Healthcare bill debate passed

[shadow9d9]

Would you like for me to return with a wall o'links with identical examples from Medicare? WTF is your point? I happen to agree with healthcare for profit, especially when the margin is <10%.

I was just saying.. I completely understand why you are so afraid of the government takeover of our precious corporations, whose sole purpose is to deny care while raking in profits. Praise our overlords!

 

[shadow9d9]

Touche. But, sadly for your argument, salaries make up such a small percentage of overall expenses.

They barely have any money! 1000% profit in 5 years! Paying 1.5 million a day to bribe congress. They are hurting!

 

[shadow9d9]

And if the next year there's a loss? No financial reserves, no money for remodeling, new equipment, staff. Nothing. They are dead and closed.


Now why should anyone spend a decade of their life to be your martyr? Scrub toilets. It will earn you more respect.

Point went right over that tiny brain of yours.

They claim 3% profit margin while paying their top execs huge... so that they could claim 3%... meanwhile they somehow still rake in 1000% profit increases over 5 years while covering less people.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Point went right over that tiny brain of yours.

They claim 3% profit margin while paying their top execs huge... so that they could claim 3%... meanwhile they somehow still rake in 1000% profit increases over 5 years while covering less people.

Actually I misread it, which makes me in error. Tussionex is a wonderful thing

 

[TruePaige]

Touche. But, sadly for your argument, salaries make up such a small percentage of overall expenses.

Doctors salaries are a small percentage, but overall institutional costs of the health care institutions are relatively large.

 

[TruePaige]

And if the next year there's a loss? No financial reserves, no money for remodeling, new equipment, staff. Nothing. They are dead and closed.


Now why should anyone spend a decade of their life to be your martyr? Scrub toilets. It will earn you more respect.

Who am I trying to make a martyr? I have never been in favor of salary cuts for the health care providers, but I am in favor of a universal health care system that eliminates the waste caused by our privatized system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who am I trying to make a martyr? I have never been in favor of salary cuts for the health care providers, but I am in favor of a universal health care system that eliminates the waste caused by our privatized system.

I misread what you were saying. See my "tussionex" response

 

[TruePaige]

I misread what you were saying. See my "tussionex" response

Oh, that applies to me too? Okay. Hehe..

 

[blackangst1]

I was just saying.. I completely understand why you are so afraid of the government takeover of our precious corporations, whose sole purpose is to deny care while raking in profits. Praise our overlords!

Because there are only 6 or 7 things our federal government should be in control of IMHO and health care is not one of them. Maybe if they had a history of providing better medical service for less money, waste, and fraud I might change my mind. But they dont.

I think before you start rallying about the turnover of health care to the government you might want to see what damage it would do to the private market. Do you have any idea the breadth and depth of health care in our economy? Luckily the industry is so big it probably wont happen in our lifetime. Too many congressmen(women) benefit from it

 

[blackangst1]

They barely have any money! 1000&#37; profit in 5 years! Paying 1.5 million a day to bribe congress. They are hurting!

They claim 3% profit margin while paying their top execs huge

And whats payroll of those making $100,000 or more as a percentage of gross income?

 

[blackangst1]

Doctors salaries are a small percentage, but overall institutional costs of the health care institutions are relatively large.

Wait what? Who said anything about doc salaries? You sure didnt:

They could up their executive and employee compensation

So maybe you can answer. What percentage of gross income do salaries of +$100,000 make of any of the big &#37; health care companies?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I guess when I say encourage, I mean (according to the CBO) the government plan will be more expensive, therefore encouraging people to buy from the private sector. Most people buy on price when benefits are the same.

Look. I know Im in the minority here (a conservative republican who supports a public option). BUT! Before we talk amongst ourselves there are a few basic questions that should be asked:

(try to wipe away any pre-existing thoughts or feelings on this)
Without necessarily using any particular country as an example, do you feel its possible for the United States to both lower its expenditure on healthcare and provide coverage for those who cant provide on their own? Do you feel if those two things are true, we should? If your answer is no, then theres no point in continuing the argument. I believe we can. Starting this venture isnt necessarily going to be pretty, nor is it going to be perfect; however, MY worst fears appear to be alleviated with this bill: the takeover of healthcare by the government. If there is language in the bill that disagrees with that, I would like to see it, and my support will wane. But everything I have read points that the private sector will still be protected.

