TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Health care (PelosiCare) passed House
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Health care (PelosiCare) passed House

post #1 of 31
11/7/09 at 8:16pm
Thread Starter 
It's a CLOSE vote - 220 (yes) - 215 (no). Pelosi needed 218 for passage, and got it with less than 10 minutes to go in the vote.

Sad day for the United States as we know it, IMO. Yes, we desperately need health care cost and insurance reform. We don't need another $1.2 trillion (lowball estimate) strain on our already heavily strained and overdrawn economy. We don't need people threatened with fines and even possible jail time if they don't buy health insurance, at the same costs as we have currently because the only savings options they've included are the idea of more people buying insurance and saving all the fraud and waste that is currently in the system.

Oh yes, and for all the statements that it has to be done NOW because Americans can't wait...well, it will start "raising money" now, but none of it will be implemented for 3 years, minimum. Yup. 3 years. So much for the American people not being able to afford to wait.

There was one Republican vote for the bill. I guess that person doesn't plan on getting re-elected. But I also assume that will give Pelosi the platform to say it had "bipartisan support".
Reply
post #2 of 31
11/7/09 at 8:24pm
What I haven't heard mentioned much is that even if this is entirely enacted (and it won't be), there will still be 25,000,000 Americans uninsured, or more than half of those who are not currently insured.
Reply
post #3 of 31
11/7/09 at 8:33pm
Something in the local newspaper said that if it was enacted, only 2% of the population would end up with that health plan anyway? I thought that was interesting.

I agree something has to be done. I went to the doctor last month, and it cost over $500 for a simple clinic visit. I have excellent insurance, but I know people who do not (have any insurance, or have inadequate insurance), and that could be a real problem for them. My (uninsured) brother got cut while jogging and needed stitches, and it cost over $900. The county ended up paying for it.
Reply
post #4 of 31
11/7/09 at 10:46pm

Awesome news!!! Made my day
About time! God, awesome, awesome, awesome! Go Obama!
Reply
post #5 of 31
11/8/09 at 1:40am
Ok, so... If there are enough people in Washington that understand this bill to vote for it, then surely there is someone in Washington that can explain it to us.

Uh, right?
Reply
post #6 of 31
11/8/09 at 1:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Ok, so... If there are enough people in Washington that understand this bill to vote for it, then surely there is someone in Washington that can explain it to us.

Uh, right?
Doubtful. From what I understand this load of crap that this circus just passed does nothing to bring down the costs of health care. No crossing of state lines to shop for insurance, no limitations on lawsuits, no tort reform whatsoever.
Reply
post #7 of 31
11/8/09 at 3:34am
Yes, it certainly is a sad day for this country. I can only hope down the road, maybe in another administration, they can get rid of this piece of garbage. If it's so great, let the members of congress be the first to sign up. Oh, what is that? No one in line? Huh. Interesting. I am trying to influence my grand kids to go into a high paying career in 15-20 years. They are going to need it! I don't think Obama will get a second term and I am beginning to think he knows it. Trying to cram all this junk through at this speed. Lets hope I am right.
Reply
post #8 of 31
11/8/09 at 6:00am
Well, keep in mind that this is just the House bill. The Senate will pass a bill, probably, and then the two will be reconciled, then both Houses will approve the reconciliation.

I'm disappointed that if Obama believed in a universal single-payer plan, he didn't have the courage to champion it, at least.

But in at least this bill, it looks like Joe Wilson was right. Illegal aliens can participate with no penalties, and may even be eligible for subsidized insurance premiums.

