So what will you believe then? Only youtube videos? You really think the limits on health care coverage is 5k per individual and 10k per family?
Last edited:
Help Stop Obamacare
- Thread starter swampwater
- Start date
So what will you believe then? Only youtube videos? You really think the limits on health care coverage is 5k per individual and 10k per family?
Well the all knowing local clown has suddenly become the expert on my life and values. You have documentation on what you claim? It should not surprise you to learn that I have never been on or used medicaid nor have I ever utililzed medicare, even though I am required to pay into it monthly. As for SS do you think I should simply refuse to accept the monies I am owed from the payments I was forced to contribute over my lifespan? And I would not think you would think it interesting when in previous threads I have pointed out that my reasoning is simple, I am working hard, as I have allways done, to do my best to leave a country at least as good as the one left to me for my grandchildren, something that has become very difficult with the
proliferation of americans who seeminly do not know history or refuse to believe it or understand it.
As for your questioning of varacity of youtube yet you quote CBS??
Also the child precondition does not take effect till 2014 so I guess they are not very knowledgable in their analysis.
Lets look at the bill from the republicans analysis:
H.R. 3590, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, was read twice and placed
on the Calendar on October 13, 2009. On November 21, Majority Leader Reid offered a
complete substitute amendment to the bill, containing the text of the Quality, Affordable Health
Care for All Americans Act.
Noteworthy
• H.R. 3590 is intended to expand access to health insurance, reform the health insurance market
to provide additional consumer protections, and improve the health care delivery system to
reduce costs and produce better outcomes.
• While the bill would expand insurance coverage to 94 percent of the legal population (24
million Americans would still be without coverage) and could improve the functioning of the
individual and small group insurance markets, many experts question whether it will
effectively control costs or reform the health-care delivery system.
• The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the coverage provisions in the bill will
cost $848 billion over 10 years (fiscal years 2010-2019). However, the major provisions in the
bill would not take effect until January 1, 2014, meaning the bill uses 10 years of revenue to
pay for six years of coverage. Republican staff on the Senate Budget Committee estimates that
the total spending in the bill over 10 years of full implementation (FYs 2014-2023) would
exceed $2.5 trillion.
• To pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, the bill increases taxes by $493.6 billion, and
reduces Medicare spending by $464.6 billion. Specifically, the bill would cut $134.9 billion
from hospitals, $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA), $14.6 billion from nursing
homes, $42.1 billion from home health agencies, and $7.7 billion from hospices.
• Among the more prominent taxes, the bill includes a new 40 percent excise tax on health
insurance plans that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, raising $149.1
billion over 10 years; a new Medicare payroll tax on higher-income individuals that raises
$53.8 billion; a $60.4 billion tax on health insurers; a $22.2 billion tax on drug manufacturers;
and a $19.3 billion tax on medical device manufacturers.
• H.R. 3590 mandates that all lawful residents purchase qualified insurance coverage or pay a
penalty. The penalty for not having qualified health insurance would be $750, phased in over
three years beginning in 2014.
• The bill would provide tax credits for individuals between 133 and 400 percent of the federal
poverty level (FPL)—$29,330 to $88,000 for a family of four—to help them purchase
2
insurance coverage. Credits would be available on a sliding scale based on income.
• A government-run plan (or “public option”) would be available through the exchange unless a
state passes a law opting out of the government plan.
• The bill would create a tax on employers with more than 50 full time workers if their
employees receive a subsidy through the exchange. This so-called “free rider” mandate would
increase taxes on employers by $28 billion.
• Medicaid would be expanded to cover all individuals up to 133 percent of the FPL, which
would increase the number of individuals covered under the program by more than 40 percent.
I just figured you were an old man that is on government systems and saying how bad they are...
Nope, it is 2014 for ALL people, the child precondition takes effect immediately.
Christian Science Monitor
The rest of the stuff you said I agree with for the most part, except the following..
I don't think there is a "public option". There are different plans that will be available on the exchange, 4 of them to be precise.
This cost will and should be passed on directly to the employee.
A lot of this stuff is to get as many people into the system as possible? Why? Because the risk depends upon the portfolio of people in the pool. If you can increase the pool size then it is possible to decrease the risk. In health care risk = money.
I think this is the one statement if someone ever said to my face WOULD make me go postal and cause me to spend the rest of my life in prison. The people that spout off this medical malpractice crap HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
Proving Medical Malpractice in the court of law IS BY FAR the MOST DIFFICULT thing to prove in the court of law. IF you don't believe me, go talk to the lawyers that HANDLE medical malpractice cases. Talk to patients who have had cases dimissed AFTER Doctors have left foreign objects in the bodies of patients DURING surgery.
