![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by manic666 on March 24, 2010, at 5:01:03
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue » manic666, posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 19:15:41
in england if you finish work through ill health. youn get means tested, if you have more than a set amount in the bank .//you vertualy get nothing you have to spend you own money in your savings,// when that is down to a sh*t level you get means tested again an your payment may be increast,// but your husbands money is also taken into acount,//you are married an that means he a provider so if he earns money you may get nothing// if he dont work you get benifit as man an wife//an if you are court earning any kind of money with out declaring it you are fined an your benifits stopped , benifit fraud is big in england people claiming benifit an earning there own money as well//every other advert on tv warns you of jail for benifit fraud,if you get our sytem you will get our rules //that why you president has spent many hours talking with our health care an benifit system
Posted by Willful on March 24, 2010, at 10:09:17
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue » manic666, posted by conundrum on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:01
Actuallly, there's a long history of interpreting the constitution to mean that the federal government has priority over state governments in all sorts of matters.
Here's a concise statement of the issues, from a liberal blog, but one that strives for clarity and straightforwardness. It seems to me to set out the issues well.
It reads, as follows:"In recent media appearances, the AGs -- the most high-profile of whom have been Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia, Bill McCollum of Florida, and Henry McMaster of South Carolina -- have made a grab-bag of claims, among them that the bill violates state sovereignty. That's a contention that no court is likely to have much time for. As Steve Schwinn, an associate law professor at John Marshall Law School has written, state laws that aim to override the federal mandate "are almost surely unconstitutional, as conflicting directly with the federal requirement."
The stronger argument in the arsenal of the AGs -- many of whom happen to be running for governor -- relates to the Commerce Clause, the section of the Constitution that empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The AGs focus on the provision of the bill that requires almost all Americans to obtain health insurance. They argue that imposing a penalty on people merely for declining to buy insurance is outside the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause."
The issue with the Commerce Clause is that it purports to allow the federal government to regulate "activity" among the states-- whereas some conservative scholars are trying to argue that not buying insurance (ie refusing to adhere to the mandate) is "inactivity" and thus not covered by the Commerce Clause. However, this argument would be considered to overturn a great deal of legal history, including Supreme Court ruling.
The article on this point reads as follows:
"Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown Law School, agrees. "The individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented," he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that appeared this weekend. "Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another.""
An argument that rebuts this contention is as follows (also from the same blog posting):"Jack Balkin, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, extends that argument [against Barnett's point]. In a recent blog post, he notes that in the Raich case, Justice Scalia found that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to regulate, as Balkin put it, "even non-economic activities if it believes that this is necessary to make its regulation of interstate commerce effective"...). People who don't buy health insurance, Balkin argues, aren't simply "doing nothing," as Rivkin, Barnett et al. claim. These people pass on their health-care costs by going to the emergency room, or buying over-the-counter cures. "All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce," writes Balkin."
Hence the blog concludes that it would be an extraordinary stretch for the Supreme Court-- or any court-- to overturn the Health Care Reform Act.
I personally think it's a great step forwrard for our country and long overdue.
Willful
Posted by Willful on March 24, 2010, at 19:26:02
In reply to , posted by on December 31, 1969, at 18:00:00
Hi. Could you cite where you found the information about the size of the penalty insurance companies would pay if they denied coverage to people with pre-existing conditions?