"do you feel its possible for the United States to both lower its expenditure on healthcare" : No. It is not possible because people will pay for what they think heals/makes them feel better. Example - I F'd up my back last sunday and couldn't really walk for 3 days. My response to this is to see a chiropractor to fix the problem. I played cards last wednesday evening and everyone noticed I was playing standing up(instead of sitting) and asked why. I explained and out of the 8 that were there atleast 4 offered to go get some of their flexorall (sp?), Vicodin, etc. I know one had it legit from his knee surgery but the others? all seemingly healthy and such. One said she woke up with a sore/stiff neck the week before and went to the doc. He prescribed the flex and Vicodin. WTF! You want to know why we spend so much? The example is certainly a huge part. People don't really want to FIX things - they just want to feel better. It's easier to just get drugs than to put in the work to correct the real problem.

"provide coverage for those who cant provide on their own?" Again - no because we have to change attitudes before we can begin to address the costs and coverage. "provide" is also another sticky word as I know quite a few people who could "provide" their own but due to other choices they would fall into the "can't" category. They constantly bitch about not being able to afford insurance but smoke a pack a day, go to the bar regularly, and eat out for lunch daily. Again, attitudes and priorities must be addressed before we focus on "cost".

"the private sector will still be protected" - you forgot "for now". You see, you've bought the scam the leftists are selling. They know they'll get some people like you to sign on if it's just a little bit more gov't control than we currently have. They also know that it's easier to take more once you have established a base level of control. One would have to be insanely naive to not see this as the "foot in the door" to a single-payer system - hell some leftists even openly admit it.

 

[blackangst1]

"do you feel its possible for the United States to both lower its expenditure on healthcare" : No. It is not possible because people will pay for what they think heals/makes them feel better. Example - I F'd up my back last sunday and couldn't really walk for 3 days. My response to this is to see a chiropractor to fix the problem. I played cards last wednesday evening and everyone noticed I was playing standing up(instead of sitting) and asked why. I explained and out of the 8 that were there atleast 4 offered to go get some of their flexorall (sp?), Vicodin, etc. I know one had it legit from his knee surgery but the others? all seemingly healthy and such. One said she woke up with a sore/stiff neck the week before and went to the doc. He prescribed the flex and Vicodin. WTF! You want to know why we spend so much? The example is certainly a huge part. People don't really want to FIX things - they just want to feel better. It's easier to just get drugs than to put in the work to correct the real problem.

"provide coverage for those who cant provide on their own?" Again - no because we have to change attitudes before we can begin to address the costs and coverage. "provide" is also another sticky word as I know quite a few people who could "provide" their own but due to other choices they would fall into the "can't" category. They constantly bitch about not being able to afford insurance but smoke a pack a day, go to the bar regularly, and eat out for lunch daily. Again, attitudes and priorities must be addressed before we focus on "cost".

"the private sector will still be protected" - you forgot "for now". You see, you've bought the scam the leftists are selling. They know they'll get some people like you to sign on if it's just a little bit more gov't control than we currently have. They also know that it's easier to take more once you have established a base level of control. One would have to be insanely naive to not see this as the "foot in the door" to a single-payer system - hell some leftists even openly admit it.

I understand fully your points CAD, but Im not sure I buy them. First of all, I havent seen anything in this bill that represents government control. Unless you mean a set of standards? Do you rage against auto loan underwriters that require a minimum amount of coverage? This bill is exactly what I predicted would pass several months ago - a giant welfare bill. BUT! Sometimes thats OK. Let me ask you something. Are you against unemployment benefits? Do you see it as a way for the government to take over your income choices? As I said in an earlier post, I'd like to see analysis from the antis. If there is some kind of takeover of anything, I havent found it. Could you provide a link with the details if thats the case? Sure there are requirements such as dropping pre-existing condition clauses...dropping lifetime maximums...the requirement to have a plan of some sort (but not 100&#37; of the population is affected!)...but a takeover?

