Ten Immediate Benefits of HCR Bill

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
If “we join the rest of the world” we’re taking a hit. The American middle class if far richer than European middle class. You would have to be a millionaire in Europe to live like I do.[/quote]

How many days holiday do you get a year?

How many hours do you work each week?

How many minutes is your commute to work?

What time do you leave work on Friday afternoons?

If you need to drop your children off at school can you without any question whatsoever from your employer? (As long as you actually do the job your paid to do.)

Are you absolutely certain that you’ll always be treated if you get sick?

How much will you pay to send your children through university/college?

Do you still feel rich after answering these questions?[/quote]

So now Lou it’s your turn :)[/quote]

I’m not a fair example. I don’t want to go into too much detail about me. I’ll say what most people in my office do. I don’t live in the UK I live somewhere else in Europe but I’m not saying where. Is that cool?

We have 25 days holiday. Plus about 12-15 public holiday. Plus it’s very easy to have flex holiday days as well.

Most people work about 37 hours a week. If someone is inefficient then they work longer hours.

Most people commute no more than 20minutes. Many less. (mine is 5 minutes on a bike)

3:30 is the normal leaving time on a Friday.

No one ever questions childcare needs. For fathers or mothers. I don’t mean for sick kids I mean day to day stuff.

Healthcare is state run. Sometimes waiting times for elective treatments suck. No one ever goes untreated in a hospital or doctors surgery. No one is ever asked whether they can afford a treatment.

Undergraduate students get generous grants. They pay no fees and should finish their degrees debt free.

The locals feel very rich.[/quote]

How are you not a fair example? Just answer the questions you posed? I answered them.

Oh wait is this how socialism works? You ask pointed questions of everybody else but when asked to answer the same questions you duck and dodge?[/quote]

I’m a graduate student living in a country I don’t intend to stay in… So no I’m not a fair example. Happy?

162

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Indeed.

There’s no rational reason not to be Antiborrek. If Antiborrek doesn’t have dirt bikes but instead has a house mortgage payment that he is having trouble meeting for whatever reason he would be rationally compelled to pay the $1000 IRS enforced fine and choose not to enroll in Obama Shield. It would be the “right” thing to do.

If Antiborrek is starting a small business so he can feed his family and his business needs the capital that Blue Obama Blue Pelosi would otherwise take from him Antiborrek is making a wise business decision to invest the money. It’s not a moral issue. Borrek deserves no monument to enshrine his integrity for the coming generations. Borrek is just a chump.

In fact, I could come up with a thousand different reasons why it would be “right” to wait until you needed the health care before you enrolled. Borrek would be no moral match for Antiborrek under a myriad of scenarios.[/quote]

It is telling that your reasoning of what is “right” all revolves around your wallet.

I invite you - expect you even - to show how right you are, and only purchase insurance after you or your family has gotten sick. You don’t want to be a chump do you?
[/quote]

Dood, Stop being an asshat, Seriously, we are pointing out the fact that Antiborrek exists, and he exists in numbers that will cripple this plan. Stop trying to say that YOU and PUSH are better than that, Of course 99% of the people who are on this site are above behavior like that. A very large number of people are not above that. Acknowledge they exist or you lose all cred… You continue to have no credibility.

V[/quote]

Well, I must be in the 1% then .

I feel no moral obligation not to get my moneys worth when a system forces me to participate.

163

One other thing I’m going to predict right now, and I don’t think it was even discussed. Prescription drug abuse is going through the roof. Many of the poor are going to be flooding doctors offices with bad backs and knees and huge migranes, nothing is going to be coming up on any scanning machinery so they will just get painkillers to ease thier symptoms.

The docs will have such long waiting lists, they will know deep down the person isn’t really in pain, but the easiest way to deal with them is to give them drugs, which they are looking for and get them out of your doctors office. You can’t turn these people away anymore. Heh, this might actually kill the underground drug market, or at least put a good hurtin on it.

V

164

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Indeed.

There’s no rational reason not to be Antiborrek. If Antiborrek doesn’t have dirt bikes but instead has a house mortgage payment that he is having trouble meeting for whatever reason he would be rationally compelled to pay the $1000 IRS enforced fine and choose not to enroll in Obama Shield. It would be the “right” thing to do.

If Antiborrek is starting a small business so he can feed his family and his business needs the capital that Blue Obama Blue Pelosi would otherwise take from him Antiborrek is making a wise business decision to invest the money. It’s not a moral issue. Borrek deserves no monument to enshrine his integrity for the coming generations. Borrek is just a chump.