The key to making a non-single-payer universal insurance plan work is to fine those who don't buy into it, but could, the equivalent of the cost of the insurance. In other words, if you're 25 and think you're bulletproof and don't want to buy insurance, you need to be fined (on your taxes, where all that sort of thing occurs) the equivalent cost of that insurance, which would probably be $200 to $300 per month. That's the only way to lower insurance costs for everyone.
Reply
post #9 of 31
11/8/09 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
In other words, if you're 25 and think you're bulletproof and don't want to buy insurance, you need to be fined (on your taxes, where all that sort of thing occurs) the equivalent cost of that insurance, which would probably be $200 to $300 per month. That's the only way to lower insurance costs for everyone.
I'm 25 and know I'm not bulletproof but don't have it in the budget. They can fine me but rocks don't bleed...scraping my budget down that far would literally mean losing either my apartment, all its utilities, or my car and its insurance. If I lose my car, I can't look for work, go to work if I find it, get enough groceries at once to last more than a day or two, go to the library, etc.; if I lose utilities, I can't cook at home, so I'd end up spending the equivalent amount on eating out, and it would also be a lot harder to continue the internet based studies that are currently my only income; so, by process of elimination, I would most likely lose my apartment.

My job search would be compromised because it's very hard to even fill out most employment applications without an address. So I'd have very few options for improving my situation.

My studies would be a lot more difficult without a home to get internet access from, and the last two semesters will rely on me having a job by then from which to do a research project. So I might end up losing that income too.

I don't think my cats would like to live out of my car; I'd probably end up, very reluctantly, either releasing them far enough out of town that they could hunt well, or surrendering them to the local shelter, and by the way they're both "unadoptables" so I'd rather set them free than that so they could at least live.

So my cats would have to go back to completely feral, I'd be homeless with no way to get a job, eventually no income at all, living out of my car, but at that point at least they wouldn't be able to find me in order to fine me for not having insurance that I would be even less able to afford. Yeah, I love how this universal healthcare sounds.
Reply
post #10 of 31
11/8/09 at 12:50pm
Interesting comparision in the paper this morning

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics...ry/181074.html

The House Democratic Bill would cover about 96% of legal residents under age 65 at a cost of $894 billion net.

The House Republican Bill would cover about 83% of legal residents under age 65 at a cost of $61 billion over 10 years. However, this doesn't increase coverage at all because that's about the amount that are covered now.

The Senate Democratic Bill would cover about 94% of Residents. Illegals would not get government benefits. The cost would be about $900 Billion over 10 years.

I don't think any of these options make a whole lot of sense. We need more than insurance reform in this country, we need a reform of the whole medical profession, insurance industry, drug manufactures, etc. Never gonna happen though, too much money being forked over to the politicians for them to not work for the insurance companies best interests.
Reply
post #11 of 31
11/8/09 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Doubtful. From what I understand this load of crap that this circus just passed does nothing to bring down the costs of health care. No crossing of state lines to shop for insurance, no limitations on lawsuits, no tort reform whatsoever.
Crossing state lines for insurance will only result in insurance companies moving to states that are the most advantageous for them.

What we need for reform is a total reform of everything, not just who is covered and how much they have to pay in premiums. Just as an example, if the drug companies were not allowed to market directly to the consumer, while at the same time bribing the doctors to prescribe their pills, it wouldn't cost $450 for a prescription. That would bring costs down considerably. Competition for the Insurance companies would bring down cost too. Most companies have monoplies where they operate, and no incentive to lower their costs.

I have good insurance through my employer, and no complaints about what they've covered so far. However, we've just learned that premiums are going up 7% next year. We've also learned that our raises will either be very very small or nothing at all. So I guess I'm going to be taking a pay cut I can't afford to take.
Reply
post #12 of 31
11/9/09 at 11:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Doubtful. From what I understand this load of crap that this circus just passed does nothing to bring down the costs of health care. No crossing of state lines to shop for insurance, no limitations on lawsuits, no tort reform whatsoever.
Barack Obama, in his speech to Congress, said both of the above should happen. But guess what, in the House Bill, not only is there NO tort reform,
States will actually be penalized if they have tort reform.

Talk about caving to the bloodsucking lawyers.


Let me repeat myself, on more time, in case someone has missed my past posts.