 

[TruePaige]

Wait what? Who said anything about doc salaries? You sure didnt:



So maybe you can answer. What percentage of gross income do salaries of +$100,000 make of any of the big % health care companies?

What percentage do all salaries make up?

Claims handlers don't usually make 100k+ but are largely unneeded in a UHC system.

Doctor prescribes a treatment, government pays for it. No looking for ways to reject them to save a buck.

 

[shortylickens]

Was going to post a new thread but I see you guys are already on it.
Based on what I read they dont plan to outlaw abortions, just drop government funding for it.
"Placing onerous new restrictions on a woman's right to choose sets a terrible precedent and marks a significant step backwards," Democratic Representatives Louise Slaughter and Diana DeGette, co-chairs of the congressional pro-choice caucus, said in a statement

Even though I am pro-abortion I dont have a problem with this, and I dont see it as restrictions on a womans right to choose.
Why the hell should my tax dollars go to funding her mistakes? No one is taking away her clinics. She should pay with her own money, its still cheaper than raising a kid.

Sorry if that sounded nasty, but based on whats been said already, you guys probably wont notice.

 

[IGBT]

so what political cronies will darth pelosi appoint to her death panels??

 

[blackangst1]

What percentage do all salaries make up?

Claims handlers don't usually make 100k+ but are largely unneeded in a UHC system.

Doctor prescribes a treatment, government pays for it. No looking for ways to reject them to save a buck.

You mean like Medicare does right? The rejection thing?

Oh heres a number for you..Edward Hanaway (CEO of Cigna) had an income that represented .0015% of Cigna's revenue. Big fucking deal.

 

[blackangst1]

Was going to post a new thread but I see you guys are already on it.
Based on what I read they dont plan to outlaw abortions, just drop government funding for it.
"Placing onerous new restrictions on a woman's right to choose sets a terrible precedent and marks a significant step backwards," Democratic Representatives Louise Slaughter and Diana DeGette, co-chairs of the congressional pro-choice caucus, said in a statement

Even though I am pro-abortion I dont have a problem with this, and I dont see it as restrictions on a womans right to choose.
Why the hell should my tax dollars go to funding her mistakes? No one is taking away her clinics. She should pay with her own money, its still cheaper than raising a kid.

Sorry if that sounded nasty, but based on whats been said already, you guys probably wont notice.

My understanding is it denies funding for elective abortion, but keeps funding for rape and incest.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I understand fully your points CAD, but Im not sure I buy them. First of all, I havent seen anything in this bill that represents government control. Unless you mean a set of standards? Do you rage against auto loan underwriters that require a minimum amount of coverage? This bill is exactly what I predicted would pass several months ago - a giant welfare bill. BUT! Sometimes thats OK. Let me ask you something. Are you against unemployment benefits? Do you see it as a way for the government to take over your income choices? As I said in an earlier post, I'd like to see analysis from the antis. If there is some kind of takeover of anything, I havent found it. Could you provide a link with the details if thats the case? Sure there are requirements such as dropping pre-existing condition clauses...dropping lifetime maximums...the requirement to have a plan of some sort (but not 100% of the population is affected!)...but a takeover?

Again, just because the "control" isn't fully in this bill doesn't mean it won't happen. All they have to do is have control of the rules(which they do in this bill) and eventually just shift the rules to squeeze out the private sector.
And to your question. Minimum limits from lenders? no. They are a business - not the gov't. They have a right to refuse bad risks. In this bill, Insurers are going to be forced to take bad risk people due to the gov'ts rules.

 

[blackangst1]

Again, just because the "control" isn't fully in this bill doesn't mean it won't happen. All they have to do is have control of the rules(which they do in this bill) and eventually just shift the rules to squeeze out the private sector.
And to your question. Minimum limits from lenders? no. They are a business - not the gov't. They have a right to refuse bad risks. In this bill, Insurers are going to be forced to take bad risk people due to the gov'ts rules.

