Obama's Healthcare Reform

[chbare]

I'm all for giving everybody health care; however, I'm still a little confused about where all the money will come from. Best case scenario being, Obama has a cash crop of blooming money trees. Otherwise, I would refer back to my prior post and the emphasis on Rosetta Stone.

Take care,

chbare.

[JPINFV]

Healthcare is a right, not something you earn.

Until the US gets that through thier head, I don't think you guys are gonna get very far.

How many other "rights" require the work of someone else? If a physician refuses to see a patient or discharges a patient from his practice, does that mean that the physician violated the patient's civil rights?

Touche my friend. However, if your house burns down the fire department will come and put it out free of charge, the police don't send you a bill for helping you out if you need it, most local libraries are free, you don't have to pay to get US mail and so on and so on .... all of these things are regardless of income or how much you have "put into" the pot.

Why is it that healthcare, one of if not the most basic and essential human services is not seen as so in your parts?

Both of those are paid for by taxes and fees. Additionally, a business owner getting a fire inspection done doesn't get it for free. A bicycle license isn't free. Plenty of other police and fire services Additionally, the police force in the US are agents of the state, not agents of the people. The courts have said countless times that there is no duty to protect any one citizen.

[Lone Star]

The main impetus for this 'healthcare reform' was because so many Americans do not currently have health insurance (I'm one of them). Unfortunately, it's been known and documented that even if this 'reform' passed, it would still leave about 8 million people uninsured.

Ok, it's cut down on the number of uninsured people by forcing everyone to buy it. It still doesn't address those that can't afford it in the first place. It DOES however list the progressive rates at which these poor people will be fined when they don't obtain insurance.

I've worked places where my wages after deductions (based on 40 hours a week) couldn't even cover the co-pay for premiums, let alone the co-pay for office visits or prescriptions! Because I was working 40 hours a week, I didn't qualify for Medicaid because I made too much; and I surely wasn't old enough to draw Medicare benefits.

I'm only one of how many MILLIONS of uninsured people in that position...and now the government wants to be able to fine me because I can't afford health insurance. I thought the whole 'reform package' was supposed to make it so people in this spot could afford it, not twist their arm into taking on more payments that they can't afford.

"Sorry kids, we don't have money for clothes or food; but when you get sick or drop from malnourishment, we've got insurance!"

WHile the impetus to get more people insured is noble, the way that they've gone about achieving that goal is reprehensible.

[WelshMedic]

I now have to admit that I did not look into the specifics of the bill before posting my comment. I realise that this is going to cost people money, in some cases a lot of money. But surely those who are very poor will get some assistance?

I still stand by my comment that healthcare is a right. It's funny, but it would only be an American that would think otherwise.

It's always amazed me the number Europeans willing to work more for the goverment's benefit than their own. I guess it comes from centuries of being subjects instead of citizens?

The above by the way....mmm....I think you'll find we had democracies long before the US was even formed. As an insult: FAIL!

[chbare]

Welsh, I think some were a little taken back with the "shame on you" remarks. Many Americans want health care reform and coverage and are not against these concepts. However, what just passed could be dangerous for the United States. We have no money, we are trillions in debt, we are already funding two battlefields and sending out billions in aide to other countries while we continue to take money from other countries such as China. Potentially adding trillions more to what we owe when our economy sucks could potentially bite us on the ass. We are doing this to extend coverage to 30 million or so people at the cost of potentially causing our country to go under.

We should focus on conservative changes such as decreasing cost and tort reform instead of drastically changing everything with a concept we cannot afford. The US is in a bad way right now.

Take care,

chbare.

Edited March 23, 2010 by chbare

[Syriana]

Touche my friend. However, if your house burns down the fire department will come and put it out free of charge, the police don't send you a bill for helping you out if you need it, most local libraries are free, you don't have to pay to get US mail and so on and so on .... all of these things are regardless of income or how much you have "put into" the pot.

Why is it that healthcare, one of if not the most basic and essential human services is not seen as so in your parts?

Someone has already mentioned the fact that taxes and service fees cover most of those "free" services, however, I wanted to point out that in a rural area such as where I live having your house fire put out is actually not free at all. We are a small community and as such have no employed fire department, but instead a volunteer one. This is staffed by volunteers who have taken their training on their own dime and provide the service for the county out of a sense of duty and kindness. They are funded for equipment and yearly CE classes by a small stipend from the state and from membership fees paid by the citizens of the county each year. You can choose not to be a funding 'member' of the fire department, (because that choice is your right), but if that is what you choose and your house catches fire, you actually WILL receive a bill for the services if they come put it out.