In 2002 the state of Nevada has an emergency with doctors leaving this state in droves. It, actually, got so bad that women were having to go to neighboring states to deliver their babies. Add that to the fact that they had, absolutely, no pre-natal care unless they travelled to another state.
The reason? The over-the-top malpractice insurance rates in Nevada had doctors making a mass exodus.
The Nevada legislature, in emergency session, passed Tort Reform.

Now, with Pelosi-care, Nevada will be penalized for their tort reform or they will have to repeal it.

What does any sane person think will happen then?
Reply
post #13 of 31
11/9/09 at 2:10pm
Have you read this Heidi?

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/health...08/283349.html

Quote:
Obamacare Endorsements: What the Bribe Was
Obama bought and paid for the AMA, the AARP and the Drug Industry. And this is the administration that people will put their health care faith in. Same old, same old, where is that change again?
Reply
post #14 of 31
11/10/09 at 10:50am
Makes me wonder though how many people are contacting their representatives with their opinions on this matter? Evidently people are voicing to them that they are more for than against or else they wouldn't vote in favor for and risk not getting reelected? What are your views on this?
Reply
post #15 of 31
11/10/09 at 12:05pm
After reading health care threads over the many, many months, it has occurred to me that the folks at the top are not very bright. It is very clear to me that Americans do NOT want any form of health care/insurance if it is going to cost them one red cent. If this forum is any indication, the consensus would be that you already pay for it through whatever taxes you are already paying. That's my take on it from what I have read here. And I didn't need to go to Yale or Harvard to figure that out.

I guess that is why we pay higher taxes here in Canada so we can have that benefit and I personally don't mind paying the higher taxes even if some of the money is actually used to help someone else who cannot pay because they may be down and out at the moment. I might be down and out myself one day and it's a comfort to know that I could count on the health care system to help me.
Reply
post #16 of 31
11/10/09 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifi1puss View Post
Makes me wonder though how many people are contacting their representatives with their opinions on this matter? Evidently people are voicing to them that they are more for than against or else they wouldn't vote in favor for and risk not getting reelected? What are your views on this?
I HAVE contacted my representatives, several times.

If you have seen the polls, 56% against the bill, 42% for the bill.

I don't agree with your statement that the reps, "wouldn't vote in favor for and risk not getting reelected."

IMO, the Democrats believe they know better than we do what is good for us.
Reply
post #17 of 31
11/10/09 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
What does any sane person think will happen then?
What do sane people have to do with national politics?
Reply
post #18 of 31
11/11/09 at 9:32am
Yep - socialism is taking over. Government will take over all your "needs", "wants" and 'desires" - you won't have to think for yourself again - because the government will tell you what you can and can't do, how to live, and decide what to give you if anything.

No more choices to have to make - the government will make them for you. Welcome to the new America, no more freedom, just socialism from now on.

If you think its bad now with the lack of the flu vaccines, just wait till you have to wait in line and hope the government approves your needed operation!
Reply
post #19 of 31
11/11/09 at 10:01am
I agree with Linda, people want health care for free.
I frequent a few forums and have heard MANY posters, usually, very young, say that free health care is a "RIGHT", a "HUMAN RIGHT".

Reply
post #20 of 31
11/11/09 at 10:05am
Just a random thought here. Perhaps this country COULD afford free health care for all our citizens, IF we slashed defense and military spending by 80% or more. That would free up quite a bit of money.
Close all our military bases overseas and bring those boys home.
Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last but NOT least, let SOME OTHER COUNTRY be the military superpower in the world. Perhaps Russia or China could take that job. I'm sure they would do a good job.
Reply
post #21 of 31
11/11/09 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Just a random thought here. Perhaps this country COULD afford free health care for all our citizens, IF we slashed defense and military spending by 80% or more. That would free up quite a bit of money.
Close all our military bases overseas and bring those boys home.
Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last but NOT least, let SOME OTHER COUNTRY be the military superpower in the world. Perhaps Russia or China could take that job. I'm sure they would do a good job.
I agree - it would free up a whole lot of money and save some American lives.