FACT...only 1% of medical malpractice claims are successful. Doctors are already so far above the law, if you take away the tiny bit of responsibility they have now, then what would protect patients from getting decent healthcare?
PLEASE ANSWER THIS!!!
I'm sorry right wingers but... when you use this argument, you look like idiots. You're simply repeating what the right has told you. You have many good arguments (both sides doo) but if you want to help your cause, please leave this one out because it is simply...NOT TRUE!!!
I'm for health care reform, I don't really like the bulk of this bill but (very anti small business in my opinion), the right wing is going to have to step up and address the problems of our system and so far, is unwilling to admit that there is even a problem with it. I haven't heard or seen ONE single idea or proposal from the right on how to fix this mess!!
When profits and quality care are replaced by GREED and the main goal by insurance companies, pharmacutical companies, and Hospitals is GREED and not having any regulation to stop them, then you have what's wrong with this system and the reason for the costs getting out of control.
Why are we number one in the world at Cancer treatment but 39th overall in TOTAL overall healthcare? This embarrases me as an American.
Go ask any Canadaian/Britian Republican what they think about their health care system.
Like it or not, the right wing is getting paid back ten fold for GW's 8 years.
Regards,
Former Right Winger
Ruffy....health insurance and a persons health and fitness are two different things....but one leads to the other. Yeah, people don't eat right or exercise, their kids are fat and they wait untill they have a life or death moment to change their lifestyle.
Dave....what can I say...seems like the Dems are using the "32 million uninsured" to pull the wool over a lot of your like minded eyes which makes you look like an idiot....the difference is malpractice is a problem...fact. Just one of many.
Thirty two million is just a flat out lie when the numbers are broken down demographically....hmmm
But you said it...you don't like the bill as a whole but do like some parts....
Why like it at all then? Have you sold out because of one or two provisions like so many politicians....?
Something this big needs to be done right and not just done.
On Republican proposals....how about the Bennett/Wyden proposal which would have gotten 70 votes in the senate and would have been 1/19 the size of the current bill? Never even got a hearing...
Where's Olympia Snowe now....the prez used her for photo op and non of her proposals/ideas got a hearing just like the Bennett/Wyden proposal didn't get a hearing. Blame Pelosi and Biden for that.....alright...and Obama.
How will the new health-reform law affect your taxes? Here are 10 provisions that could affect you, with some kicking in sooner rather than later.
1. A 10% tax on the use of indoor tanning beds will take effect for services on or after July 1. Why?....oh yeah...tax on small buisness which will get passed on to the consumer.
2. Later this year, people with flexible spending accounts will see a slight change: No more using those pretax dollars to buy over-the-counter medications.
3. The bigger change to FSAs comes in 2013, when the amount you can sock away for health expenses will be capped at $2,500 a year. I've got kids so my families medical usually runs close to the 7.5% of AGI so in reality I will be paying out 4k with no tax break. Many people lowball the amount they set aside anyway because they’re afraid of forfeiting money with the use-it-or-lose-it nature of these accounts, but others who use their FSAs to get a break on expenses for chronic illnesses may have to change their financial planning accordingly.
4. Starting next year, the penalty for using a health savings account for nonqualified medical expenses rises to 20% — double what is now. Penalty....tax....it's the same thing...and who decides what's "non qualifing"..the government panel?
5. Starting in 2013, people with income above $200,000 for singles or $250,000 for married couples will see their Medicare payroll taxes rise nearly 1 percentage point to 2.35%. Not a huge expense, it's just a rise in a tax. I guess I'll stop aspiring to make half a mill a year...wait, looking at the huge rise in the govt. premium if you make more than 88k for family....I guess I'll go in to work tomorrow and ask for a pay cut.
6. A new Medicare tax of 3.8% will be levied on high earners’ investment income including interest, dividends and capital gains that exceed those two $200,000-plus thresholds. If your savvy with investing....you get taxed again.
7. Also in 2013, if you itemize on your income taxes, the amount you’ll need to claim a deduction for medical expenses will rise to 10% of adjusted gross income from today’s 7.5%. But people age 65 and older won’t face the 10% threshold until 2017. I'm screwed (middle class). No more write off for me. I'd have to ask the family to take one for the team to get to the 10%...I'd have to break more bones.....
