The Healthcare bill as of right now increases the deficit and does not lower it.

[nealh]

I have no idea how this has not been plastered all over. The supporters of this bill have stated it will reduce the deficit by $140 billion or so. This was based on the CBO numbers.

Problem is this is an outright lie. Complete fabrication. Why you ask. Well the CBO numbers that were reported late week take into account current law. The current law states Medicare fee for physicians were to decrease by 21.2% on Jan 1. But this is an untenable for meidcal practices(esp internist and GPs). So the cut has been delayed.

The CBO was asked about this and therre comments were that we use current law, despite the fact it is not reality.

So without the 21.2%(which by the way would become a 40% cut on Jan 1 2011 if the 21% cut is not done this year)...the current Healthcare bill actually increases the deficit by $50 billion as it stand right now.

The law is not affordable and will cost at least 5-10x time what they expect. Just look at Medicare and Social Security. The estimates for these were a fraction of reality as well.

I hope you all get ready for drop in quality and services that are available. In all probablity it will be like most other socialized countries..you want care when you want with no waits and all possible technology.... You will pay your govt taxed healthcare and then buy another private policy.

 

[glenn1]

I have no idea how this has not been plastered all over. The supporters of this bill have stated it will reduce the deficit by $140 billion or so. This was based on the CBO numbers.

Problem is this is an outright lie. Complete fabrication. Why you ask. Well the CBO numbers that were reported late week take into account current law. The current law states Medicare fee for physicians were to decrease by 21.2% on Jan 1. But this is an untenable for meidcal practices(esp internist and GPs). So the cut has been delayed.

The CBO was asked about this and therre comments were that we use current law, despite the fact it is not reality.

So without the 21.2%(which by the way would become a 40% cut on Jan 1 2011 if the 21% cut is not done this year)...the current Healthcare bill actually increases the deficit by $50 billion as it stand right now.

The law is not affordable and will cost at least 5-10x time what they expect. Just look at Medicare and Social Security. The estimates for these were a fraction of reality as well.

I hope you all get ready for drop in quality and services that are available. In all probablity it will be like most other socialized countries..you want care when you want with no waits and all possible technology.... You will pay your govt taxed healthcare and then buy another private policy.

This is a non-issue for those of us who have resources and marketable skills; we'll continue getting great medical care. If anything, those who are entrepreneurs, etc. will probably be glad (and relieved) for the opportunity to drop the healthcare costs hot potato for their employees and neighbors into the lap of Uncle Sam.

 

[HomerJS]

I hope you all get ready for drop in quality and services that are available. In all probablity it will be like most other socialized countries..you want care when you want with no waits and all possible technology.... You will pay your govt taxed healthcare and then buy another private policy.

Yeah we must maintain that stellar #37 ranking in worldwide healthcare.

 

[cubby1223]

Yeah we must maintain that stellar #37 ranking in worldwide healthcare.

And hopefully ranked #1 in personal freedoms. If someone wants to live an unhealthy life, eat junk food until they come down with diabetes, well dang it, it is their God-given right to do so. I'll call him a fat-ass slob and refuse to give up my money for his health care, but I will respect his freedom to live that way.

 

[HomerJS]

And hopefully ranked #1 in personal freedoms. If someone wants to live an unhealthy life, eat junk food until they come down with diabetes, well dang it, it is their God-given right to do so. I'll call him a fat-ass slob and refuse to give up my money for his health care, but I will respect his freedom to live that way.

That losing our freedoms is such a canard the right uses for almost everything they oppose.

Ok if the loss of freedom you claim are the mandates to purchase insurace how about we do this. Change the laws/policies/statues and say hospitals no longer have to treat anyone without insurance or a provable ability to pay.

 

[shira]

And hopefully ranked #1 in personal freedoms. If someone wants to live an unhealthy life, eat junk food until they come down with diabetes, well dang it, it is their God-given right to do so. I'll call him a fat-ass slob and refuse to give up my money for his health care, but I will respect his freedom to live that way.

#1 in freedoms? Boy, are you clueless. Try #16:

http://www.democracyranking.org/en/ranking.htm

And how exactly are you "refusing to give up [your] money for his health care"? Every time that deadbeat needs care, those inflated prices you pay for insurance are covering the inflated health-care costs needed to pay for HIS care.

 

[Ronstang]

Ok if the loss of freedom you claim are the mandates to purchase insurace how about we do this. Change the laws/policies/statues and say hospitals no longer have to treat anyone without insurance or a provable ability to pay.

That sounds great. The government mandated hospitals treat people who cannot pay in the first place, violating the hospitals' rights in the process, and that is one of the biggest reasons health care costs are so high. The millions of illegal aliens raping the system yearly has also caused catastrophic negative affects because almost none of them ever pay a dime.

 

[Noobtastic]

Yeah we must maintain that stellar #37 ranking in worldwide healthcare.

the "ranking" is pro-European based on the "equality" of health care methodology.

USA has higher survival of rates across the board compared to even the most developed European nation.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That losing our freedoms is such a canard the right uses for almost everything they oppose.

Ok if the loss of freedom you claim are the mandates to purchase insurace how about we do this. Change the laws/policies/statues and say hospitals no longer have to treat anyone without insurance or a provable ability to pay.

You wouldn`t be talking your shit if you had no insurance.....

 

[ShawnD1]

If anything, those who are entrepreneurs, etc. will probably be glad (and relieved) for the opportunity to drop the healthcare costs hot potato for their employees and neighbors into the lap of Uncle Sam.

Probably. One of the great parts of starting a small company in Canada is that you don't need to give any medical benefits to any of your employees. It also means your employees can get very seriously injured and they'll still come back to work in due time. Even people in lowly Walmart jobs can get cancer, get treatment, and get back to work.

 

[Sclamoz]

That losing our freedoms is such a canard the right uses for almost everything they oppose.

And whats funny is they use the opposite argument as well like "health care is not a right" and so on.

That sounds great. The government mandated hospitals treat people who cannot pay in the first place, violating the hospitals' rights in the process

Watch this...show me where in our constitution it says hospitals have the right to deny treatment?

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthcare/EMT-what-A_The_federal_anti-patient_dumping_law.html

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) was passed in 1986 by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The act was intended to prevent hospitals from turning away uninsured patients who needed emergency care or women in labor, so-called “patient dumping.”

The statute requires that all hospitals that participate in the federal Medicare program provide emergency care and medical screenings in ERs to patients regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. If the hospital does not have the capability to stabilize the patient, the act requires a transfer to another hospital with that ability be arranged.

Also, a hospital with such special capabilities is required by the law to accept a transferred patient if it has the capacity to do so. This element of EMTALA is intended to prevent so-called “reverse dumping” when a hospital does not accept a patient for transfer because of a lack of insurance or inability to pay.

Hospitals and doctors found to have violated EMTALA are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and could be excluded from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition, the act subjects hospitals to civil lawsuits by patients for violations.

EMTALA violations are enforced by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2009 seven hospitals settled allegations of patient dumping with the OIG, including the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital-Hamilton in Mercer County New Jersey.

The law was passed mainly to stop hospitals getting rid of patients that aren't profitable for them.

 

[Zebo]

LOL try 300% increase.

Rommy care is near identical. Shit in just one year jumped 73%
http://www.emaxhealth.com/2/125/281...-premium-assistance-program-laid-workers.html

What y'all don't understand is this bill is a poison pill designed to bring on single payer. You think Democrats will have lost initiative as rates jack up 300%??? Hell no, it will still be "greedy insurance" greedy pharma" "asshole republicans" and public will scream bloody murder to get costs under control by whatever means necessary.