Why does any country have to be the military superpower? Why not let all democratic countries form an organization with representatives for each country and decisions as to how situations be handled in any of those countries be voted on by all, with the majority holding sway?

Who voted the US to be "the" military superpower?
Reply
post #22 of 31
11/11/09 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I agree - it would free up a whole lot of money and save some American lives.

Why does any country have to be the military superpower? Why not let all democratic countries form an organization with representatives for each country and decisions as to how situations be handled in any of those countries be voted on by all, with the majority holding sway?

Who voted the US to be "the" military superpower?
Isn't that supposed to be the United Nations or NATO? We all know how good of a job the U.N. does.
What about the UN-democratic countries, what does the world do when they stir the pot?

Nobody voted "us" to be the military superpower, it just kind of worked out that way after "we" won WWII (just kidding about the "we" winning, we did but not all by our lonesome)
Reply
post #23 of 31
11/11/09 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Isn't that supposed to be the United Nations or NATO? We all know how good of a job the U.N. does.
What about the UN-democratic countries, what does the world do when they stir the pot?

Nobody voted "us" to be the military superpower, it just kind of worked out that way after "we" won WWII (just kidding about the "we" winning, we did but not all by our lonesome)
Thus why I said for them to form an organization since we currently don't have one that seems to be working.

As for un-democratic countries that stir the pot, let the democratic organization determine how they are to be handled.

I wasn't aware that the US won WWII - I had the obviously erroneous thought that it was a number of allied forces including Russia - silly me.
Reply
post #24 of 31
11/11/09 at 10:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I agree - it would free up a whole lot of money and save some American lives.

Why does any country have to be the military superpower? Why not let all democratic countries form an organization with representatives for each country and decisions as to how situations be handled in any of those countries be voted on by all, with the majority holding sway?

Who voted the US to be "the" military superpower?
Um, we already have that. It's known as the UN, the most impotent organization I've ever seen! I don't think the US "tried" to be the military superpower, but let's face it - we had the resources in terms of manpower, intelligencia, and natural resources after World War I, and even though we tried to stay out of it the Japanese made sure that wasn't going to happen. So with the superior resource, only matched by the Soviet Union (we were kinda allies against Germany, remember) we were able to go in and sway the tide of the war. Since then, there was the Cold War - proliferation gone mad on all sides. And then the UN needed a strong arm. When they wanted to do military or "peacekeeping" action around the world, guess who they called?

And we generally don't do things halfway. If we're going to have a military, then it's going to be the best it possibly can be. We do still have the resources to build and maintain a strong military force. And let's face it - there will always be someone who wants to take what you have. So yes, I do think we need a strong military. The best offense is a good defense.

But anywhoo, back to healthcare, which is what this thread is actually about...

Not that anyone has really paid attention to it, but the primary issue that many people who oppose the current healthcare legislation is not necessarily with the fact that we'll all have to pay some. America has this silly notion that individuals still have rights and the government's job is specifically delineated in the Constitution.

There's two parts that bother me in particular about this.

1) The government's job is not to be this intrusive into our lives. For them to mandate that we have to buy insurance or face fines and even jail time is not right. This is not "universal healthcare" or anything even close. This is not supporting those who think that healthcare is a "human right". This is only telling us how we must spend our money, because they know better how to do it than we do. This is not getting to the root of the problem with healthcare costs. This is putting a piece of very expensive tape on dam that has multiple cracks and calling it fixed. They have created a beaurocracy the likes of which we have never seen, and frankly when the government beaurocracy takes over anything it's a mess. Maybe it's not that way everywhere, but it is here.