thanks,
Willful
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2010, at 22:24:12
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed » conundrum, posted by Willful on March 24, 2010, at 19:26:02
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2010, at 22:32:11
In reply to Re: explain to me why its a bummer i havent got a clue, posted by manic666 on March 24, 2010, at 5:01:03
Manic I feel our government is set up a bit differently from England. In England you have a Queen here we has a President but he must consult and go through Congress and all sorts of legal things first. This is not over yet either. But That's another subject. As to your question here you are allowed to earn a set amount of income even on Disability or Mediciare for elderly don't think there is a cap? Please someone with more knowledge correct if wrong on that one. Also marrieds can file either jointly or single status on income tax. Some people incorportate their business so it's a separate entity from their personal assets. So then there is separate business. Very complicated. But I think your're talking more in the line of medicaid and medicaid fraud. Those that have nothing claimed and if found out did surely that would be a penalty of some sort. Medicaire is a bit different. Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2010, at 22:51:46
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed » conundrum, posted by Willful on March 24, 2010, at 19:26:02
Willful hoping this link works if not sorry as it answers your questions of penalties if don't buy health insurance and goes up yearly. But these changes are not til 2013 or 2014. Soursce a newsletter and if name doesn't appear I will have to post it but this is my third post. Phillipa well will give it a go.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/19/interactive.health.care.benefits/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Posted by manic666 on March 25, 2010, at 4:43:13
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed » Willful, posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2010, at 22:51:46
the queen, has nothing to do with the goverment,//we have a priminister like you have a president.// goverment parties we the people vote in// they set the rules//we have just had a buget were we get told what price things are like vat tax disabilaty payments.// an they are putting up the national insurence tax level//that a set amout of money that comes out your wages every week to pay your heath care.//the more you earn the more you pay.//thats how the nhs is run//we pay for it ,nobody else. but its free to every one who is has british passport// so imigrants get the same deal for nothing ,so there putting up the rate we pay to support someone who has payed nothing.///the queen jesus she is are ambasidor an tourist atraction ,who travals the would to show people what real royalty is.remember all are armed forces are royal. ie royal navy ,royal air force royal army,that why we are proud of are heritige, whitch is being iroaded by the eu// a vote our parliment sneaked in low key, so the voters were railroaded does that sound familure
Posted by bleauberry on March 25, 2010, at 20:45:12
In reply to New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by Phillipa on March 23, 2010, at 1:05:59
Opinions follow. Strong. Be it known they are shared by a significant majority of americans.
This is a disasterous bill.
If I told you that many other countries have a program that sounds great on paper but in reality works poorly for the patients it was intended to help, you would want to try that right? Nowhere in the world has socialized medicine worked. Ever. Period.
We have the best health profession on the planet. That is due to the side effects of free enterprise and minimum government intervention. With government takeover, say bye bye to that.
You and your doctor will no longer be the ones who decide. A panel of white coats in washington will tell you what you can and cannot do, not your doctor and not you. Do you honestly think they are going to let you try that exotic combo you want, or the maoi you want, or brand instead of generic? Funny. Good luck. No, you will be restricted to the protocols their white coat teams deem to be your fate, based on percentage statistics, not individual response, flawed science, and primarily cost. The cheaper the better, doesn't matter if it's good for you or not.
People think this is free. Ha. Everyone is required to pay a premium whether you want it or not. If you don't, you pay a fine. If you don't, guess who comes looking for you. The IRS, which is hiring 10,000 new agents as we speak to do just that. Sounds like a third world dictatorship more than the USA I love.
Forget all the ugly details for a minute. Our government officials are elected to represent the will of the people who elected them. Every single poll shows americans are very much against this particular health care bill. The congressmen that voted for it knew that. They didn't care. They did it for their own power, not for you. They ignored the very people who elected them. They will pay a stiff price at election time. I hope they are updating their resumes. Tidal wave coming.
We really need health care improvement. Not a complete government takeover. Everyone including those that despise this bill know that we need things done. It's just that this bill does none of the things that need to be done, and instead turns over the best health care system in the world to a model that has failed every time it is tried.
Find a way to help those too poor, and leave everyone else alone. I happen to be happy with my health plan. I am pissed the government is screwing with it.
I feel badly for my children. They will grow up to a country much worse than I.
When was the last time any government program came in costing the same or less than predicted? Never. So when you see them lying all over TV saying how it will cost this or that, just know they are in fact calling you stupid. If any other goverment program is any indication, this one will cost minimum 4 times what is predicted.
They can't even effectively run a much smaller simpler program like Medicare, but think they can handle a monstrosity? What arrogance. Stupidity on display for all to see.
Insurance rates are going up real fast for several reasons. The biggest is this. Millions of people have lost their jobs and are now unable to keep insurance. The result is fewer people are paying the premiums. If you were the insurance company, and you lost a bunch of customers, you would likewise have no choice to but to charge more to your remaining customers.
