LGP Politcal Discussion Thread

[PensFanInDC]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

Click there to take you to the text of the new healthcare bill. If anyone wants to debate about it, please read the bill first so everyone can make an educated statement.

Also, if anyone speaks Politician, please let me know. It seems like a foreign language to me.

I have not read it myself yet but I will make an attempt this week to read and understand it.


EDIT:
I've changed the title to fit the discussion

[pittsoccer33]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

Click there to take you to the text of the new healthcare bill. If anyone wants to debate about it, please read the bill first so everyone can make an educated statement.

Tell Obama, Waxman, and Pelosi that. They haven't read the bill and have admitted as much. But for them it isnt about healthcare anyway so they don't care. It is about providing the means to regulate and control every aspect of your life.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says this will not reduce any spending, it will only increase it. The government is not worried about profit, corporations are. Obama said in his teleprompter conference last week that they will seek to reign in the profits insurance companies make. Well if they can't make profits they won't stay in business, forcing Americans onto the government option. Also a lot of businesses are ready to terminate their healthcare plans (especially if they have to start paying FICA tax on their value). This too would force Americans onto government healthcare.

Of this 46,000,000 uninsured americans (probably an arbitrary number) I'd like to know how many of those are 1) illegal immigrants, 2) young people in good health who do not see the need for health insurance, and 3) people who qualify for medicaid that are too lazy or stupid to get on it.

People talk about how government employees get such great healthcare, but they are able to choose from a list of corporate insurance companies. Do you think Ted Kennedy would be getting treatment for his brain tumor without a private health plan and his personal wealth? Obama said as much in a town hall meeting (paraphrasing): "well when we get people at the end of their life it could just be better for them to take a pain pill than to spend money treating them when they will die soon anyway." I can see Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro being asked that but not the American president.

Healthcare is not a right. Rights are unalienable and from our creator. If the government can take it away it is not a right.

Under the plan the government will FINE american citizens $2,500 a year if they do not buy Obamacare or another alternative. What kind of free republic would allow that????

[KG]

It's not going to pass without Republican support, which it will not get...

It's the same liberal propaganda we've been hearing about for years...universal health care...not going to happen...Isn't this country already broke??

There's not enough "rich" people to tax to pay for this...

[TheHammer24]

They haven't read the bill and have admitted as much. But for them it isnt about healthcare anyway so they don't care. It is about providing the means to regulate and control every aspect of your life.

This.

I don't understand how people believe it is fair to "tax" the "rich" because they have it. The rich are not by definition greedy, evil, or in anyway deserving of such disparate treatment. They have worked hard for their money and have earned it by providing goods and services, excellent goods and services, that we all want.

Furthermore, since when did we forfeit our right to free enterprise? When did corporations that established great successful companies, forfeit their right to earn a profit? Since when has the government ever run anything at all that was successful enough that we should desire they provide us with services in place of the private sector?

[pittsoccer33]

They haven't read the bill and have admitted as much. But for them it isnt about healthcare anyway so they don't care. It is about providing the means to regulate and control every aspect of your life.

This.

I don't understand how people believe it is fair to "tax" the "rich" because they have it. The rich are not by definition greedy, evil, or in anyway deserving of such disparate treatment. They have worked hard for their money and have earned it by providing goods and services, excellent goods and services, that we all want.

Furthermore, since when did we forfeit our right to free enterprise? When did corporations that established great successful companies, forfeit their right to earn a profit? Since when has the government ever run anything at all that was successful enough that we should desire they provide us with services in place of the private sector?

Everything Obama is trying to push is about reorganizing american society to fit his socialist world view. Soak the rich, attack the corporations, give the wealth back to it's rightful owners etc. He learned that from people like Frank Marshal Davis, the Reverend Wright, and Cornel West.

[mac5155]

ill read it. hopefully it doesnt pass between now and next december when im done.

[pittsoccer33]

ill read it. hopefully it doesnt pass between now and next december when im done.

thats the whole point of trying to vote on it ASAP. they don't want you to read it. if you find out whats in it you'll go nuts. representitives that have held town hall meetings have been met with laughter and hostility towards it, and the democrats don't want them going back to their districts over the recess and having more of that happen.

none of it is designed to work. and when it doesn't work, the democrats will simply say "we haven't spent enough yet, we need to ramp this up and spend more on it." The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest. their plans arent designed to get results. they are designed to create a dependant class of perpetual democrat voters.