In fact, I could come up with a thousand different reasons why it would be “right” to wait until you needed the health care before you enrolled. Borrek would be no moral match for Antiborrek under a myriad of scenarios.[/quote]

It is telling that your reasoning of what is “right” all revolves around your wallet.

I invite you - expect you even - to show how right you are, and only purchase insurance after you or your family has gotten sick. You don’t want to be a chump do you?
[/quote]

Dood, Stop being an asshat, Seriously, we are pointing out the fact that Antiborrek exists, and he exists in numbers that will cripple this plan. Stop trying to say that YOU and PUSH are better than that, Of course 99% of the people who are on this site are above behavior like that. A very large number of people are not above that. Acknowledge they exist or you lose all cred… You continue to have no credibility.

V[/quote]

Well, I must be in the 1% then .

I feel no moral obligation not to get my moneys worth when a system forces me to participate.

[/quote]

You are in a separate segment alltogether my friend.

V

165

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Indeed.

There’s no rational reason not to be Antiborrek. If Antiborrek doesn’t have dirt bikes but instead has a house mortgage payment that he is having trouble meeting for whatever reason he would be rationally compelled to pay the $1000 IRS enforced fine and choose not to enroll in Obama Shield. It would be the “right” thing to do.

If Antiborrek is starting a small business so he can feed his family and his business needs the capital that Blue Obama Blue Pelosi would otherwise take from him Antiborrek is making a wise business decision to invest the money. It’s not a moral issue. Borrek deserves no monument to enshrine his integrity for the coming generations. Borrek is just a chump.

In fact, I could come up with a thousand different reasons why it would be “right” to wait until you needed the health care before you enrolled. Borrek would be no moral match for Antiborrek under a myriad of scenarios.[/quote]

It is telling that your reasoning of what is “right” all revolves around your wallet.

I invite you - expect you even - to show how right you are, and only purchase insurance after you or your family has gotten sick. You don’t want to be a chump do you?
[/quote]

Dood, Stop being an asshat, Seriously, we are pointing out the fact that Antiborrek exists, and he exists in numbers that will cripple this plan. Stop trying to say that YOU and PUSH are better than that, Of course 99% of the people who are on this site are above behavior like that. A very large number of people are not above that. Acknowledge they exist or you lose all cred… You continue to have no credibility.

V[/quote]

Well, I must be in the 1% then .

I feel no moral obligation not to get my moneys worth when a system forces me to participate.

[/quote]

You are in a separate segment alltogether my friend.

V[/quote]

Well when it comes to practical matters I am really not and I have much more experience in playing the system than the average American.

I can tell you right now that this whole moral high horse thing is the first thing that has to go if you want to live is such a system.

Be as anti-Borrek as you can, “cheat” on your taxes, find a doctor that treats you and your family off the books, and try to get as many people together with whom you can trade favors in the system.

And try to have such a support system firmly in place before something happens to you or your family.

They will come and take control over your life with your own money if they can and that means your “nice guy” days are over. I dont know about you but if someone sends men with guns after my wallet (how many men did the IRS hire again recently?) we are no longer talking about a situation were the rules of the Marquess of Queensberry apply.

166

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
You know Push, I agree that some of the stuff in your post is bullshit and on the coercive side, but I do have a problem with 1 and 2. What if you’re young (21), healthy and so forth, so you decide not to buy healthcare. Then one day, you’re mt biking and you take a header over the handlebars and get a concussion, have to go to the ER for a CAT scan and some stitches in your shin? Who pays the bill if the biker can’t afford it and he’s turned down by MediCal? Taxpayers pay for it no matter what unless he comes up with the cash out of his own pocket.

[/quote]
You can say the same for pretty much any behavior. You might one day snap, go on a rampage, and start stabbing people. But, even though that is a risk that could end up costing tax payers millions, The government doesn’t have the right to charge you penalties for what you might do.

And if they do allow him in, there is no reason to get coverage until after something happens. This would collapse the whole market (unless the government forces people to have insurance). Could you imagine if I wrecked my car then bought insurance and tried to get them to fix accident damage from before I purchased the insurance? Insurance is about risk management, if something has already happened it isn’t a risk. What you are talking about is betting on a horse race after the race has ended, race tracks wouldn’t exist in this case.

The good part about a free market is that all the agreements for rates fees risk assesments est. are voluntary. If you don’t agree with the way a company accesses your risk and fees, you don’t have to do business with them, you can voluntarily come to any agreement you want. What the government does and is doing is removing all of these choices. These things are no longer voluntary. Your coverage now has to be a certain way. In a free market snowmobilers only get a better rate than smokers IF all parties voluntarily agree to it.