The fault of that is too much government regulation and taxes too high.
The Reagan years. Here a guy hated by liberals took taxes on the rich down from 70% to 30%. In doing so, he created 350 million....yeah, million...new jobs. Sounds pretty good about now, yeah? That's a lot of people to pay premiums and get costs down. A side benefit was that the tax revenue flowing to washington didn't shrink as liberals predicted, but instead doubled. Imagine that, lower taxes and make more money. Well, anyone with an elementary level of math and economics knows why that is. Our current government does just the opposite. Everything they do stifles growth of anything except themselves.
People can get way too much money from medical lawsuits for damages that weren't worth that much money. False claims. Greed. One third of the money you pay your doctor goes to his malpractice insurance. That's a major reason healthcare is so expensive. Tort reform is needed to bring costs down.
Competition always brings costs down. But people can't shop around. Can't shop state to state or take your insurance with you. There needs to be competition with no boundaries. That does not exist right now.
This healtcare bill actually had nothing to do with healthcare. It had to do with a far leftist ideologue who hates many things about america, someone who is a great lier and charming, whos intention is to get as many people dependent on government as possible. He sees the great history and freedom of USA as a crime, not a God given blessing.
When it comes right down to it, the best health care we can all do is right at home. Water filters. Heavy on organic veggies and fruits. Organic meats. Exercise. Low sugars. If you can't pronounce and ingredient label or know what it is, don't eat it for pete's sake. It's no wonder americans get such heavy health problems despite the best health care system in the world.
Which it is not any longer.
The whole thing is unconstitutional and I am sure it will be challenged. Already is actually, by many states and individuals. The constitution has no place for allowing the government to require citizens to buy any particular product or service. This is the USA after all.
Anyone who likes this healthcare bill doesn't know what is in it, doesn't know history, doesn't know economics, and is basically going purely on emotion. Obviously the phrase "health care for everyone" sounds beautiful and wonderful. That is an emotional response completely out of touch with the reality of this particular bill.
Posted by desolationrower on March 25, 2010, at 23:31:22
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by bleauberry on March 25, 2010, at 20:45:12
well i am a (former) law student, and i can say this bill is totally constitutional. at least under current law, though foaming-at-the-mouth teabaggers and the politicians wanting their votes might say otherwise.
i doubt Roberts and his crew will invalidate it, not because they are particularly disinclined to keep current law where it is (not that i think that is bad, in the abstract), but because this is the most conservative possible option that get to (almost) universal care and cost control. The very much more obviously constitutional option, medicare for all, would be what we'd get instead.
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
http://www.thegeekreport.net/reports/toptens/reports/photos/TTFights/TTStarWars.png
http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2009/09/Barack-Obama-Light-Saber.jpg
notice is the blue vs. red motif!
-d/r
Posted by sdb on March 27, 2010, at 4:33:15
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by desolationrower on March 25, 2010, at 23:31:22
whats the connection between 'boston tea party', 'republicans' and 'health reform'. why are these words often mentioned together?
Posted by bleauberry on March 27, 2010, at 19:35:38
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by sdb on March 27, 2010, at 4:33:15
> whats the connection between 'boston tea party', 'republicans' and 'health reform'. why are these words often mentioned together?
The tea party was a show of revolt against the Kings of England who were forcing too much tax on people, too many regulations, and too much stifling of freedom. In other words, heavy handed rulers. Today's tea party folks arose because the current administration is taking a course that cannot avoid but force heavy taxes and heavy control on otherwise free people.
Socialism looks great. And early in the game it is. But with any sense of mathematics and economics, it is not, never has been, and never will be, sustainable. It always goes broke. We need only look at any liberal town, state, or country, to see that. Not a one has ever prospered. They suffer a long slow grinding decline. Free societies thrive.
The tea partiers are free people rising up to say, "hey, we don't want leftist socialist-like stuff in the good ole USA". Obauma happens to openly show his heroes, books, and schooling, are all far leftist.
Democrats like big government. Repubs don't. Generally speaking in broad terms. Thus the tea partiers mostly fall in the Repub category. But as the situation is actually severe, there are a good number of Democrats in the tea party as well.
