Senate Health Care Bill

Another attempt at shifting money from the priivate sector to the government. More taxes for less available care (no way you can increase the patient base and lower the physician base and not cut services in some way, means, manner or form). On top of that nay private purchase of mediacl coverage, or employer purchased mediacal coverage will have a 40% exsize tax placed on it. That alone ensures that the employer provided health care will dissappear.

And to top it all of there will still be 4% (14,400,000) unisurable Americans for some reason.

Also the mandated cut ($300B) in Medicare for the most needed (in the terms of health care)group the elderly also shows how that voter base is no longer important, and the new focus is on the baby boomers. Current Medicare programs are broke, and the elderly are suffering already under a Government run health care system, throw in the VA, and the proven 'success' rate of Government healthcare should be suspect.

Read bill for yourself if you have approximately 34 hours of spare time.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/18/hcbill.pdf

2012 can not happen fast enough.


Edited by oldsoldier - 19 November 2009 at 8:22pm

Hiiiigh hopes, you've got hiiiiigh hopes!

So don't have a kid in Romania!

Mack wrote: Sneaky, if you had been paying attention to an oldpbnoob/peter parker thread you would have noted that that the relationship between the polls you posted and U.S. lifestyle choices makes the poll numbers by themselves a less than stellar measure of health care effectiveness.

Understandable. I just don't see why people automatically think socialized health care automatically = bad healthcare.

Mack wrote: __sneaky__ wrote: Understandable. I just don't see why people automatically think socialized health care automatically = bad healthcare. Valid question; for me personally it has to do with having seen what happens when the government runs health care.  (And being worse off for the experience.)

I ran a survey on here about 6 months-1year ago asking all the Canadians what they thought about their health care system, and I got overwhelmingly positive replies, save for a few experiances.

Edited by __sneaky__ - 19 November 2009 at 9:06pm

With Medicare, why are we going to repeat the exercise. It has been proven that the Government can not manage direct funds, nor operrate a health care system, see Medicare and the Veterans Administration Health Care System.

Explain the Medicare cuts, when the elderly are the most in need health care class? And once on fixed incomes how are they going to support through higher taxation this new plan. Guess the won't buy healthcare and get the excellant healthcare the Bureau of Prisons offers for free. Beats a elderly home that won't be approved for assisted care. FCI Rochester, MN has an excellant facility for healthcare for elderly inmates. Just cell grandma and grandpa together and no more problems.
Or the Logans Run appraoch, pick an age ...oh say 65 and the state will painlessly put them out of thier misery

Two of the reasons our life expectancy/birth mortality rates are high is our non-healthy lifestyles (show me an overweight Japanese other than Sumo) and American woman are decidingf on childbirth way later in life where the risk factors are higher, and the I want the baby delivered on Tuesday mentality of the profesional working woman at 40 (medically the best child rearing age is between 14 and 28).

The NHS in Englans has boards of non-medical personnel that determine your needs based on cost vs use for society. And we will end up with the same. 70 year old grandpa has a heart attack, some board somewhere will determine if the cost of the care and medications is worth it, and the numbers will not be good for ole grandpa.

Why are you so dramatic about everything and think everything is going to some drastic huge ridiculous push to some communist artistocracy fascist totalitarian state?

DOOM


GLOOM!

I don't think the public option bill is going to pass the senate. There are at least 6 Democrats right now that have already said they won't even let it get to debate unless the public option is withdrawn. I think Joe Lieberman probably has the most common sense I've seen on this issue thus far. He stated that a health care reform bill needs to do just that, reform the health care system, not turn it on its head. He stated on NPR the other day that while he would allow the bill to get to the floor for debate, if needed, he would side with republicans to keep a public option plan from going through. He said that he felt that reforms such as not allowing insurers to deny claims, create artificial benefit caps, or gouging clients on premiums due to "pre-existing conditions" as well as forcing insurance companies to group individual policy holders to lower rates would be a much more sensible and cost effective move for not only the government, but the masses as well. He also wants insurance companies to lose their trust exemption status and for tighter regulations to be put in place. I personally think that these are far better moves than a public option and am glad to see that Lieberman, who tends to sway the moderate vote his way, feels this way as well.

tallen702 wrote: I don't think the public option bill is going to pass the senate. There are at least 6 Democrats right now that have already said they won't even let it get to debate unless the public option is withdrawn. I think Joe Lieberman probably has the most common sense I've seen on this issue thus far. He stated that a health care reform bill needs to do just that, reform the health care system, not turn it on its head. He stated on NPR the other day that while he would allow the bill to get to the floor for debate, if needed, he would side with republicans to keep a public option plan from going through. He said that he felt that reforms such as not allowing insurers to deny claims, create artificial benefit caps, or gouging clients on premiums due to "pre-existing conditions" as well as forcing insurance companies to group individual policy holders to lower rates would be a much more sensible and cost effective move for not only the government, but the masses as well. He also wants insurance companies to lose their trust exemption status and for tighter regulations to be put in place. I personally think that these are far better moves than a public option and am glad to see that Lieberman, who tends to sway the moderate vote his way, feels this way as well.

That's a pretty enlightened viewpoint.  That said, I do think there are plurality of issues still needing to be addressed, not least of which is that some people in this country literally cannot afford health care.