Once again that the beauty of the free market. Only those affected have a say. Why should you care or have a say in how anyone’s policy but your own is structured? Why do you get to dictate terms in a personal mater between me and my insurer?

[quote]

There’s a couple other numbered items that I have issue with, but those can wait for later when I have more time to soak them in and make a sensible point. Time to lift.[/quote]

167

[quote]pushharder wrote:

  1. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed �?�¢??unreasonable�?�¢?? by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

http://www.infowars.com/20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms/[/quote]
This one item right here ^^^^ is exactly why this is a government takeover. Insurance companies operate at 2-3% margin. Now they will have to add millions of patients, with no ability to do the things that allow them to make that 2-3%. They can’t adjust premiums by risk, can’t turn down anyone, etc. So costs to the insurance companies will HUGELY increase. And what are the odds that HOHS will be approving premium increases to cover that? Zero. So, insurance companies go under. The next thing we will see is a whole round of insurance bailouts, in which the federal government takes partial or complete ownership of them. Your easy 3 step process to nationalization.

168

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Dood, Stop being an asshat, Seriously, we are pointing out the fact that Antiborrek exists, and he exists in numbers that will cripple this plan. Stop trying to say that YOU and PUSH are better than that, Of course 99% of the people who are on this site are above behavior like that. A very large number of people are not above that. Acknowledge they exist or you lose all cred… You continue to have no credibility.

V[/quote]

When did I ever say that people like that don’t exist? Of course they do. What I’m saying is that in my day to day life it does not make one bit of difference in regards to whether I buy insurance or not. Push asked why anyone would buy insurance, and the simple fucking answer is that it is the right thing to do. I didn’t say buying insurance under the new plan is the righteous thing to do(although I did get a big kick out of you guys shitting your pants on my first comment) but it is simply the right choice. I explicitly laid out why I think it is the right choice (red tape in securing care for my family) but you guys were way too busy chicken-littling to think clearly about that.

The simple truth is that health care reform is here, and we all have to go on with our lives. If my neighbor chooses to manipulate the system, that sucks, but I’m not going to fucking cry and cancel my own insurance policies. I am still, under the new “generous” system, buying insurance, as will just about damn near everyone else who is currently insured. You all know this, so stop being dramatic.

Of course the Anti-borreks exist, it is the magnitude that we don’t agree on, and quite frankly you all know just as little about that magnitude as I do or anyone else for that matter. None of you have any sort of statistical insight into what effect irresponsible people will have on premiums. You’re pulling shit out of your ass, and I’m the one who is getting called stupid for saying that continuing to carry a policy is the smart thing to do. If you’re going to talk shit about credibility, at least man up and admit that not a fucking person here (yourself included) has any credibility in regards to knowing what will happen with insurance. We’re all talking about an imaginary future at this point, and past experience counts for nothing because this is all new.

169

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I invite you - expect you even - to show how right you are, and only purchase insurance after you or your family has gotten sick. You don’t want to be a chump do you?
[/quote]

It’s a deal. I am seriously considering it.[/quote]

A) You’ve said already that you think rationed health care is going to kill everyone you love. Where do you think the voluntarily uninsured are going to be placed on that ration list?

B) I would think that you’d at least try to cling to as much of the old way as possible and keep grandfathered minimum coverage. Once you go uninsured, your only option is federal essential minimum coverage

…you know if I had a foot in the door with insurance I bet I could make a killing by selling the grand-daddy of all grandfathered minimum coverage policies, by passing out fliers at tea-party rallies for coverage with $5000 deductibles, zero preventative care, zero mental-health or behavioral care, zero maternity care. Good for nothing but cancer, heart attacks, and diabetes. I’d be rich.

173

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

…you know if I had a foot in the door with insurance I bet I could make a killing by selling the grand-daddy of all grandfathered minimum coverage policies, by passing out fliers at tea-party rallies for coverage with $5000 deductibles, zero preventative care, zero mental-health or behavioral care, zero maternity care. Good for nothing but cancer, heart attacks, and diabetes. I’d be rich.[/quote]

The right and the opportunity for you to do that has now been taken away.

BTW, what would be “wrong” about the availability of the health plan you mentioned above?

I don’t want or need anything less than a $5,000 deductible. I can pay for preventative care out of pocket. I may want a plan that excludes mental and behavioral care. I don’t need maternity care.