Massachusetts pretty much spoke for how the nation feels. Demos and Repubs alike joined together as one large tea party. Funny, the first time it happened over 200 years ago, was also Massachusetts.
Posted by bleauberry on March 28, 2010, at 8:49:29
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by desolationrower on March 25, 2010, at 23:31:22
> well i am a (former) law student, and i can say this bill is totally constitutional. at least under current law, though foaming-at-the-mouth teabaggers and the politicians wanting their votes might say otherwise.
I respect that, but in all honesty would base my personal stance on an experienced law professional not a former student.
The dozen or so Attorneys Generals who have challenged the bill must know something you don't know.
>
> i doubt Roberts and his crew will invalidate it, not because they are particularly disinclined to keep current law where it is (not that i think that is bad, in the abstract), but because this is the most conservative possible option that get to (almost) universal care and cost control.No the most conservative method would be:
1. Cut taxes across the board to get millions of people back into paychecks.
2. Slash the laws that prohibit competition within the insurance industry. The ability to cross state lines and shop around. Competition brings prices down and starts new innovative companies to serve unaddressed customer bases, every time it is tried.
3. People get insane amounts of money for lawsuits of frivolous medical complications. Laws need to put a limit on that. A third of a doctor's income goes to his malractice insurance. That's where excess cost is, and doesn't need to be that way. Easy to stop.
4. Leave the currently insured alone. Set up a safety net for the others, which actually most states already have.
5. Avoid anything other nationalized healthcare countries have done...don't do what they do...and do not follow examples of failed programs such as Massachusetts healthcare. Avoid these things, why? Because they fail every single time they are attempted, and they are currently on display for all to see that. Why anyone would want to ignore what is right in front of them, and go ahead and do it anyway, has got to be the definition of insanity.There is no cost control in the current bill. Hiring 10,000 new IRS agents, creating untold panels to decide what you and your doctor used to decide....these are not cost controls, these cost big bucks.
Years ago I had blood drawn at the doctor's office as part of routine visit. These days, that is rare. They instead send you to a nearby hospital or lab to have the bloodwork done. So your insurance is not only paying for the office visit, but for a separate additional bill above and beyond, from the place who took your blood. There are hundreds of such details in the daily routine workings of medicine that can be streamlined to cut costs dramatically.
What cost control will come to is this. You're 65 years old. You aint gonna work again. You not only have diabetes, but now some kind of cancer. You have good odds of recovery with this cancer. But the meds are really costly, and you are old anyway, you aint gonna be productive again, so is that white coat panel going to deem you as being a cost effective way to spend big bucks? I don't think so. Would Blue Cross have done it for you? Yes.
What does nationalized health care cost control look like in Canada, our neighbor? Long waiting lists. Months. Willingly pay cash out of pocket to visit USA instead. Hospital corridors lined with unattended patients laying in their own filth for days. Re-using disposable supplies. These are the kinds of cost controls that happen in nationalized health care.
Mathematically, it is unsustainable. It takes but a 6th grader education to figure that out. That is why it never works. It always runs out of money. The results are always opposite the claimed greatness.
People seem to slam insurance companies. Hey, what's wrong with a profit? If you had your own business, would you want a profit or a loss? Are you jealous someone else worked for success and you didn't get there? Profit is what makes innovation and improvement happen. The lack of it stops improvement and innovation.
So we are upset at Anthem for a desired 40% increase in premiums. Obviously, even I am knarling at that one. But let's get a little deeper into it and see what's going on. Millions upon millions have lost jobs. That means they aren't paying health insurance premiums anymore. The cost of running business is now left to far fewer customers. Anyone need any additional economics or mathematics to figure out why such a large price hike? T
The obvious thing is to point a finger and say, "Greedy!" But, that aint it. They lost a ton of customers to the Obauma depression, formerly the Bush recession.
Sidetrack for a moment. What ever happened to Obauma's pledge a month ago to "focus on the economy like a laser beam"???