[DelPen]

I like how they are spinning this now as a cost savings bill, not a bill to get people health care kind of like cap-and-trade was spun as a jobs bill and not an environmental bill when it failed to garner support.

I actually found myself agreeing with Dennis Kucinich that this bill doesn't go far enough. Something like $80 billion of insurance premiums don't go towards health care. If you really want to reform this thing then do real reform. All this bill is doing is change who is managing the current system.

[MWB]

The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest

Like California, South Carolina, and Rhode Island?

[Hockeynut!]

I don't think Obama's plan, under it's current terms, is perfect, or even that it should pass. But anyone who thinks the current system is good or even satisfactory really hasn't done much research.

A lot of people are saying how Obama's plan will hurt businesses. Well, talk to some small businesses which provide health care for their employees not and see what they think of the "system". The company where my dad worked laid off 70% of its workforce in December because they couldn't afford to keep paying insurance on the employees. It's a small company, around 20 employees at the time and most of the workers were 40+. The owner said he was paying over $1000 a month per employee for a family plan. So, he laid off 13 guys and made 2 others part time, dropping their insurance. Now the remaining workers work lots of overtime to meet demand, but it's a lot cheaper for the company than paying the insurance on the other 13 workers.

A "dirty little secret" in business is that having too many older workers or unhealthy workers increases your health care premiums. My dad tried to get a job at a very well known nationwide company after he was laid off. He passed the initial test with flying colors, they loved him in his interview and he received a letter saying he would get the job as long as he passed his physical. Well, he took the physical (which involved walking on a stairmaster for 5 minutes) and his heart rate went 10% over what the insurance company had deemed "optimal fitness" so he wasn't hired. He's 61 years old, but runs 5Ks, eats fairly healthy, doesn't drink or smoke, etc. but the company wouldn't hire him because he didn't meet the fitness requirement they have in place due to their insurer.

The system is broken. All most people care about is defeating Obama/the Dems. I wish someone would care about trying to fix it.

Here's a good article from the Wash Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03662.html

[pittsoccer33]

Here's a good article from the Wash Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03662.html

A lot of that article is about how a government option will bring competition. How can you compete with somone who has no need to control costs or turn a profit?

A much better way to create competition is to allow insurance companies from different states to provide options across state borders.

[DelPen]

Fast forward to 2:15

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill'. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

And he's trying to argue in favor of a quick passage. How are these idiots continually elected, in Conyers case, for 49 years?

[Hockeynut!]

The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest. their plans arent designed to get results. they are designed to create a dependant class of perpetual democrat voters.

So the democrats want to fail so that people will keep voting for them?

As for your thing about the worst states are the ones with all of the Dems theory, let's examine that. Top 15 states (highest unemployment is listed last) for unemployment and their trends (I'll use the Pres election from 2004 as so few states voted R in 2008 that it doesn't give a good representation to the states' voting history).

ALABAMA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1993-1995, R Gov from 1995-1999, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
GEORGIA - voted R in 2004 D Gov from 1872-2003 (that's NOT a typo - wow!), R gov from 2003-present
ILLINOIS - voted D in 2004 - R Gov from 1977-2003, D Gov from 2003-present
FLORIDA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1991-199, R Gov from 1999-present
INDIANA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1989-2005, R Gov from 2005-present
TENNESSEE - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1987-1995, R Gov from 1995-2003, D Gov from 2003-present
KENTUCKY - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1971-2003, R Gov from 2003-2007, D Gov from 2007-present
NORTH CAROLINA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1993-present
OHIO - voted R in 2004, R Gov from 1991-2007, D Gov from 2007-present
CALIFORNIA - voted D in 2004, R Gov from 1983-1999, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
NEVADA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1989-1999, R Gov from 199-present
SOUTH CAROLINA - voted R in 2004, R Gov from 1987-1995, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
OREGON - voted D in 2004 - D Gov from 1987-present
RHODE ISLAND - voted D in 2004 - D Gov from 1991-1995, R Gov 1995-present
MICHIGAN - voted D in 2004, R Gov from 1991-2003, D Gov from 2003-present

[pittsoccer33]

The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest

Like California, South Carolina, and Rhode Island?