8. Starting in 2014, for the first time most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, with government subsidies if they can’t afford it, or face a fine. The fines for noncompliance are set to rise annually, beginning with $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater, and growing to as much as $695 or 2.5% of taxable income by 2016. Hmmmm....pay over 8k per year for health insurance or pay a "whopping" fine of up to 695. They can't deny me so I guess I'll purchase when I need it. Lot's of savvy people are going to figure this one out which will result in a short fall of funds for the govt. program.
Remember...the CBO's recommendation is based on all these numbers being met and the govt. following through on all of the proposed tax breaks, increases, shifting of money here to there and so forth...the CBO has also said it will fail and turn into a huge deficit for America because it cannot sustain itself...6 dollars spent for every 1 dollar that comes in if premiums are paid...
9. Looking further out, an excise tax of 40% on high-cost health insurance begins in 2018. It will apply to the amount of annual premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families, but the thresholds are higher for early retirees and workers in certain high-risk jobs. The tax is supposed to hit insurers or plan administrators, who may or may not pass it on to workers.
Care to guess who will eat this one??? Another tax....
10. There’s good news for small businesses. Those with up to 25 employees will be eligible for new tax credits starting later this year to help them provide coverage for their workers. The tax credits would cover up to 35% of the cost of health-insurance premiums. About 4 million small businesses are expected to qualify. We'll see how this one plays out. That's a bunch of money the govt. stands to lose...or needs to borrow from some where to pay for the tax credit so some program will need to cough it up.
11. If this bill is so great....why did the politico's manage to exclude themselves from it???? Answer me that one.....
Dave....what can I say...seems like the Dems are using the "32 million uninsured" to pull the wool over a lot of your like minded eyes which makes you look like an idiot....the difference is malpractice is a problem...fact. Just one of many.
Thirty two million is just a flat out lie when the numbers are broken down demographically....hmmm
But you said it...you don't like the bill as a whole but do like some parts....
Why like it at all then? Have you sold out because of one or two provisions like so many politicians....?
Something this big needs to be done right and not just done.
On Republican proposals....how about the Bennett/Wyden proposal which would have gotten 70 votes in the senate and would have been 1/19 the size of the current bill? Never even got a hearing...
Where's Olympia Snowe now....the prez used her for photo op and non of her proposals/ideas got a hearing just like the Bennett/Wyden proposal didn't get a hearing. Blame Pelosi and Biden for that.....alright...and Obama.
How will the new health-reform law affect your taxes? Here are 10 provisions that could affect you, with some kicking in sooner rather than later.
1. A 10% tax on the use of indoor tanning beds will take effect for services on or after July 1. Why?....oh yeah...tax on small buisness which will get passed on to the consumer.
2. Later this year, people with flexible spending accounts will see a slight change: No more using those pretax dollars to buy over-the-counter medications.
3. The bigger change to FSAs comes in 2013, when the amount you can sock away for health expenses will be capped at $2,500 a year. I've got kids so my families medical usually runs close to the 7.5% of AGI so in reality I will be paying out 4k with no tax break. Many people lowball the amount they set aside anyway because they’re afraid of forfeiting money with the use-it-or-lose-it nature of these accounts, but others who use their FSAs to get a break on expenses for chronic illnesses may have to change their financial planning accordingly.
4. Starting next year, the penalty for using a health savings account for nonqualified medical expenses rises to 20% — double what is now. Penalty....tax....it's the same thing...and who decides what's "non qualifing"..the government panel?
5. Starting in 2013, people with income above $200,000 for singles or $250,000 for married couples will see their Medicare payroll taxes rise nearly 1 percentage point to 2.35%. Not a huge expense, it's just a rise in a tax. I guess I'll stop aspiring to make half a mill a year...wait, looking at the huge rise in the govt. premium if you make more than 88k for family....I guess I'll go in to work tomorrow and ask for a pay cut.
6. A new Medicare tax of 3.8% will be levied on high earners’ investment income including interest, dividends and capital gains that exceed those two $200,000-plus thresholds. If your savvy with investing....you get taxed again.
7. Also in 2013, if you itemize on your income taxes, the amount you’ll need to claim a deduction for medical expenses will rise to 10% of adjusted gross income from today’s 7.5%. But people age 65 and older won’t face the 10% threshold until 2017. I'm screwed (middle class). No more write off for me. I'd have to ask the family to take one for the team to get to the 10%...I'd have to break more bones.....
