Looks like it passed.

[Rart]

Health care reform's right at our doorstep, heading to Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.main/index.html?hpt=T1

How it could affect you:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/19/interactive.health.care.benefits/index.html?hpt=C2

Oh and you can always count on Republicans to spout arrogant bullcrap when someone else is speaking:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/stupak.shout/index.html?hpt=C1

[j2k4]

And we all will now have precisely the same health care our senators and representatives do.

I know this to be true by applying the caveat that says we should believe the exact opposite of what Foxnews reports.

Edit:

Does congress have to wait until 2014 for benefits to kick in?

[slim150]

While i'm not crazy like the republicans you see on tv..ESPECIALLY the social conservatives.. I still do not like this bill at all.

Why do you think its a right that the federal government should provide health care to all? I honestly do not believe the central government was designed to do these kinds of public works. What would you say now.. after this is passed that now all americans should have the right of free transportation. I mean think of all the poor families that cannot take their children to doctors appointments and those struggling to get to work. I think we should provide each american a car. How can we afford this.. oh just tax the rich.. they don't really need the money. I think health care is a luxury. It sounds evil because one can argue.. If you are against health care then that means your pro suffering. But its not like that.

What especially does not make ANY sense to me (from your article) is this


"once the exchanges open, insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with pre-existing conditions or charge them more"

Take away the human element of health care. All it is.. is just statistics. Premiums are based on expectations, mean time to failure, confidence intervals, its not magic or greed just numbers. If smokers have a higher mean time to failure than non-smokers.. why should they pay the same? The only solution to have a company make money is to charge a much higher price.

And denying pre-existing conditions.. ridiculous. A company should be able to choose who it wants to do business with. Oh hai I have superaids that will cost about 15,000 a month for the rest of my life.. but I only feel like paying 300 a month so thats why I am making you buy it for me.

[1000possibleclaws]

From my brief understanding of it all, Canadian healthcare is funded by taxes so as to make it pretty much free within norms for everyone. The new US bill makes purchasing health insurance mandatory, but it will offer discounts on it, or something? So does that mean the insurance industry in the USA will get a sudden boom in their business, from all the increased govt tax spending going into that field?

How do the American posters feel about their new mandatory healthcare? Good use of, or waste of tax resources?


The drawbacks for Canadian system are
-longer wait times
-higher class citizens pay the brunt of the costs (is also a pro)
-probably would not even be feasible in the US without a significant tax increase?

[Skiz]

Oh and you can always count on Republicans to spout arrogant bullcrap when someone else is speaking:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/stupak.shout/index.html?hpt=C1

Oh yeah, because Democrats never, ever do that. :wacko:

[clocker]

Oh yeah, because Democrats never, ever do that. :wacko:
Do they?

[j2k4]

"This is a big fucking deal" - Joe Biden, overheard commemorating the blessed event.

Now, that's class.

[clocker]

The f-word offends you?
Politicians don't talk like normal people?

[j2k4]

I certainly would have refrained under those circumstances.

[clocker]

But it is a big fucking deal.

Not only did we take the first step towards rational health care but it also denotes the first death rattle of the Republican party.

[slim150]

But it is a big fucking deal.

Not only did we take the first step towards rational health care but it also denotes the first death rattle of the Republican party.

rational? hmmmmmm. i dont know. i have one question but i cant seem to find the answer to.

under the bill:
1) you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions
2) you cannot pay more than anyone else because of your condition.
3) failure to have insurance will (eventually) cause an added tax of $695/year

With this logic above.. If I needed to purchase insurance for me and my fictitious family. Wouldn't it be cheaper to:

A) not by any insurance and take the $695 hit per year.
B) in the case that someone in my family becomes seriously ill.. THEN i say oh but i want insurance now. you can't deny me because of my pre-exisiting condition and you can't charge more even though i'm about to have 1000s of dollars of procedures.

This of course would bankrupt the whole system as insurance makes a profit since there are *supposed* to be more healthy insurees on the plan than sick ones.

[clocker]

With this logic above.. If I needed to purchase insurance for me and my fictitious family. Wouldn't it be cheaper to:

A) not by any insurance and take the $695 hit per year.
B) in the case that someone in my family becomes seriously ill.. THEN i say oh but i want insurance now. you can't deny me because of my pre-exisiting condition and you can't charge more even though i'm about to have 1000s of dollars of procedures.

Yup, probably would be cheaper.
It'd be cheaper to never take your kids to the doctor and feed them exclusively on Slim Jims and Coke, too.
It'd be cheaper to not clothe them or send them to school.