I was thinking specifically of Michigan, California, and Oregon but you can look at many others. Look which party controls their legislature. Those are the ones taxing businesses away, and too many Republicans across the country have been way too involved with earmarks over the last decade.

[Hockeynut!]

The states you're pointing to are the ones which relied extremely heavily on manufacturing. The manufacturing industry is dying in America. That doesn't have anything to do with the legislatures. And unemployment is only part of a states "health". Look at the top 15 "richest" states and see which ones trend blue. The truth is that if the US split into 2 countries, one that traditionally vote blue and one that would traditionally vote red, you can see the split and see where the money is. Without the "rich" of the blue states, what position would the red states really be in?

Richest states by average income (figures from 2007, I couldn't find anything more recent).

15. Michigan
14. Alaska
13. California
12. Washington
11. Illinois
10. Minnesota
9. Delaware
8. New York
7. New Hampshire
6. Virginia
5. Colorado
4. Maryland
3. Massachusetts
2. New Jersey
1. Connecticut

[PensFanInDC]

From a friend of mine.

Since the news media seems to be focusing almost entirely on the political fight rather than covering the actual proposal, I've been pretty much in the dark about the specifics of the health care bill. Since I have to have an opinion about everything, I decided to read the bill and provide a summary. I'm not a health care wonk by any stretch of the imagination, so some of the medical talk was above me, but I do basically know how to read a bill.

Long story short:

1. If you have existing insurance coverage and are happy with it, you can keep it (provided your employer keeps offering it, if you get it through work).

2. If not, or if your employer would rather provide service via the new system, then here is how it works:

2A: There's a list of qualifying insurance companies/plans. Basically, any existing insurance company can get on the list as long as they meet the standards. However, there is ALSO an optional government-run program on the list that you can choose if you want.

2B: You pick whichever plan you want from the list. Every type of plan (from basic to super duper extra special premium) is available depending on what company/plan you select.

2C: You pay into the system just like you do now.

2D: If you can't afford it, then the government provides credits so you can select a plan from the list. You can still choose whatever listed plan you want, but if you choose one that costs more than the credits you get, you have to cover the difference on your own.

3. Any person or company who chooses not to have qualifying insurance at all (whether via the list or not via the list) gets taxed at a higher rate. The proceeds from that tax go to pay for the low-income credits.

... It seems like a pretty fair bill to me. If I were a Congressman I'd have questions about the long-term viability of funding and how the government-run option would compete with the private options, but overall I'd be on board with the general concept.

One thing does seem perfectly clear: Those who complain that the government is trying to socialize health care and take away your options are dead wrong. This is NOT the communist-style wait-in-long-lines-to-get-crappy-service proposal that some of the media sound bites would have us believe. The bill intends to provide more choice, not less. It may be true that the bill has some wrinkles that need to be smoothed out, but that's an entirely different story than "socialized medicine will be the end of civilization".

My response to this was:
I like what I read here but there is a reason that it is 1000 pages long and even a lot of Dems don't want it passed before they can read and understand the WHOLE thing. I just don't see this plan working after a few years, maybe 5-10 if we are lucky before it turns sour. I really hope I'm wrong but there is a reason that most Canadians come to the... Read More US for health care.

Who knows? I work for a small business that is no longer going to offer health benefits if this passes. My only options will be to go independent or take what the govt is offering.

What I see happening is independent insurers (sp?) will have to jack prices to make ends meet when people make their way to the govt option thus more companies will no longer carry independent insurance leading to less options. I see this snowballing into govt healthcare or bust at some point. Again, I hope I am wrong and who really knows right?

[tluke53]

The fact that they are rushing this or any law is the only thing you need know.

[Guinness]

ALABAMA - R D R D R
GEORGIA - R D R
ILLINOIS - D R D
FLORIDA - R D R
INDIANA - R D R
TENNESSEE - R D R D
KENTUCKY - R D R D
NORTH CAROLINA - R D
OHIO - R R D
CALIFORNIA - D R D R
NEVADA - D R
SOUTH CAROLINA - R R D R
OREGON - D D
RHODE ISLAND - D D R
MICHIGAN - D R D

By golly, I think you've DiscoveRed the problem!!!

[HomerPenguin]

The fact that they are rushing this or any law is the only thing you need know.

People have been talking about reforming health care in this country since Truman was president. Whatever else you want to call this process, "rushed" is probably not accurate.

[Hockeynut!]

