Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven't heard this anywhere - but I figured the bills were set up this way. These bills will penalize achievement and advancement.
The first two pages up to the "Methods" sections is a good summary. The highlights...
Low and middle income earners get a subsidy (gov't benefit) for health care. If they decide to make more money, the health care benefit decreases - to the point that you may come out worse if you make more money. So this bill will hinder the desire to advance oneself in the work world.
Example:
For example, “one study found that a series of increases in the income limit for Medicaid eligibility in the late 1980s and 1990s increased the labor force participation of working-age single mothers by 1.4 percent.” That suggests the prospect of losing subsidies discouraged able-bodied individuals from working.
Here's another highlight - You will come out ahead if you choose not to be insured and pay the penalty. When you get sick, then you purchase the insurance - remember, no pre-existing conditions. If healthy people take that route, then less people are on the insurance roles, and prices for those in the program would probably increase because the program won't take in enough money.
The study then studies the effects of the health care bills on a single, childless adult, and a family of four.
The point is this bill hinders those who are poor from advancing themselves to a better life - and keeping then dependent on government - and keeping them a voter of those in Congress who will keep the "free" goodies coming.
IMO, that is the whole reason for the bill. It creates government dependancy thus insures a steady voter base for those in office who exploit the governing system.
If Republicans are for the "rich" and they help keep the "rich" rich then what would be a logical role of the Democrats?
The whole purpose of the bill is to give the illusion that something is being done about the cost of health care. The Dems are desperate to pass anything -- anything -- so they can say they addressed health care. All they can pass is a mandatory insurance bill which does nothing to address health care costs. In fact, this is going to make things worse. There is no thought or consideration about the long term effects, how it will all work out. Just pass a bill so they can brag they passed a bill.
The whole purpose of the bill is to give the illusion that something is being done about the cost of health care. The Dems are desperate to pass anything -- anything -- so they can say they addressed health care. All they can pass is a mandatory insurance bill which does nothing to address health care costs. In fact, this is going to make things worse. There is no thought or consideration about the long term effects, how it will all work out. Just pass a bill so they can brag they passed a bill.
This bill really benefits health insurance companies and Big Pharma more than anything. If you really want to care about the American people, scrap this bill and let's move towards a single-payer system.
Yes, and no one ever goes into bankruptcy now because of health care or is denied coverage by current insurance companies. Especially retroactive dropping of coverage, where they just take your money till you need to use it.
I am kind of hoping it won't pass actually, because it will take a year or two before people who sold themselves on the hype actually realize how much they completely screwed themselves. Prices for medical care will sky rocket, as hospitals have to increase prices on people who actually pay (leading more people on the edge to bankruptcy, and price more people out of health care that are on fixed incomes) or (like that hospital in Chicago that couldn't) they will go out of business leaving patients stranded. So few people realize how thin the margins are with hospitals teetering on the edge, I am depressingly lucky (or unlucky) to see it every day.
Doesn't really matter I guess, my benefits are safe, so people can screw themselves all they want. I am a big fan of those who reap what they sow. I am also not a fan of government payors that hurt margins by paying under cost, but it's better to get 35% of charges (approximately Medicaid payment rates) then 0% of charges.
The whole purpose of the bill is to give the illusion that something is being done about the cost of health care. The Dems are desperate to pass anything -- anything -- so they can say they addressed health care. All they can pass is a mandatory insurance bill which does nothing to address health care costs. In fact, this is going to make things worse. There is no thought or consideration about the long term effects, how it will all work out. Just pass a bill so they can brag they passed a bill.
How true your first lines, The Dems are so desperate to pass anything, so they can address the health care issues. You can say they are Eager to get this thing passed and with what is going on in Mass today, they will be even more eager.
Get anything passed and then use regulation to make it work. Regulations get made without much comment and are just as effective as the original law.
I agree that we need this health bill about as much as we need private sector health insurance. About as much as we need private sector flood insurance?
We need health care, not insurance. Health care paid for by everyone not just the insured.
This bill really benefits health insurance companies and Big Pharma more than anything. If you really want to care about the American people, scrap this bill and let's move towards a single-payer system.
singlepayer would be just as bad, if not worse
medicaid is a singlepayer....the fy08 cost of medicaid was 300 billion to cover 30 million people...to make that a national 'everyone' system would cost at least 3 trillion a year....more than the IRS currently takes in...so who would pay for it.
every country with government single payer systems are facing huge budget problems and major cut backs in services...the sysytem doent work in real life..maybe on paper, but certainly not in real life
to make that a national 'everyone' system would cost at least 3 trillion a year....more than the IRS currently takes in...so who would pay for it.
If it costs that much, it costs that much. Who's going to pay for it with the system we have? At least with single payer we eliminate the profits to the insurance companies, the cost of multiple insurance company administration, the cost of lobbying and political donations made by the insurance companies, the cost to doctors who have to deal with multiple insurance companies and countless plans and so on and so on.
The only way that one payer is more expensive is if you simply don't cover some people with the private system, which is what we have now -- the rationing of health care based on ability to pay. One could make a good case for the idea that those with employer provided medical insurance may have too much "health care" and those with no insurance don't have enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
