Support for Repeal climbs to 63%

[USA_1]

1. not sure i'd call them my boys
2. yes they should have. as it is at least this has given them a shock and they've started coming up with some solutions. but one sides' failure to fix a problem doesn't mean whatever the other team plays will be a smart move.

Well, Obama promised to reform healthcare. It was a campaign promise and probably earned him a lot of votes. He won so he got to do it his way. The next president can do it his way.

 

[mmmike1977]

Well, your boys should have given us a better plan when they had the chance.

Not sure if you were talking to CP directly, but "MY BOYS" have not been in office for a LONG time. "MY BOYS" are conservatives that don't spend money, cut taxes, and only give people a safety net (not a hammock). Not really sure who "MY BOYS" are actually. Do you know anyone like that? Certainly not most Republicans I know. I know a lot of people that think like I do though. We are still looking for our leader.

 

[USA_1]

Not sure if you were talking to CP directly, but "MY BOYS" have not been in office for a LONG time. "MY BOYS" are conservatives that don't spend money, cut taxes, and only give people a safety net (not a hammock). Not really sure who "MY BOYS" are actually. Do you know anyone like that? Certainly not most Republicans I know. I know a lot of people that think like I do though. We are still looking for our leader.

Who are your boys?

 

[Deuce]

This may sound familiar, but if voters are as easy to manipulate as you say they are, democracy doesn't work. AT ALL.

It doesn't matter what I say. Polls show that most people don't understand the bill. Period. And you're right, it's a serious flaw in democracy in general. Democracy relies on a public that will vote in their own best interests, and that requires them being informed. Fortunately, we aren't in a direct democracy. Our system of representatives helps curb the whims of an uninformed mob, at least somewhat. Yes, public opinion can sway very hard against a law that is actually in their best interests, and they might vote for people who promise to repeal that law. And they'll hurt themselves in the process.

Your signature is pretty fitting to the point I'm making. Democracy really is the worst form of government... except for all the other ones. In a population that now pays more attention to Lindsay Lohan than it does to Health Care Reform, we've got a serious potential for disaster. Our saving grace will be the fact that people desperately combing the internet for more news on Paris Hilton are less likely to vote.

 

[Deuce]

Not sure if you were talking to CP directly, but "MY BOYS" have not been in office for a LONG time. "MY BOYS" are conservatives that don't spend money, cut taxes, and only give people a safety net (not a hammock). Not really sure who "MY BOYS" are actually. Do you know anyone like that? Certainly not most Republicans I know. I know a lot of people that think like I do though. We are still looking for our leader.

Since before Reagan, then. If the GOP actually did what you're talking about, I'd vote for them.

 

[cpwill]

Well, Obama promised to reform healthcare. It was a campaign promise and probably earned him a lot of votes. He won so he got to do it his way. The next president can do it his way.

true. people should have paid better attention but :shrug: sometimes pain is the best teacher.

 

[Dav]

It doesn't matter what I say. Polls show that most people don't understand the bill. Period. And you're right, it's a serious flaw in democracy in general. Democracy relies on a public that will vote in their own best interests, and that requires them being informed. Fortunately, we aren't in a direct democracy. Our system of representatives helps curb the whims of an uninformed mob, at least somewhat. Yes, public opinion can sway very hard against a law that is actually in their best interests, and they might vote for people who promise to repeal that law. And they'll hurt themselves in the process.

Your signature is pretty fitting to the point I'm making. Democracy really is the worst form of government... except for all the other ones. In a population that now pays more attention to Lindsay Lohan than it does to Health Care Reform, we've got a serious potential for disaster. Our saving grace will be the fact that people desperately combing the internet for more news on Paris Hilton are less likely to vote.

Note the "AT ALL." If voters are as easy to manipulate as you say they are, NO FORM of democracy can EVER work. We ought to stop even trying.

God the type of smug condescension you just showed always manages to make me see red. Lots of informed people oppose the health care bill. Lots of uninformed people support it. Your position is not intellectually superior. And you are just wrong about democracy. It does NOT rely on a public that will vote for their own self-interest; in fact, that is exactly what would DESTROY democracy, because people would start voting themselves money from the treasury (to an unfortunate extent, that's already somewhat happening). If people vote for something that will end up hurting them, then they will end up hurt. That's not a "flaw", it's just reality. And paying more attention to Lindsey Lohan than health care reform won't hurt democracy. At all. Democracy does not require all voters to be poltiical junkies, and it does not require voters to dislike Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton. That type of intellectual bigotry (and that is exactly what it is, bigotry) is something I have always railed against. Paris Hilton is not dumbing down society, nor is American Idol or Walmart or any other thing you bigots choose to blame as the source of people disagreeing with you. Lots of people may have silly opinions. But those opinions are their own, not the fault of Lindsey Lohan or Rush Limbaugh or anyone else.