By golly, I think you've DiscoveRed the problem!!!

[TheHammer24]

I don't think the Democrats necessarily want it to fail, I just think they have no problem continuing to grow a program that is failing. In other words, it isn't working, more money more regulations, it isn't working, more money more regulations.

It doesn't make that much sense to continue to push insurance through employment channels. The tax break that makes this a economically rational decision for businesses needs to be eliminated so that one is not punished for wanting to buy their own insurance and taking the salary from their employer instead (and I know HSAs do this, but talk about making something convoluted).

However the major problems with healtcare right now are:

Pooling
-It is difficult to find pooling where adverse selection does not occur. As a result, either insurance companies end up getting people that are unprofitable because they are the ones that need the most insurance. Or companies refuse to insure people because they are "uninsurable"

Price Competition/Shopping around
-When you want to buy a new house, you shop around. You don't buy the nicest oven, dishwasher, couch etc because you have a cost constraint. Well, it doesn't matter with health insurance. You can buy whatever you want because you only have a $10 co-pay. So there is little incentive to make implicit the prices of services. To curb this, the insurance industry wisely came up with low cost ideas like HMOs, out of network doctors, and requirements to get a referral before one could see a specialist. Suddenly, this was unacceptable insurance. People want their cake and they want to eat it too. They don't want insurance they want insulation. They want to be covered for every little thing that could go wrong with them. When you get a knick in your car, you have to pay to cover the whole thing. Only huge costs are turned into insurance. Why should health insurance be any different?

[Easton]

When the government introduces something that actually works and is for the greater good of the people, I'll show some hope for it. But that won't happen until the failed two-party system and their dogmas are eliminated. But as it is, members of government are selfish, greedy and have not one innovative bone in their body whatsoever. Whatever they plan to 'reform' is doomed for failure until they themselves undergo reform.

Those who know little about improvement cannot hope to revise anything and be successful.

[Geezer]

The states and cities with the highest unemployment are the ones that have been under democrat control the longest. their plans arent designed to get results. they are designed to create a dependant class of perpetual democrat voters.

So the democrats want to fail so that people will keep voting for them?

As for your thing about the worst states are the ones with all of the Dems theory, let's examine that. Top 15 states (highest unemployment is listed last) for unemployment and their trends (I'll use the Pres election from 2004 as so few states voted R in 2008 that it doesn't give a good representation to the states' voting history).

ALABAMA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1993-1995, R Gov from 1995-1999, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
GEORGIA - voted R in 2004 D Gov from 1872-2003 (that's NOT a typo - wow!), R gov from 2003-present
ILLINOIS - voted D in 2004 - R Gov from 1977-2003, D Gov from 2003-present
FLORIDA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1991-199, R Gov from 1999-present
INDIANA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1989-2005, R Gov from 2005-present
TENNESSEE - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1987-1995, R Gov from 1995-2003, D Gov from 2003-present
KENTUCKY - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1971-2003, R Gov from 2003-2007, D Gov from 2007-present
NORTH CAROLINA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1993-present
OHIO - voted R in 2004, R Gov from 1991-2007, D Gov from 2007-present
CALIFORNIA - voted D in 2004, R Gov from 1983-1999, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
NEVADA - voted R in 2004, D Gov from 1989-1999, R Gov from 199-present
SOUTH CAROLINA - voted R in 2004, R Gov from 1987-1995, D Gov from 1999-2003, R Gov from 2003-present
OREGON - voted D in 2004 - D Gov from 1987-present
RHODE ISLAND - voted D in 2004 - D Gov from 1991-1995, R Gov 1995-present
MICHIGAN - voted D in 2004, R Gov from 1991-2003, D Gov from 2003-present

Let's try this comparison. The 3 states with the highest deficits also were the top 3 in state income taxes, sales tax and property taxes. I don't remember the order but it was Calif, NY, and New Jersey which are all strong holds for the Democratic party. You can pretend Arnold is a Republican if you like but that's a Democrat state without a doubt.

[Hockeynut!]

I didn't blame R's for anything. I simply pointed out that soccer's theory D states are the worst places to live in the galaxy and that D's want people to live in abject poverty (paraphrasing, as he so often likes to do) wasn't exactly true.

[pittsoccer33]

entitlement programs do not lift people from poverty and they do not motivate people into prosperity even though this is how they are advertised. they create a class of people dependant on the federal government.