Trader_J, I've seen your photograph before, and you've either become amazingly aged in a short time due to the stress involved in pretending to be someone else, lost your "fortune" in the financial meltdown, or gone into a full-bore nervous breakdown over the prospect of tens of millions of Americans finally getting healthcare. My take? All of the above. (is that your girlfriend? Yikes!)
The quality of our healthcare is the best in the world. On the cost issues, you raise an excellent and very valid point. We do need health care reform, but what the Democrats are currently trying to ram through will do nothing to correct the problems you have noted. Obamacare is not actually real reform. If we are going to pass a reform package, it is essential that is address the cost control issues first and foremost. No large bill should be passed on this issue that fails to control costs in a major way. Since the Democrat's current plan fails to address this area, it needs to be rejected. And I am still cautiously hopeful that it will be.
I had no idea “ramming” through a bill took almost a year and a half of planning and 45 years of debate Who knew?
Then what do you call this last ditch desperate attempt to get this turd passed from the man of hope and change?
Great point. We need to reform healthcare with a primary focus on cost control. I agree 100%. Unfortunately, the bill that the Democrats are trying to ram through the House of Representatives does nothing to accomplish this. Even obvious measures like tort reform, allowing policies to be purchased across state lines, and reassigning the tax costs and benefits associated with purchasing health insurance to individuals so that they will be attuned to what these services cost, thereby driving down the cost, are not included in the bill. It is really shocking to observe what a poor product the Democrats have produced under the misleading guise of health "reform". What the Democrats are proposing in this bill is not reform. As a result, the bill will be rejected by all responsible members of the House of Representatives. In any case, no Representative who votes for this bill will be acting responsibly, that is for certain. And the constituents of Democrats in swing districts are watching this whole process very closely across the country. So there will be no hiding from the home folks on this one.
You are absolutely right. Those members who obstruct and vote no on this bill will be held accountable.
This may have been posted, but I haven't seen it. For those that are worried that this bill will cost too much, here is the first actual evidence that I have seen that backs up that claim. It's far from persuasive, but this talks about the real questions that we should be debating, in my opinion. The CBO talks here about uncertainty in estimates and also what changes to the estimates might be made if certain provisions are undone in the future. [rquoter]... Today, in a letter responding to questions from Congressman Ryan, CBO described the effects on the federal budget of enacting the reconciliation proposal and the Senate-passed health bill if: * The excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums—which would take effect in 2018 and for which the thresholds would be indexed at a lower rate beginning in 2020—was never implemented; * The annual indexing provisions for premium subsidies offered through the insurance exchanges continued in the same way after 2018 as before—in contrast with the reconciliation proposal, which would slow the growth of subsidies after 2018; * The adjustment to physician payment rates under Medicare that was passed by the House last fall was included; and * The Independent Payment Advisory Board—which would be required, under certain circumstances, to recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit the rate of growth in that program’s spending, and whose recommendations would go into effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action—was never implemented. We estimated that if this set of changes was made, the legislation as modified would increase federal budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP.[/rquoter]The full PDF response on to Representative Ryan about the costs if some changes were made to the reform in the future is here. My personal opinion is that if any of these changes do occur (and the "doc fix" mentioned in the third bullet item is likely to be passed), then the budgetary effects of those changes should be considered and accounted for then. It's important to note that some of these changes are imminent or quite possible, but I don't think that means they are all likely or certain and that we must assume that they will all be enacted without being paid for themselves.
When the intellectual reservoir runs dry, the name calling begins. Correct me if I am mistaken, but this is your first post in this thread, no? Clearly, you require no gradual lead in time. With you it is straight to the bottom, right from the start. I hope you do better next time. But I am pleased to see that this comic image clearly resonates so strongly with you guys. That is a clear indicator that has struck a nerve, and is right on target.
Or it could be looking at the barrel of a gun. Most normal people would be uncomfortable with that. But the violent images you’ve been posting over the last couple of days would indicate that, according to your criteria (when the intellectual reservoir runs dry, the name calling begins) you’ve pretty much given up any kind of moral authority here.
A porsche has the best quality in the world as well, I don't know anyone that can afford one. Point is it doesn't do anyone any good when no one can afford it. That's why there needs to be a mandate to control costs. Costs rise because of the uninsured. If they have insurance than their bills are paid instead of the hospitals writing off Billions, thousands of Americans declaring banruptcy, and our taxes going up to cover Billions of those losses. That and ban advertising for prescription drugs but no one seems to have the balls to take that one on.
Your proof that the image stated truths is that people point out how untrue it is, or go after you for posting an image full of falsehoods? "Well if people on the bbs come out against something that isn't true, it must surely be true then" Great reasoning on your part
Nonsense. You say the image is full of falsehoods. But it is actually your assertion that the image is full of falsehoods that is false.