2) How is this being paid for? By taxing the richest and supposedly trimming the fat from programs that already exist. So we essentially destroy the incentive to do well for up-and-comers, destroy the incentive for companies to offer the really really good insurance plans (they will be taxed 40% as income), and pretty much lop off the top tier of the economy by taxing them almost 1/2 of their income. I guess that's "distributing the wealth", i.e. socialism. I don't mind paying my FAIR share, but everyone should pay a FAIR share. This plan is anything but fair!
Reply
post #25 of 31
11/11/09 at 12:29pm
And keep in mind - we ALL will be forced into the government plan eventually. Why? Because the companies will not be able to compete fairly against government plans and therefore will drop their insurance and tell you to go under the government plan.

In the end we will not have the choice they are claiming we will have - its all a lie!
Reply
post #26 of 31
11/11/09 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
And keep in mind - we ALL will be forced into the government plan eventually. Why? Because the companies will not be able to compete fairly against government plans and therefore will drop their insurance and tell you to go under the government plan.

In the end we will not have the choice they are claiming we will have - its all a lie!
I find this interesting. We have a government run system but we also have additional insurance through our employers for things that are not covered under the government plans like dental and glasses. In fact, most companies offer additional insurance benefits for employees, some companies being better than others of course. We take our government plan so much for granted now that the benefits offered by private companies is often more important to us and sometimes particular benefits are even negotiated at time of hiring, such as number of weeks of vacation, although in reality it is usually only upper middle and senior management that successfully negotiate extra vacation.

The government health plan does not cover all things, such as dental, glasses, physiotherapy and chiropractor to name a few, whereas our company benefits provide what the government plans do not.
Reply
post #27 of 31
11/11/09 at 12:52pm
[quote=Yosemite;2762285]Thus why I said for them to form an organization since we currently don't have one that seems to be working.
/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Um, we already have that. It's known as the UN, the most impotent organization I've ever seen!
Already addressed in previous post.

FWIW I don't believe they'll ever come with any health plan that Americans will deem good/fair/decent/workable/or any other similar words that come to mind. I do really believe that the only health care plan that will be accepted is one that will cost nothing, will be available to everyone except illegals and homeless people, and in today's financial environment I don't see that happening any time soon.
Reply
post #28 of 31
11/11/09 at 1:04pm
[quote=Yosemite;2762428]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Thus why I said for them to form an organization since we currently don't have one that seems to be working.
/QUOTE]

But Linda, what makes you think a new organization will work?

Already addressed in previous post.

FWIW I don't believe they'll ever come with any health plan that Americans will deem good/fair/decent/workable/or any other similar words that come to mind. I do really believe that the only health care plan that will be accepted is one that will cost nothing, will be available to everyone except illegals and homeless people, and in today's financial environment I don't see that happening any time soon.
Someone needs to tell the youth in this country that nothing in life is "free".

The government won't do the simple things to make the costs of health care go down. Unless it is a huge, complicated boondoggle Congress won't consider it.
Reply
post #29 of 31
11/11/09 at 1:23pm
[quote=ckblv;2762439]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post

Someone needs to tell the youth in this country that nothing in life is "free".

The government won't do the simple things to make the costs of health care go down. Unless it is a huge, complicated boondoggle Congress won't consider it.
We could always hope that it would be better.

I do find it amazing how complicated some of the bureaucrats can make the most simple of things.
Reply
post #30 of 31
11/11/09 at 4:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I do find it amazing how complicated some of the bureaucrats can make the most simple of things.
And that right there is why many of us are strongly opposed to "healthcare reform" as it is currently being pushed through. It isn't about healthcare, and it isn't about reform. It's just making more rules and laws and a whole lot more money being spent on nothing helpful. The biggest part of Pelosi-Care is that it drop dead requires every American to buy health insurance, or you have to pay fines or spend time in jail. But of course, they will subsidize lower income households to buy insurance. And they still think they can pay for it by cutting waste and fraud from other government run programs.

OK, fine...let's cut the waste and fraud and subsidize lower income households to buy insurance. I really don't know why we need 2000 pages and hundreds of new government agencies and bureocracies to accomplish that? Those seem to be the only positive points about the darn bill that I've heard!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Health care (PelosiCare) passed House