[tamaith]

I am hoping that since this bill will not go into effect for another 4 or so years, that the new admin will through it out. I also wonder about the ppl whose religion does not beilieve in medical treatment, what they think .

[the_rogueEMT]

...I also wonder about the ppl whose religion does not beilieve in medical treatment, what they think...

...I shortened the quote but you can read the whole thing above...

that is another good point tamaith, I my self didn't even think about that. But along those lines isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state and freedom of religion. With this bill being doesn't this bill now become like some state Attorney Generals are saying...that this bill in un-constitutional and there for should become null and void

[tamaith]

yes you're right some say it also violates the 10th amendment . healthcare is not one of the powers delegated to the gov't. last i checked/heard there are 36 states ready to file a lawsuit against the govt as soon as the president signs the bill. 36 states, to me that says something.

[Lone Star]

I am hoping that since this bill will not go into effect for another 4 or so years, that the new admin will through it out. I also wonder about the ppl whose religion does not beilieve in medical treatment, what they think .

Here's a few interesting points that I found. There were certaily more, but these seemed relevant to the topic at hand.

Fact or fiction? The insurance overhaul passed by the House Sunday would result in near-universal coverage.

Unclear. How near is "near"? The Congressional Budget Office said that by 2019, the legislation would reduce the number of uninsured by 32 million. But CBO said 23 million would still be uninsured, about 8 percent of the U.S. nonelderly population in 2019. Of that 23 million, about 15 million would be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of the U.S. The rest would be illegal immigrants. Economist Linda Blumberg at the Urban Institute said that, apart from the illegal immigrants, the uninsured in 2019 will include people exempt from the mandate to buy insurance "because the cost (even with the reforms) of basic coverage would still be high relative to their incomes." Then there'd be people who choose to pay the penalties instead of obtaining coverage and low-income people who'd be eligible for Medicaid but don't enroll until they get sick.

Fact or fiction? The health care legislation can't cover more people without costing more money.

Fact. The key is: how would the bill offset its costs? Yes, it will cost more to cover 32 million more people. The CBO estimates that the bill's "gross cost of coverage" between enactment and 2019 will be $938 billion. But the bill would help offset that cost by collecting $69 billion in fines from uninsured individuals and employers who don't extend coverage to their workers and by cutting Medicare outlays by $455 billion. It would also raise $32 billion by imposing a tax on health insurance plans where coverage exceeds $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It would raise $210 billion from increasing the Medicare tax on incomes in excess of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing joint returns. It would also impose $107 billion in fees on insurance firms, drug manufacturers, and medical device makers.

This raises an interesting point. If I'm reading this correctly, I'm only allowed $10,200.00 for medical treatment I dont't understand who's going to end up paying this tax, but I've run up almost $25,000.00 in medical bills when I was hit while riding my motorcyle...

Fact or fiction? It will take four years for any potential benefits of the insurance reform to begin.

Fiction. Boehner isn't correct. The bill would provide some benefits soon after enactment. For example, starting six months after enactment, the bill would require insurers to cover an insured person's non-dependent children up to age 26. Starting six months after enactment, for group health plans, the bill prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Within 90 days, the bill would create a temporary high-risk pool to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions. Boehner is correct that the insurance purchasing exchanges and the subsidies for most Americans wouldn’t start until 2014. On immigrants, much hinges on whether Congress enacts a bill that would allow those who entered the U.S. illegally to acquire legal status and thus be eligible for insurance subsidies. The U.S. population is growing by about 1 percent a year. By 2014, the population is projected to be 322 million.

Fact or fiction? The proposed deficit reduction in the amended health care bill looks big, but is relatively small.

Fact. CBO recently gave Congress its revised "baseline" deficit forecast for 2010-2019. The baseline calculation uses certain forecasts of future economic growth and assumes that current spending and revenue laws continue unchanged. Members of Congress use the CBO baseline to gauge the budget effects that proposed legislation would have. CBO estimates that between 2010 and 2019, cumulative federal deficits will total $5.98 trillion, so a deficit reduction of $138 billion would equal 2 percent of total deficits. So the 10-year cumulative deficits would be 2 percent smaller than if the legislation weren't enacted. Looked at in another way, $138 billion is what the federal government spent in 2009 on federal employees' and military members' retirement benefits, or equal to about one-third of what it spent last year on Medicare.

More can be read here:

Fact or Fiction?