 

[USA_1]

true. people should have paid better attention but :shrug: sometimes pain is the best teacher.

In two years when people actually know what the reform bill is they will either like it or vote Obama out. The GOP will campaign with the promise to repeal the bill so America will decide what they really want. I think they really want healthcare reform, so we shall see.

 

[cpwill]

In two years when people actually know what the reform bill is they will either like it or vote Obama out. The GOP will campaign with the promise to repeal the bill so America will decide what they really want. I think they really want healthcare reform, so we shall see.

you are conflating "health care reform" with "obamacare"; the two are not the same. the American people absolutely want some health care reform (well, more accurately, some health insurance reform). they do not want this particular 'reform'; which they think only makes matters worse.

 

[missypea]

you are conflating "health care reform" with "obamacare"; the two are not the same. the American people absolutely want some health care reform (well, more accurately, some health insurance reform). they do not want this particular 'reform'; which they think only makes matters worse.

Obamacare :roll:

The meat of what he said is that Obama will run--and be judged--on his platform and what he's accomplished.

If the people don't like it, they'll vote him out.

 

[USA_1]

you are conflating "health care reform" with "obamacare"; the two are not the same. the American people absolutely want some health care reform (well, more accurately, some health insurance reform). they do not want this particular 'reform'; which they think only makes matters worse.

Wrong. Obamacare is healthcare reform. In fact too much reform. Many people do support it, especially those that know what it is. Obama got elected promising to change healthcare and he did. The next election will determine if they really want it or not.

 

[LaMidRighter]

In two years when people actually know what the reform bill is they will either like it or vote Obama out. The GOP will campaign with the promise to repeal the bill so America will decide what they really want. I think they really want healthcare reform, so we shall see.

No matter how much the Reid/Pelosi garbage gets regurgitated people who actually know what is in this bill are sick. This bill is NOT reform it is a mess and furthering the problem with healthcare availability.

 

[USA_1]

No matter how much the Reid/Pelosi garbage gets regurgitated people who actually know what is in this bill are sick. This bill is NOT reform it is a mess and furthering the problem with healthcare availability.

Cost:

* $940 billion over ten years.

Deficit:

*

Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years.



Coverage:

* Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Health Insurance Exchanges:

* The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
* Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
* Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.

Subsidies:

* Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.

Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050


Paying for the Plan:

* Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
* Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
* Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.

Medicare:

* Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
* Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Medicaid:

* Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.
* Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
* Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
* Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.

Insurance Reforms:

* Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
* Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
* Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans until age 26th.

Abortion:

* The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
* No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.

**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here)

Individual Mandate:

* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

Employer Mandate:

* Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.

Immigration:

* Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.


Which part is a mess?

 

[Deuce]

Note the "AT ALL." If voters are as easy to manipulate as you say they are, NO FORM of democracy can EVER work. We ought to stop even trying.

God the type of smug condescension you just showed always manages to make me see red. Lots of informed people oppose the health care bill. Lots of uninformed people support it. Your position is not intellectually superior. And you are just wrong about democracy. It does NOT rely on a public that will vote for their own self-interest; in fact, that is exactly what would DESTROY democracy, because people would start voting themselves money from the treasury (to an unfortunate extent, that's already somewhat happening). If people vote for something that will end up hurting them, then they will end up hurt. That's not a "flaw", it's just reality. And paying more attention to Lindsey Lohan than health care reform won't hurt democracy. At all. Democracy does not require all voters to be poltiical junkies, and it does not require voters to dislike Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton. That type of intellectual bigotry (and that is exactly what it is, bigotry) is something I have always railed against. Paris Hilton is not dumbing down society, nor is American Idol or Walmart or any other thing you bigots choose to blame as the source of people disagreeing with you. Lots of people may have silly opinions. But those opinions are their own, not the fault of Lindsey Lohan or Rush Limbaugh or anyone else.

You're projecting an absolutist view onto someone who doesn't share it. Just because a form of government has problems doesn't mean it "can't work at all." You're just plain wrong there. People are easily manipulated, ask anyone who works in marketing phsychology. That doesn't mean every person is just a sheep waiting for a shepherd. Some people come to their own conclusions very nicely. Others take what they're told at face value and don't question it. By "voting in their own best interests," I meant as a society, not as individuals, so that's just a misunderstanding. I apologize.