Had this have been 3200, I would be right there with you opposing it. But it isnt. Im not part of the "zero regulation" crowd, so maybe we'll agree to disagree. When the day comes that legislation is proposed to actually take over something, I'll fight it along side of you.

And yes, in my auto insurance example they are a business, not the government. Then I will assume you rage about the fact that insurance is required at all, much less minimums set.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Had this have been 3200, I would be right there with you opposing it. But it isnt. Im not part of the "zero regulation" crowd, so maybe we'll agree to disagree. When the day comes that legislation is proposed to actually take over something, I'll fight it along side of you.

And yes, in my auto insurance example they are a business, not the government. Then I will assume you rage about the fact that insurance is required at all, much less minimums set.

It basically is 3200 - just wrapped with other stuff.

I'm also not part of the "zero REGULATION" crowd. However, this is much more than regulation- it's furthering the control.

Yes, I dislike the fact that in my state auto insurance is mandatory and yet I still have to pay uninsured motorist coverages. However, that is a STATE thing which is where it belongs. This HC/HI issue is FEDERAL and has no reason to be there unless it was to open the markets so insurance could be portable and competitive across state lines. Especially the mandates. There is no place in the Constitution that allows the Feds to create individual mandates.

 

[blackangst1]

It basically is 3200 - just wrapped with other stuff.

I'm also not part of the "zero REGULATION" crowd. However, this is much more than regulation- it's furthering the control.

Yes, I dislike the fact that in my state auto insurance is mandatory and yet I still have to pay uninsured motorist coverages. However, that is a STATE thing which is where it belongs. This HC/HI issue is FEDERAL and has no reason to be there unless it was to open the markets so insurance could be portable and competitive across state lines. Especially the mandates. There is no place in the Constitution that allows the Feds to create individual mandates.

I expect to see the portable issue coming along in the next 10 years. Its a huge undertaking.

And we'll agree to disagree about it being 3200 wrapped with different stuff. To me, its very different. 3200 was laden with all the control you speak of, this isnt.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I expect to see the portable issue coming along in the next 10 years. Its a huge undertaking.

And we'll agree to disagree about it being 3200 wrapped with different stuff. To me, its very different. 3200 was laden with all the control you speak of, this isnt.

wow... just wow... where did you fall off the wagon?

There is no way portability is going to happen - it'll be UHC before that happens if this bill passes.

There was some commentary by a couple of the Congress critters about this bill basically being built from the ashes of 3200. Just changed some candy and icing for different colors and added some shiny sparkles.... oh look pretty!!! ...


Oh, and portability is not a huge undertaking - it'd be quite simple for them to do if they really wanted competition.

 

[TruePaige]

You mean like Medicare does right? The rejection thing?

Oh heres a number for you..Edward Hanaway (CEO of Cigna) had an income that represented .0015% of Cigna's revenue. Big fucking deal.

No not like Medicare. Your example is also ridiculousness. I said all employee salaries originally.

Great Britain doesn't have the rejection issue our country does because they aren't activelly looking not to pay.

You keep propping up an environment where it is okay to make money off the dying if you want, but these people who get paid to reject others are not needed.

 

[glenn1]

Because there are only 6 or 7 things our federal government should be in control of IMHO and health care is not one of them. Maybe if they had a history of providing better medical service for less money, waste, and fraud I might change my mind. But they dont.

I think before you start rallying about the turnover of health care to the government you might want to see what damage it would do to the private market. Do you have any idea the breadth and depth of health care in our economy? Luckily the industry is so big it probably wont happen in our lifetime. Too many congressmen(women) benefit from it

Why are the conservatives so upset about this? That the Democrats are willing to pass this bill shows they will sell their principles for cheap. It's like the periodic battles for some pittance $0.25 raise in the minimum wage - it doesn't do a fvcking thing for the poor, but who cares if it distracts the progressives from something that actually matters? Sure, there will be some shitty government-provided healthcare, but it will probably be of the same quality as Section 8 housing or the rescue efforts during Hurricane Katrina. And in return, Republicans can take this issue off the table for the rest of time.