

I believe you are new here. My position is that the government should have tapped recognized leaders in the various disciplines of health care. Practitioners of all types, actuaries who have dealt with determining costs, public health care advocates to keep everything honest, etc.

Give them the task of determining the specific needs of health care, what specific options we have to address it, and list the cost of each option along with the pros and cons.

THEN when a full public report is made to Congress, that body has a detailed expert analysis from which to draft legislation.

That is precisely what was NOT done. The "experts" were party men and women who don't understand the system, don't know what is possible or even desirable. Legislation from ignorance.

No, a "well let's get something in and we'll change it around" has never worked because it's not done. Again, see Medicaid.


If you want UHC badly enough then you want it done right. If you want it done right then you need to understand what is going on, and not just at a surface or nickle and dime level. You need people who actually DO health care, people with a clue as well as those who have dealt with the system on a day to day basis and understand what is good and what needs reform.

If this is so important, why do you insist on ignorance?

Oh, I'm not that new, though I admit I'm new to your position. Do you believe your position is politically tenable? I do want a UHC that is "right". However, the current political climate and general ignorance by voting public makes it difficult to even get a proper study, never mind proposing a "right" system to the floor.

UHC isn't even new agenda. It's been tried and tried again for past 50 years. Every time it gets mentioned, someone will demand a study, debate endlessly, and then table it for later. It's not like I don't want a system that works, but you can't achieve that right now. In essence, you either form a perfect plan that will never materialize, or do it fast and dirty.

I'm afraid, it's already going to get "tabled" again. Only to be pushed off to later with even HIGHER cost and more broken system. And guess what? it'll get tabled then again, because it's not "perfect". Many people who NEEDS UHC doesn't have another 50 years to give.

 

[Paul98]

What we need is a system that can be changed after we find what more problems are. Try to fix some of the problems with HC, implement the solution but don't stop there. Something this big isn't going to work great the first time you bring it out. Find us a few things that really need to be changed now and get those up and running.

 

[bamacre]

Do you believe and agree that is happening or not?

Oh I don't think there's any doubt it's happening.

 

[EXman]

What we need is a system that can be changed after we find what more problems are. Try to fix some of the problems with HC, implement the solution but don't stop there. Something this big isn't going to work great the first time you bring it out. Find us a few things that really need to be changed now and get those up and running.

You overestimate our politicians. Good Idea and welcome to AT. I suggest you look at the rest of the site it is better this is the gutter.