Polls show the majority of people don't understand the bill. I never claimed that there are no informed people who oppose it. In fact, if you'd been reading my posts well enough you'd see that I had mentioned discussing the bill with conservative friends. I don't have problems with people opposing the bill. I have problems with people using polls like this as proof that the bill is a bad thing. I also have problems with people using phrases like "socialist," "government takeover," "rammed down our throats," and so forth, because the bill is none of those things.

I also never said people are not at all responsible for their own opinion. Again, absolutist thinking that colors your reaction. My opinion is only superior to people who have no idea what the bill contains. Next time you read one of my posts, try to think in terms other than black and white.

 

[mmmike1977]

Who are your boys?

I wish I knew USA. Not many true conservatives out there. The republicans lie, they say they are conservative...they aren't. And the Democrats, well, they admit they aren't conseravative. I will give the dems credit, at least they do what they say they are going to do. For now I guess I will just keep throwing away my vote on a 3rd party canididate until some true conservative Republicans come around.

 

[mmmike1977]

That's over ten years. 94 billion a year.

Let's hope they aren't off as far as they were with the "Medicaid Special Hospital Subsidy". You would have to take 94 Billion and multiply it by 110 (that is how far off they were).

So think about that, they came up with a number ($100,000,000), they did their studies and fact finding and came to a decision on that number. Then it turns out they were wrong. It wasn't double that number, it wasn't tripple or quadruple their number, you have to multiple their original number by ONE HUNDRED AND TEN!!! Let that sink in for a minute, 110 times the amount that they said it would cost.

And we used this same system to come up with an "accurate" number for health care? Really? I don't care if you tell me how much it will cost over the next year, the next 100 years, or the next 5 minutes......I won't believe it! Not because I am a nut job, because the evidence points to the cost being more than what the CBO says it will be. The CBO consistently gives us low numbers when it comes to spending.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Cost:

* $940 billion over ten years.

Budget projection not based on applicable real figures, claims, or enrollment. So it cannot possibly be set in stone.

Deficit:

*

Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years.

Cannot do that without major cost cutting measures not provided for in the bill making this a large fallacy, you lose on that one.

That is an updated CBO estimate.

Which has conceded that the numbers were done with all (but incomplete) available data at the time.

Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years.

See above.

Coverage:

* Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

While spiking insurance costs for those other 272m already covered, and still missing the 100% mark by 6 million. Yeah, not such a good deal.

Health Insurance Exchanges:

* The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
* Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
* Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.

Not a true exchange, and unnecessary if real reform were to be implemented, again, garbage.

Subsidies:

* Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.

Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050

Which does nothing to address costs which are going to go up. What part of this is so hard for health/insurance industry outsiders like the idiots who passed this bill and the supporters to understand?

Paying for the Plan:

* Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
* Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
* Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.

Which will not address the cost issue, will not ever meet inflation, and require ever more increasing of taxes and will have a punitive effect on those who choose to work, stupid idea that won't work. But hey, the idiot in the white house got his way. All for an unnecessary bill that solves nothing.

Medicare:

* Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
* Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Medicaid:

* Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.
* Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
* Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
* Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.

Illegals were never barred from the medicaid program, enforcement isn't in the bill.

Insurance Reforms:

* Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
* Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
* Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans until age 26th.

Enjoy your increase in premium, I know your agent will.

Abortion:

* The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
* No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.

**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here)

Had no business in the bill.

Individual Mandate:

* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.

Completely unconstitutional, you cannot compel people to buy something. Not found within granted powers to the federal.

Employer Mandate:

* Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.

Technically? No, being forced to provide group insurance is a mandate, there is no spinning that. So layoffs increase. Stupid ****ing idea.

Immigration:

* Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.

Not in the final bill.

Which part is a mess?

Try about 85% of it. Even the things that are good which are few and far between are done so ineficiently that they cannot be good for consumers in the long term. You are not a health or insurance professional so obviously you cannot see the bad going in to this. As well, the IRS being able to access and withdraw from accounts with no prior warning or warrant is dangerous and completely unwarranted.....yeah, it's in the bill. As well, do you even have a clue what "best practices" will translate to?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Let's hope they aren't off as far as they were with the "Medicaid Special Hospital Subsidy". You would have to take 94 Billion and multiply it by 110 (that is how far off they were).