>
> "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."That pretty much describes liberals. Despite their claimed love for equality and people, they are instead mired in hate, lies, and deception. When it comes to winning a piece of legislation, it is not about helping the people. It is not about the people's will. It is about, pure and simple, screwing the opponent, and getting as many people as possible dependent on the government. This health care bill is liberalism on display. It is lies and deception that looks like roses and diamonds on the outside, but is rotting sewer on the inside.
Liberalism never works. Neither does nationalized health. Look to any example desired.
I sometimes wonder if there is a genetic component. Liberals are all about emotion, not logic and not facts. It's all feelings based. Ignore truths, embrace emotions. Well, you know how some people get a rush out of a roller coaster ride, others don't want anything to do with it? Everyone has something that gets their pleasure adrenaline going? Well, with liberals, I think it is power over other people that does that. They get goosebumps, chills up the spine, waves of euphoria, by winning something, anything, that allows them to control your life. It's a high to them. That's why their heroes are commonly found in the history books of China or Cuba.
Sorry to go so long here. Healthcare improvement and healthcare for everyone would be totally awesome and totally achievable. Just won't happen with this bill. Mark my words, the opposite will happen. It will cost more than your current insurance does, you'll get less care than before, and people will still fall through the cracks. It will take the best medical system on the planet along with its problems and turn it into a lesser system with more problems than it started with.
Happens every time. Otherwise I wouldn't speak with such surety.
Posted by Phillipa on March 28, 2010, at 20:07:35
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by bleauberry on March 28, 2010, at 8:49:29
BB my husband I called in to read your reply his words he applauds you as you are right on. He just said he'd like to put this post on facebook. Yes the death panels I saw even before this when nursing did a month in ICU and if a vent was needed the questions was who has the worst insurance or oldest . I had to get out of there and did. Love Phillipa
Posted by Justherself54 on March 29, 2010, at 12:35:49
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by bleauberry on March 28, 2010, at 8:49:29
>>What does nationalized health care cost control look like in Canada, our neighbor? Long waiting lists. Months. Willingly pay cash out of pocket to visit USA instead. Hospital corridors lined with unattended patients laying in their own filth for days. Re-using disposable supplies. These are the kinds of cost controls that happen in nationalized health care.
Have you ever been in a Canadian hospital? I have and so have members of my family. Never, EVER, have I witnessed unattended patients laying in their own filth, nor have I ever witnessed any hospital staff re-using disposable supplies.
I feel it's fine to debate and discuss the pros and cons of any health care system, but to broadly claim that every Canadian hospital treats their patients as you have claimed is an outright lie.
I feel angry, disgusted and very disrespected.
Posted by Justherself54 on March 29, 2010, at 12:54:28
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by Justherself54 on March 29, 2010, at 12:35:49
Posted by bleauberry on March 29, 2010, at 19:40:23
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by Justherself54 on March 29, 2010, at 12:35:49
> >>What does nationalized health care cost control look like in Canada, our neighbor? Long waiting lists. Months. Willingly pay cash out of pocket to visit USA instead. Hospital corridors lined with unattended patients laying in their own filth for days. Re-using disposable supplies. These are the kinds of cost controls that happen in nationalized health care.
>
> Have you ever been in a Canadian hospital? I have and so have members of my family. Never, EVER, have I witnessed unattended patients laying in their own filth, nor have I ever witnessed any hospital staff re-using disposable supplies.
>
> I feel it's fine to debate and discuss the pros and cons of any health care system, but to broadly claim that every Canadian hospital treats their patients as you have claimed is an outright lie.
>
>
> I feel angry, disgusted and very disrespected.
>
>
>I don't see anywhere that I said "every Canadian hospital"?
These stories are in the media. If it is a lie as you claim, then there are mass outlets lying. But then, that wouldn't be anything new would it.
To be fair, I'm sure some USA nursing homes are just as bad. But then, they are typically underfunded and understaffed as well, same as any national health management, except on a smaller scale.
I'm glad you didn't experience it.
I'm sorry you feel angry, disgusted and very disrespected. The post was not directed at you or anybody so please don't take it personally. The offense was based on media stories and it was aimed at socialized hospitals not you.