Why would you want to force me into a plan I don’t want and/or need? Why?

Oh wait, I get it. YOU DO need maternity care and you insist that I help you with it. At the risk of jail time and/or fines you will impose on me what you want from me.

Don’t you see that that wouldn’t be the “right” thing to do?[/quote]

First, I don’t need maternity care, but even though it goes against the grain here I’ll choose not to semantically split hairs because I get your point.

I have no problems with a package with the above coverages. I think that the federal essential coverages are not ideal in any sense of the word, even though they aren’t much different from insurance received from large businesses where you choose package A or package B that have been tailored to cover as many needs of as many employees as possible.

I will however submit to the minor inconvenience of an “essential benefits” list if it passes a health bill that removes lifetime and annual coverage maxes, and prohibits canceling coverage of people who get critically ill. I’ve known people who declared bankruptcy because they blew through lifetime maxes in a year battling major illness, and have personally been told that I have passed my annual allotment of rehab for a torn shoulder and would have to start paying $100 for 15 minutes of electro-therapy and $40 for a bag of ice if I want to stay in the rehab system that allows me to have time off work to recoup. That’s what sits with me as not right.

174

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

…you know if I had a foot in the door with insurance I bet I could make a killing by selling the grand-daddy of all grandfathered minimum coverage policies, by passing out fliers at tea-party rallies for coverage with $5000 deductibles, zero preventative care, zero mental-health or behavioral care, zero maternity care. Good for nothing but cancer, heart attacks, and diabetes. I’d be rich.[/quote]

The right and the opportunity for you to do that has now been taken away.

BTW, what would be “wrong” about the availability of the health plan you mentioned above?

I don’t want or need anything less than a $5,000 deductible. I can pay for preventative care out of pocket. I may want a plan that excludes mental and behavioral care. I don’t need maternity care.

Why would you want to force me into a plan I don’t want and/or need? Why?

Oh wait, I get it. YOU DO need maternity care and you insist that I help you with it. At the risk of jail time and/or fines you will impose on me what you want from me.

Don’t you see that that wouldn’t be the “right” thing to do?[/quote]

First, I don’t need maternity care, but even though it goes against the grain here I’ll choose not to semantically split hairs because I get your point.

I have no problems with a package with the above coverages. I think that the federal essential coverages are not ideal in any sense of the word, even though they aren’t much different from insurance received from large businesses where you choose package A or package B that have been tailored to cover as many needs of as many employees as possible.

I will however submit to the minor inconvenience of an “essential benefits” list if it passes a health bill that removes lifetime and annual coverage maxes, and prohibits canceling coverage of people who get critically ill. I’ve known people who declared bankruptcy because they blew through lifetime maxes in a year battling major illness, and have personally been told that I have passed my annual allotment of rehab for a torn shoulder and would have to start paying $100 for 15 minutes of electro-therapy and $40 for a bag of ice if I want to stay in the rehab system that allows me to have time off work to recoup. That’s what sits with me as not right.

[/quote]

um… so who pays for that? You are demanding that I pay for your shoulder? Because legally forcing insurance to is the same thing because my premium goes up too.

175

[quote]borrek wrote:
…the federal essential coverages are not ideal in any sense of the word, even though they aren’t much different from insurance received from large businesses where you choose package A or package B that have been tailored to cover as many needs of as many employees as possible.
[/quote]

Then perhaps reform should have been aimed at separating health coverage from employee benefit packages.

This alone would have solved more problems than this ridiculous bill. One of the most important things it would do is eliminate the connection between losing/changing jobs and losing health coverage.

176

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

…you know if I had a foot in the door with insurance I bet I could make a killing by selling the grand-daddy of all grandfathered minimum coverage policies, by passing out fliers at tea-party rallies for coverage with $5000 deductibles, zero preventative care, zero mental-health or behavioral care, zero maternity care. Good for nothing but cancer, heart attacks, and diabetes. I’d be rich.[/quote]

The right and the opportunity for you to do that has now been taken away.

BTW, what would be “wrong” about the availability of the health plan you mentioned above?

I don’t want or need anything less than a $5,000 deductible. I can pay for preventative care out of pocket. I may want a plan that excludes mental and behavioral care. I don’t need maternity care.

Why would you want to force me into a plan I don’t want and/or need? Why?

Oh wait, I get it. YOU DO need maternity care and you insist that I help you with it. At the risk of jail time and/or fines you will impose on me what you want from me.