So think about that, they came up with a number ($100,000,000), they did their studies and fact finding and came to a decision on that number. Then it turns out they were wrong. It wasn't double that number, it wasn't tripple or quadruple their number, you have to multiple their original number by ONE HUNDRED AND TEN!!! Let that sink in for a minute, 110 times the amount that they said it would cost.

And we used this same system to come up with an "accurate" number for health care? Really? I don't care if you tell me how much it will cost over the next year, the next 100 years, or the next 5 minutes......I won't believe it! Not because I am a nut job, because the evidence points to the cost being more than what the CBO says it will be. The CBO consistently gives us low numbers when it comes to spending.

You aren't going to convince him. You're fighting "Democrat good.....Republican bad" and this guy will just ignore anything that goes against his worldview.

 

[USA_1]

You aren't going to convince him. You're fighting "Democrat good.....Republican bad" and this guy will just ignore anything that goes against his worldview.

Wrong. I was waiting for six years for the Republicans to come up with something and they didn't do a damm thing. I would have loved to have had a republican plan. Selling insurance across state lines was a joke. You say premium costs will go up. Where have you been the last decade. Companies are dropping coverage and forcing employees to pay more and more every yeay. Many people pay almost 50% of their income for insurance.
No I am not in the insurance business and you are. Maybe you are part of the problem. You certainly don't seem have your own solutions. At least the democrats took a crack at it.

I noticed you repeated every republican talking point pertaining to the bill.

 

[Deuce]

Wrong. I was waiting for six years for the Republicans to come up with something and they didn't do a damm thing. I would have loved to have had a republican plan. Selling insurance across state lines was a joke. You say premium costs will go up. Where have you been the last decade. Companies are dropping coverage and forcing employees to pay more and more every yeay. Many people pay almost 50% of their income for insurance.
No I am not in the insurance business and you are. Maybe you are part of the problem. You certainly don't seem have your own solutions. At least the democrats took a crack at it.

I noticed you repeated every republican talking point pertaining to the bill.

What? Didn't you read John McCain's awesome health care proposal during the campaign? He was going to provide a huge tax credit for health insurance. Basically giving $5000 to every family towards the purchase of health insurance. How to pay for all that, you ask? Why, taxing health insurance premiums provided by employers, of course! :rofl: Also, by eliminating the tax incentive for an employer to provide health insurance, people lose the benefits of group negotiation of premiums. As every employer drops the health insurance benefits, surely they will give all of that extra money to the employee! They'd never pocket some, because it's a competitive market you see. They'd lose employees if they kept the money. Because it's so hard to find people to work for you in this economy... :rofl:
Also, McCain's plan would allow cross-state line selling of insurance. You see, this is a good thing because many states have mandated benefits or community rating requirements, so young healthy people end up subsidizing old sick people. McCain's plan would have ended that, because those old sick people really should pay higher premiums than they do now. Surely this will increase the number of people with proper insurance.

 

[Southern Man]

That's why Micky lost the election. He was liberal and conservative voters simply stayed home.

 

[Deuce]

That's why Micky lost the election. He was liberal and conservative voters simply stayed home.

I'm not sure why you'd call his proposal "liberal." It's pretty laissez-faire libertarian.

edit: Although someone who labels themselves "very conservative" on this particular forum probably thinks anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh is socialist

 

[Southern Man]

I'm not sure why you'd call his proposal "liberal." It's pretty laissez-faire libertarian.

edit: Although someone who labels themselves "very conservative" on this particular forum probably thinks anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh is socialist

The libertarian policy would be the same as the conservative policy: The feds don't get involved in it.

 

[Deuce]

The libertarian policy would be the same as the conservative policy: The feds don't get involved in it.

...his proposal would have reduced federal involvement significantly.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Wrong. I was waiting for six years for the Republicans to come up with something and they didn't do a damm thing. I would have loved to have had a republican plan. Selling insurance across state lines was a joke. You say premium costs will go up. Where have you been the last decade. Companies are dropping coverage and forcing employees to pay more and more every yeay. Many people pay almost 50% of their income for insurance.
No I am not in the insurance business and you are. Maybe you are part of the problem. You certainly don't seem have your own solutions. At least the democrats took a crack at it.

I noticed you repeated every republican talking point pertaining to the bill.

I gave you the reality of what is going to happen based on my profession, the realities of it, and what is in the bill. Again, I am an insurance professional so I know what these things mean. But hey, when your insurance agent drives up in a Bentley while you're starving each month to make premium don't blame me. You were warned.