I prefer to debate an issue on its merits rather than deflect the topic on emotional responses. My post is about the health care bill, not about Canadian hospitals. I would welcome any and all comments on the issues I discussed.
Because you and your family did not personally see anything does not mean those things don't happen daily. Like I said, TVs and radios have to be telling lies otherwise. Canada is a huge territory. I'm sure there are good parts and bad parts, just like any large geographical area.
Posted by Justherself54 on March 29, 2010, at 22:18:25
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later » Justherself54, posted by bleauberry on March 29, 2010, at 19:40:23
Yes, I did take it personally. Rest assured I won't be participating in any further discussions with you on this subject.
Posted by Willful on March 29, 2010, at 23:55:37
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by bleauberry on March 28, 2010, at 8:49:29
To be perfectly honest, I'm offended by your comments about liberals.
You've misrepresented many facts, and made quite a few misstatement in your paragraphs, but I'm not going to address them. Based on these comments, you have no interest in respectfully discussing this issue.
I take exception to the following:
"That pretty much describes liberals. Despite their claimed love for equality and people, they are instead mired in hate, lies, and deception. When it comes to winning a piece of legislation, it is not about helping the people. It is not about the people's will. It is about, pure and simple, screwing the opponent, and getting as many people as possible dependent on the government. This health care bill is liberalism on display. It is lies and deception that looks like roses and diamonds on the outside, but is rotting sewer on the inside."You owe me a withdrawal of the comments. They're untrue as well as unkind.
I would add that I also feel offended by your comments, Phillipa.
Willful
Posted by Zyprexa on March 30, 2010, at 14:13:23
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed » Zyprexa, posted by conundrum on March 23, 2010, at 1:06:01
I thought that the health bill was going to put a cap on insurance company profits. 90% of money had to go to health care. no more than 10% to profits. Am I wrong?
Posted by Zyprexa on March 30, 2010, at 14:27:16
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by Justherself54 on March 29, 2010, at 12:35:49
I was in a Canadian mental hospital and witnessed no pations lieing in filth. It was realy clean and so was the rest of the hopital.
Posted by desolationrower on March 31, 2010, at 21:53:11
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by bleauberry on March 28, 2010, at 8:49:29
> I respect that, but in all honesty would base my personal stance on an experienced law professional not a former student.
>
> The dozen or so Attorneys Generals who have challenged the bill must know something you don't know.they know they need to pander to the crazies in their base.
>Some long paragraphsi am not going to waste time with this, but most of what you said relies on incorrect ideas about the world, as understood through your abstractions. complaining about not having any cost controls, and complaining about evil costs controls we are going to have? or repeating made-up ideas about other countries systems, which deliver better outcomes for much less money, and without medical cost risks?
> >
> > "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
>
> That pretty much describes liberals. Despite their claimed love for equality and people, they are instead mired in hate, lies, and deception. When it comes to winning a piece of legislation, it is not about helping the people. It is not about the people's will. It is about, pure and simple, screwing the opponent, and getting as many people as possible dependent on the government. This health care bill is liberalism on display. It is lies and deception that looks like roses and diamonds on the outside, but is rotting sewer on the inside.
>
> Liberalism never works. Neither does nationalized health. Look to any example desired.
>
> I sometimes wonder if there is a genetic component. Liberals are all about emotion, not logic and not facts. It's all feelings based. Ignore truths, embrace emotions. Well, you know how some people get a rush out of a roller coaster ride, others don't want anything to do with it? Everyone has something that gets their pleasure adrenaline going? Well, with liberals, I think it is power over other people that does that. They get goosebumps, chills up the spine, waves of euphoria, by winning something, anything, that allows them to control your life. It's a high to them. That's why their heroes are commonly found in the history books of China or Cuba.
>liberals just like 'screwing the opponent?' wtf? passing a bill to get millions of people care and reducing costs wasn't something done to, oh, idunno, provide afordable health care...it was done just just to piss off reactionaries?
liberals 'get their kick' out of making the world a better place. noone gets it from 'telling people how to run their life'. you think i get giggly at telling hospitals they have to post prices? or telling insurance accountants that 80% of premiums have to go towards health care expenditure?
conservatives are all about projections. they are the ones who like hurting people, just for fun. executing innocent people? YES! making sure workers don't have safe workplaces? YES! Blowing up a bunch of people who made the mistake of living in iraq? YES! torturing people? YES! No health care for the working class? YES! blaming immigrants and gays for pretty much anything? YES!
and whos heroes are in china or cuba? the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the people who faught the naziis and communists, seem like the right kind of people. george orwell was a socialist, and i like him a lot.