Don’t you see that that wouldn’t be the “right” thing to do?[/quote]

First, I don’t need maternity care, but even though it goes against the grain here I’ll choose not to semantically split hairs because I get your point.

I have no problems with a package with the above coverages. I think that the federal essential coverages are not ideal in any sense of the word, even though they aren’t much different from insurance received from large businesses where you choose package A or package B that have been tailored to cover as many needs of as many employees as possible.

I will however submit to the minor inconvenience of an “essential benefits” list if it passes a health bill that removes lifetime and annual coverage maxes, and prohibits canceling coverage of people who get critically ill. I’ve known people who declared bankruptcy because they blew through lifetime maxes in a year battling major illness, and have personally been told that I have passed my annual allotment of rehab for a torn shoulder and would have to start paying $100 for 15 minutes of electro-therapy and $40 for a bag of ice if I want to stay in the rehab system that allows me to have time off work to recoup. That’s what sits with me as not right.

[/quote]

um… so who pays for that? You are demanding that I pay for your shoulder? Because legally forcing insurance to is the same thing because my premium goes up too.[/quote]

So your dollar is more important than my health even though I pay my premiums without fail? You’re going to try to tell me that had I gone for 3 more months of therapy, your premium would have gone up more than if I had gone for the astronomically more expensive arhtroscopic surgery (followed by another 3 months of rehab, covered this time because my diagnosis is surgery rehab and not preventative rehab) That doesn’t add up and you know it.

178

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

…you know if I had a foot in the door with insurance I bet I could make a killing by selling the grand-daddy of all grandfathered minimum coverage policies, by passing out fliers at tea-party rallies for coverage with $5000 deductibles, zero preventative care, zero mental-health or behavioral care, zero maternity care. Good for nothing but cancer, heart attacks, and diabetes. I’d be rich.[/quote]

The right and the opportunity for you to do that has now been taken away.

BTW, what would be “wrong” about the availability of the health plan you mentioned above?

I don’t want or need anything less than a $5,000 deductible. I can pay for preventative care out of pocket. I may want a plan that excludes mental and behavioral care. I don’t need maternity care.

Why would you want to force me into a plan I don’t want and/or need? Why?

Oh wait, I get it. YOU DO need maternity care and you insist that I help you with it. At the risk of jail time and/or fines you will impose on me what you want from me.

Don’t you see that that wouldn’t be the “right” thing to do?[/quote]

First, I don’t need maternity care, but even though it goes against the grain here I’ll choose not to semantically split hairs because I get your point.

I have no problems with a package with the above coverages. I think that the federal essential coverages are not ideal in any sense of the word, even though they aren’t much different from insurance received from large businesses where you choose package A or package B that have been tailored to cover as many needs of as many employees as possible.

I will however submit to the minor inconvenience of an “essential benefits” list if it passes a health bill that removes lifetime and annual coverage maxes, and prohibits canceling coverage of people who get critically ill. I’ve known people who declared bankruptcy because they blew through lifetime maxes in a year battling major illness, and have personally been told that I have passed my annual allotment of rehab for a torn shoulder and would have to start paying $100 for 15 minutes of electro-therapy and $40 for a bag of ice if I want to stay in the rehab system that allows me to have time off work to recoup. That’s what sits with me as not right.

[/quote]

um… so who pays for that? You are demanding that I pay for your shoulder? Because legally forcing insurance to is the same thing because my premium goes up too.[/quote]

So your dollar is more important than my health even though I pay my premiums without fail? You’re going to try to tell me that had I gone for 3 more months of therapy, your premium would have gone up more than if I had gone for the astronomically more expensive arhtroscopic surgery (followed by another 3 months of rehab, covered this time because my diagnosis is surgery rehab and not preventative rehab) That doesn’t add up and you know it.
[/quote]

okay, so your right to shoulder therapy forgoes my right to property? If I refuse to pay are you going to pull a gun on me?

179

[quote]malonetd wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:
…the federal essential coverages are not ideal in any sense of the word, even though they aren’t much different from insurance received from large businesses where you choose package A or package B that have been tailored to cover as many needs of as many employees as possible.
[/quote]

Then perhaps reform should have been aimed at separating health coverage from employee benefit packages.

This alone would have solved more problems than this ridiculous bill. One of the most important things it would do is eliminate the connection between losing/changing jobs and losing health coverage.
[/quote]

I agree with this 100%, but the realities of our political system make sure this would never happen. Either party is going to always go for all the marbles when they are in control of congress. I guarantee a republican congress would not have made this sort of reform a priority, and we’ve seen how a democratic congress wanted to handle it