8. Starting in 2014, for the first time most Americans will be required to carry health insurance, with government subsidies if they can’t afford it, or face a fine. The fines for noncompliance are set to rise annually, beginning with $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater, and growing to as much as $695 or 2.5% of taxable income by 2016. Hmmmm....pay over 8k per year for health insurance or pay a "whopping" fine of up to 695. They can't deny me so I guess I'll purchase when I need it. Lot's of savvy people are going to figure this one out which will result in a short fall of funds for the govt. program.
Remember...the CBO's recommendation is based on all these numbers being met and the govt. following through on all of the proposed tax breaks, increases, shifting of money here to there and so forth...the CBO has also said it will fail and turn into a huge deficit for America because it cannot sustain itself...6 dollars spent for every 1 dollar that comes in if premiums are paid...
9. Looking further out, an excise tax of 40% on high-cost health insurance begins in 2018. It will apply to the amount of annual premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families, but the thresholds are higher for early retirees and workers in certain high-risk jobs. The tax is supposed to hit insurers or plan administrators, who may or may not pass it on to workers.
Care to guess who will eat this one??? Another tax....
10. There’s good news for small businesses. Those with up to 25 employees will be eligible for new tax credits starting later this year to help them provide coverage for their workers. The tax credits would cover up to 35% of the cost of health-insurance premiums. About 4 million small businesses are expected to qualify. We'll see how this one plays out. That's a bunch of money the govt. stands to lose...or needs to borrow from some where to pay for the tax credit so some program will need to cough it up.
11. If this bill is so great....why did the politico's manage to exclude themselves from it???? Answer me that one.....
Last edited:
I'll start calling all the under 50 women in Britian who have breast cancer because their govt. health care program won't pay for mammograms till they turn 50...Britian has a 88% breast cancer rate...
And I'll try to catch the Candian PM next time he fly's to Florida for medical care and ask him.
What about all the rich people that go to Europe for advanced care?
88% rate? Dude, where do you get your info?
Check this link out... looks like the US and Britain are pretty close / even.
Studies have shown that if you do not have a family history and you are of average risk to getting breast cancer, that early mammograms do NOTHING to reduce the breast cancer mortality rate among women. There was a study that was done here that stated something similar.
Don't let the numbers get in the way of proving your point though...
lol
What is this in rebuttal to? Yah, that is the MAJOR problem in this country. Health insurance doesn't have much to do with the health of the person that is insured. I wonder why that is?
Maybe because under the current scheme, healthy people don't make as much money for the system as unhealthy people?
My bad...should have said 88% mortality rate for women under 50.
Got it from the newspaper, where else...
This from the American Cancer Society....
Current evidence supporting mammograms is even stronger than in the past. In particular, recent evidence has confirmed that mammograms offer substantial benefit for women in their 40s...
That number still makes no sense. The mortality rate for breast cancer is around 20 - 25 for BOTH US and Britain.
hmm... here one of the guys from ACS is saying different?
ACS and mammograms..
Note that mammography IS important for those that are in high risk groups. But it is not as important for EVERYONE.
The important point is this...
This has been proven for Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screenings as well.
That is what the statistics and the analysis show anyways..
One thing that I look forward to upcoming changes in health care are recommendations for care based on ACTUAL STATISTICAL RESULTS. IMO, it is something that has been severally lacking in the medical industry.
We could do this all night long...play stat and word semantics, who spins what which way....I don't like the bill...it's to big, we need jobs. I see more money leaving my pocket for it.
No one answered me why your politicians conveniently excluded themselves from it...yet.
"American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent of women in Europe.
"For American men, the numbers are even more dramatic. Sixty-six percent of American men live five years past a diagnosis of cancer, but only 47 percent of European men do. Of cancers that affect only women, the survival rate for uterine cancer is 5 percentage points higher in the U.S. than the European average, and 14 percent higher for breast cancer. Among cancers that affect only or primarily men, survival rates for prostate cancer are 28 percent higher in the U.S., and for bladder cancer, 15 percent higher.
The British Health Service keeps costs down by rationing care through long waiting lists for service. The Manhattan Institute’s Dr. David Gratzer reports that an estimated 20 percent of British lung cancer patients considered curable when they were first placed on the waiting list for chemotherapy or radiation were incurable by the time they obtained treatment.
No one answered me why your politicians conveniently excluded themselves from it...yet.
"American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent of women in Europe.
"For American men, the numbers are even more dramatic. Sixty-six percent of American men live five years past a diagnosis of cancer, but only 47 percent of European men do. Of cancers that affect only women, the survival rate for uterine cancer is 5 percentage points higher in the U.S. than the European average, and 14 percent higher for breast cancer. Among cancers that affect only or primarily men, survival rates for prostate cancer are 28 percent higher in the U.S., and for bladder cancer, 15 percent higher.