> Sorry to go so long here. Healthcare improvement and healthcare for everyone would be totally awesome and totally achievable. Just won't happen with this bill. Mark my words, the opposite will happen. It will cost more than your current insurance does, you'll get less care than before, and people will still fall through the cracks. It will take the best medical system on the planet along with its problems and turn it into a lesser system with more problems than it started with.
>
> Happens every time. Otherwise I wouldn't speak with such surety.
sure, lets mark. remember when clinton's 1993 budget was going to ruin the economy because of the tax increases on the wealthy? Or when financial deregulation was going to do something good and really there wasn't any risk of financial crises any more? Or when race mixing was going to cause the downfall of civilization? Here's a fun video of ronny raygun from before he was president talking about how medicare was going to destroy us by SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!11!OONOESS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feature=related-d/r
Posted by desolationrower on March 31, 2010, at 22:20:06
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed » conundrum, posted by Zyprexa on March 30, 2010, at 14:13:23
> I thought that the health bill was going to put a cap on insurance company profits. 90% of money had to go to health care. no more than 10% to profits. Am I wrong?
well, its only one step away from a gulag, but there is the 'medical loss ratio' regulation. "Starting January 1, 2011, Americans will receive a rebate if their health insurers non-medical costs exceed 15 percent of premium costs in the group market or 20 percent in the small group and individual market." http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill68.pdf
-d/r
Posted by desolationrower on March 31, 2010, at 22:39:47
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later » bleauberry, posted by Phillipa on March 28, 2010, at 20:07:35
and if you are interested in mental health treatment improvements from the bill, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/health/30mental.html
-d/r
Posted by desolationrower on April 1, 2010, at 14:24:21
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later » Justherself54, posted by bleauberry on March 29, 2010, at 19:40:23
hm, can't find it now, but someone mentioned 'caterpillar and ATT' having some problem with the bill. and like most conservative 'facts', i assumed it was made up in some PR department somewhere.
and hey look what i was reading in my rssreader today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30subsidy.html
"When Congress and President George W. Bush enacted a prescription drug plan for seniors in 2003, the legislation encouraged companies to continue providing prescription coverage to retirees, instead of shifting retirees to Medicare Part D, by having the government give those companies large subsidies for each retiree and also allowing them to deduct those subsidies from their income taxes.Under the health care overhaul, the federal government will continue providing those subsidies amounting to 28 percent of a drug plans costs but companies will lose the tax break. "
"An association representing 300 large corporations urged President Obama and Congress on Monday to repeal a provision of the health care overhaul that prompted AT&T, Caterpillar and other companies to announce substantial charges for the current quarter.The association, the American Benefits Council, said the provision which reduces the tax deductions for companies with drug coverage for their retired employees would deal a significant blow to corporate profits and would discourage companies from hiring more workers.
AT&T announced last week that it was taking a $1 billion charge because of the provision. Deere & Company announced a $150 million charge, Caterpillar a $100 million charge, and 3M a $90 million charge.
Many companies said they were taking these charges now, before the current quarter ended, to comply with accounting rules. But some corporate critics asserted that the companies rapid response to the health legislation was aimed at pressing the administration to repeal the provision. "
business will only get one subsidy, not two! horror.
i get why the pr flak would be pushing this crap, but i'm always befuddled by teabaggers' concern for corporations' subsidies. power-worship, i think.
-d/r
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 3, 2010, at 14:18:27
In reply to Re: New Health Bill Passed Ammended Hour Later, posted by bleauberry on March 28, 2010, at 8:49:29
> That pretty much describes liberals. Despite their claimed love for equality and people, they are instead mired in hate, lies, and deception.
Please don't post anything that could lead others (such as liberals) to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.