Basically, having kids/family is expensive...so don't do it.

There, I just saved you a fortune and sidestepped all those messy decisions about insurance.

[devilsadvocate]

But it is a big fucking deal.

Not only did we take the first step towards rational health care but it also denotes the first death rattle of the Republican party.

rational? hmmmmmm. i dont know. i have one question but i cant seem to find the answer to.

under the bill:
1) you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions
2) you cannot pay more than anyone else because of your condition.
3) failure to have insurance will (eventually) cause an added tax of $695/year

With this logic above.. If I needed to purchase insurance for me and my fictitious family. Wouldn't it be cheaper to:

A) not by any insurance and take the $695 hit per year.
B) in the case that someone in my family becomes seriously ill.. THEN i say oh but i want insurance now. you can't deny me because of my pre-exisiting condition and you can't charge more even though i'm about to have 1000s of dollars of procedures.

This of course would bankrupt the whole system as insurance makes a profit since there are *supposed* to be more healthy insurees on the plan than sick ones.

And if you don't have insurance and you and your fictitious family have a serious car crash, hospitalizing you all in intensive care without the means to fully fund this treatment you end up costing everyone else.

The problem with your scenario is not that you can't afford insurance, but that you are deciding to go without insurance

As far as I'm aware insurance companies can charge more for those with pre existing conditions, they just can't refuse coverage.

There are things I like and things I don't like about this bill. Ending rescissions I like a lot.

You have highlighted the problem with private insurance. Private insurance cannot afford sick people. Sick people cost a lot of money and if insurance companies have to cover sick people then they will find it hard to make profit.

[j2k4]

Not only did we take the first step towards rational health care but it also denotes the first death rattle of the Republican party.

Really.

Get back to me in November, why don't you.

[megabyteme]

I sincerely want people to have good health coverage at an affordable rate, but have huge concerns about this. Very uncertain times....

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

But it is a big fucking deal.

Not only did we take the first step towards rational health care but it also denotes the first death rattle of the Republican party.

rational? hmmmmmm. i dont know. i have one question but i cant seem to find the answer to.

under the bill:
1) you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions
2) you cannot pay more than anyone else because of your condition.
3) failure to have insurance will (eventually) cause an added tax of $695/year

With this logic above.. If I needed to purchase insurance for me and my fictitious family. Wouldn't it be cheaper to:

A) not by any insurance and take the $695 hit per year.
B) in the case that someone in my family becomes seriously ill.. THEN i say oh but i want insurance now. you can't deny me because of my pre-exisiting condition and you can't charge more even though i'm about to have 1000s of dollars of procedures.

This of course would bankrupt the whole system as insurance makes a profit since there are *supposed* to be more healthy insurees on the plan than sick ones.

Well, considering that for some reason the IRS has been given the right to enforce noncompliance, you can kiss your tax return goodbye if you do not comply.

[j2k4]

rational? hmmmmmm. i dont know. i have one question but i cant seem to find the answer to.

under the bill:
1) you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions
2) you cannot pay more than anyone else because of your condition.
3) failure to have insurance will (eventually) cause an added tax of $695/year

With this logic above.. If I needed to purchase insurance for me and my fictitious family. Wouldn't it be cheaper to:

A) not by any insurance and take the $695 hit per year.
B) in the case that someone in my family becomes seriously ill.. THEN i say oh but i want insurance now. you can't deny me because of my pre-exisiting condition and you can't charge more even though i'm about to have 1000s of dollars of procedures.

This of course would bankrupt the whole system as insurance makes a profit since there are *supposed* to be more healthy insurees on the plan than sick ones.

Well, considering that for some reason the IRS has been given the right to enforce noncompliance, you can kiss your tax return goodbye if you do not comply.

Do liberals think they would be exempt from this?

Hmm.

Maybe they will be.

[devilsadvocate]

Provided that they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill, the bill contains language that gives states the right to set up their own health care system with or without an individual mandate, it's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment.

[clocker]

Well, considering that for some reason the IRS has been given the right to enforce noncompliance, you can kiss your tax return goodbye if you do not comply.

Do liberals think they would be exempt from this?

Hmm.

Maybe they will be.
Of course we're exempt...it's part of the basic membership package.
We also get to run the death panels.

You get Ann Coulter and Glen Beck.
Seems like the short end of the shtick to me but your negotiating team had to knock off at two (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/gop-senators-refusing-to_n_511639.html), so there you go.