The British Health Service keeps costs down by rationing care through long waiting lists for service. The Manhattan Institute’s Dr. David Gratzer reports that an estimated 20 percent of British lung cancer patients considered curable when they were first placed on the waiting list for chemotherapy or radiation were incurable by the time they obtained treatment.
It isn't stat and word semantics, it is trying to understand how the numbers are calculated, the definitions used in the calculations, and what the formula were used to determine the conclusion.
Word semantics. No, just sometimes people are a little loose with their terminology. Again, the point of interest is ONLY MORTALITY RATES. What is the point of treating someone for cancer if they are going to die? Is there one? I think I would rather be able to enjoy my limited time rather then spend a couple of extra months in a hospital bed feeling like I am already dead..
Defy's so why are you changing what you are talking about? These aren't mortality rates, these are rates after a specific amount of time after diagnosis. Again, as stated before, the end result (the mortality rate) doesn't change even though you are able to catch the disease earlier. That is supported by your data posted above as if you catch the disease sooner, you will have more time compared to if you catch the disease later, or not at all. Note that this statement also works for a person dieing of a cancer at the same point in time in all examples. Again, the point is that you don't change the fact that the person is going to die due to early screening. I guess you just know that they might die sooner... as well as have a very large population be susceptible to getting procedures and tests in hospitals that don't need them, as wall as increase their probability of becoming ill.
As to congress not on the "plan" aren't they covered currently by their employer. Don't they already have a plan? The exchanges are meant for those that don't have company access to a plan, or who do not meet the requirements for Medicaid. I don't know what plan you are expecting them to be on if they are already covered.
Your money was going to be leaving your pocket regardless of this bill. Especially if the health care costs continue to rise at the rates they have for the last couple of years.
Last edited:
And yet here in the US 45 thousand people a year die because they don't have health insurance.. The GREAT USA....
harvard study
I wonder how big of a group is that 20% of lung cancer patients is, and how man y people out of the 45 thousand have lung cancer? That would be an interesting comparison would it not?
The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure.
She expressed concern about some lawmakers’ willingness to adopt a plan that could expand coverage to only a portion of the nearly 50 million people who are without health insurance. As a proponent for a single-payer system — something like Medicare for all — she said she was also disappointed in the current proposals before Congress.
Yeah...a couple of interesting things there but I thought it was only 32 million...?
So the government created this bill to cover those 45,000 people who may die because they don't have insurance...?
Kind of like your view of my earlier post on cancer.....spend money on early detection and live another 5 years with chemo...gonna die anyway right?
She expressed concern about some lawmakers’ willingness to adopt a plan that could expand coverage to only a portion of the nearly 50 million people who are without health insurance. As a proponent for a single-payer system — something like Medicare for all — she said she was also disappointed in the current proposals before Congress.
Yeah...a couple of interesting things there but I thought it was only 32 million...?
So the government created this bill to cover those 45,000 people who may die because they don't have insurance...?
Kind of like your view of my earlier post on cancer.....spend money on early detection and live another 5 years with chemo...gonna die anyway right?
Last edited:
This was the important part....since everyone is claiming how great the Can/Brit programs are...
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010...orm-is-in-healthcare-bill/UPI-38211269267907/
And they slipped this into your health care bill....why? It has nothing to do with healthcare and everything about using reconciliation because it wouldn't get the votes otherwise. This will eliminate jobs in the private sector...
And they slipped this into your health care bill....why? It has nothing to do with healthcare and everything about using reconciliation because it wouldn't get the votes otherwise. This will eliminate jobs in the private sector...
Last edited:
It is called compromise and that is the way democratic systems work. It isn't selling out.
I love the way you step into it ruffy and then complain when you are challenged.
You intimate I am a old goat living in a care center under state medicaid and get upset when I simply call you a clown, especially when you claim to be a part time comedian. Typical liberal tactic, love to dish it out but can't take a challenge. wish I had more time but some of us have to work when at work. Swampy
I find it interesting coming from someone on social security, medicare, medicaid...
I just figured you were an old man that is on government systems and saying how bad they are...
You intimate I am a old goat living in a care center under state medicaid and get upset when I simply call you a clown, especially when you claim to be a part time comedian. Typical liberal tactic, love to dish it out but can't take a challenge. wish I had more time but some of us have to work when at work. Swampy
I find it interesting coming from someone on social security, medicare, medicaid...
I just figured you were an old man that is on government systems and saying how bad they are...
