Healthcare bill debate passed

[bamacre]

We will never progress as a nation when we refer to crony capitalism as "center" or "moderate."

"It's not free market, but it's not socialism, so it's a nice mix of the two, it's moderate."

It's not moderate, it's not "center," it's not a nice "compromise." It's crony capitalism, and it's big dick up the citizens' asses.

 

[Carmen813]

It becomes far left when it forces individual mandates. The gov't knows what's best for you and will force you to do it. Yeah, that's not far left at all...

Do you understand why the individual mandate is in the bill?

 

[bamacre]

Do you understand why the individual mandate is in the bill?

Yeah, so they can eventually say "look, the plan worked, 99% of Americans have health care." And all they had to do was force people to have it.

 

[bamacre]

Health care bill will make billions in profits for Big Pharma...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/pharma-deal-with-white-ho_n_353499.html

Nice to see the Democrats are looking out for the little guy, protecting us from the evil greedy corporations.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

We already went over this, as soon as you address my request for you to provide specific examples for your broad, extreme right wing platitudes I will be happy to answer that question.

I'm sorry I have to treat you like this, but it's the only way to nail you down to a single argument. I have answered your other questions in the past, and all it does is lead to a wandering argument as each time you are cornered in a losing position you shift to a new topic.

I've already shown you where the answers lie - you just refuse to look at them. And I'm the one trying to nail you down to a single argument but you just ignore them. You spout some rambling leftist tripe and I call you on it by asking you questions - you simply refuse to address the questions posed about your spittle spew.
Again, there is no reason to directly answer your little question as it's not relevant to the direction of my statements/questions. I could directly answer but you'd take the diversion even further off course.

So do we have a "free market" healthcare system or not?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Do you understand why the individual mandate is in the bill?

Yes - power and control.

 

[Jaskalas]

Health care bill will make billions in profits for Big Pharma...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/pharma-deal-with-white-ho_n_353499.html

Nice to see the Democrats are looking out for the little guy, protecting us from the evil greedy corporations.

If by Democrats you mean a few minor and silenced (in Congress) members of their party.

 

[Carmen813]

Yes - power and control.

Incorrect.

The individual mandate is in the bill so that pre-existing conditions clauses could be eliminated. Otherwise changing that provision would destroy private industry. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out why.

 

[bamacre]

What this bill will NOT do is help correct the biggest issue. That is, cutting costs. And not just the massive costs for the citizens, but government costs. We needed significant cost cutting for Medicare.

This is old, the numbers are now worse...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

 

[blackangst1]

Health care bill will make billions in profits for Big Pharma...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/pharma-deal-with-white-ho_n_353499.html

Nice to see the Democrats are looking out for the little guy, protecting us from the evil greedy corporations.

Is this really any surprise? I mean, the left (on this board anyway) has always scremed about how the GOP protects corporations...but when you look at corporate donations to the Dems and (on topic for this thread) Obama's statement earlier this year that drug negotiation was OFF the table, well...that pretty much shows where the Dems stand with corporations. Hand in hand with the GOP (not that I think its a bad thing).

 

[blackangst1]

what this bill will not do is help correct the biggest issue. That is, cutting costs. And not just the massive costs for the citizens, but government costs. We needed significant cost cutting for medicare.

This is old, the numbers are now worse...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os2fi2p9ivs

qft

 

[fskimospy]

I've already shown you where the answers lie - you just refuse to look at them. And I'm the one trying to nail you down to a single argument but you just ignore them. You spout some rambling leftist tripe and I call you on it by asking you questions - you simply refuse to address the questions posed about your spittle spew.
Again, there is no reason to directly answer your little question as it's not relevant to the direction of my statements/questions. I could directly answer but you'd take the diversion even further off course.

So do we have a "free market" healthcare system or not?

/facepalm

It's like talking to a wall.

 

[Jaskalas]

/facepalm

It's like talking to a wall.

Our divide is a good case study for why we need less centralized planning. One shoe does not, in fact, fit all.

 

[fskimospy]

qft

Wait, I thought one of the problems was that this bill was cutting $400 billion (or whatever) from Medicare?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Incorrect.

The individual mandate is in the bill so that pre-existing conditions clauses could be eliminated. Otherwise changing that provision would destroy private industry. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out why.

And how does mandating people buy it save private industry? ~13% isn't going to save the industry if some/most/??? have pre-existing conditions that will cost them more than they'll even come close to collecting from these people in premiums.

The correct answer is power and control as I stated before. There is ZERO reason to mandate purchases if you really want reform.

 

[blackangst1]

Wait, I thought one of the problems was that this bill was cutting $400 billion (or whatever) from Medicare?

uh, cost cutting =! budget cutting.

 

[Carmen813]

And how does mandating people buy it save private industry? ~13% isn't going to save the industry if some/most/??? have pre-existing conditions that will cost them more than they'll even come close to collecting from these people in premiums.

The correct answer is power and control as I stated before. There is ZERO reason to mandate purchases if you really want reform.

We already know the lack of mandates (or substantial penalties to lend them force) seriously hurts insurance companies if pre-existing condition limitations are eliminated. People wait until they get sick, buy insurance, then stop paying once they get healthy. Part of the reason insurance companies were on board was that the new customers they would gain would offset the increased costs of not being allowed to turn anyone away for pre-existing conditions.

 

[TruePaige]

We already know the lack of mandates (or substantial penalties to lend them force) seriously hurts insurance companies if pre-existing condition limitations are eliminated. People wait until they get sick, buy insurance, then stop paying once they get healthy. Part of the reason insurance companies were on board was that the new customers they would gain would offset the increased costs of not being allowed to turn anyone away for pre-existing conditions.

Thank you, logic man.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

We already know the lack of mandates (or substantial penalties to lend them force) seriously hurts insurance companies if pre-existing condition limitations are eliminated. People wait until they get sick, buy insurance, then stop paying once they get healthy. Part of the reason insurance companies were on board was that the new customers they would gain would offset the increased costs of not being allowed to turn anyone away for pre-existing conditions.

Uh so they "save" it after they "destroy" it? Good plan... Also, there is no evidence that it will "save" it from the destruction you admit eliminating pre-existing conditions does. All this destruction for a <13&#37; "problem" with no guarantee of the mandate "saving" it?
Also, what exactly do us 87% get out of this deal except getting dumped into the same pool as those with higher risk(pre-existing, etc) thus raising our premiums?

Here's an idea that would prevent this whole scenario - allow the Insurance Business to make the decision on whether they want the added risk of those with pre-existing conditions. Oh wait... that wouldn't give the gov't control so we can't do what make sense.

 

[cubby1223]

Do you understand why the individual mandate is in the bill?

Because so far as the bill does very little to control costs, to lessen the financial burden on the sick, you must increase the financial burden on the healthy, and that can't be done unless they are forced, er "mandated", to pay into insurance.

Pre-existing conditions were never intended to be a part of the insurance business. And it's just getting rather complicated that we're trying to interweave some sort of hybrid socialist/free market system that doesn't quite make a whole lot of sense...