nelson signs on, enough votes for health care bill (lawyer, death, education)
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.
Yes, believe anything the CBO says. I don't. They are basing their "projections" on "perfect scenarios".
They are assuming certain Medicare cuts take place (they wont' because Congress will keep on retaining payments to medical providers who are operating at a near lost by taking Medicare patients).
The CBO is assuming people will be forced to buy insurance and employers will be still subsidizing their employees. Again that's a very big assumption. Most business will just pay the $750 penalty per employee. Force those employees to seek "private insurance/exchanges" The CBO does not account for that. Think about this. It costs $8000-12000 a year per employee/employee's family to subsidize health insurance each year. Employers will just not offer health insurance. So what would you do if you were an employer. I'd just pay the $750. Drop those employees off and save on my healthcare budget.
Those employees without health benefits will be forced to seek their own policies. Most won't be able to buy their own unless Uncle Sam subsidies their policies. How much will that cost? I don't think the CBO takes this into account.
Please. I'll stick with the CBO over a four paragraph study done by an internet forum member.
My point was that Faber is lying. That's all. I answered your question regarding that point.
Agreed, but this can be corrected quite easily, and it pertains only to Social Security.
This is flat out false.
the government absolutely cannot keep spending at the rate it has been spending:
http://perotcharts.com/category/charts/challenges-charts/page/31/ (broken link)
opting out isn't free. it is asinine to make people pay for a product they don't wish to purchase, but that is our congress for you.
I disagree. It's to protect everyone else. People will still be able to go to the ER if they don't have insurance. We all end up paying for those visits. A smaller risk pool means our insurance premiums are higher than they need to be.
the government absolutely cannot keep spending at the rate it has been spending:
Challenges Charts | Perot Charts - Part 31 (http://perotcharts.com/category/charts/challenges-charts/page/31/ - broken link)
Healthcare reform is intended to control the rise in costs, which is what accounts for the increases in Medicare/caid in that chart. This is exactly what Obama has been talking about. You automatically assume that these costs won't be reduced. I don't.
That means you will have three squares, and a room for shelter along with free cable TV, a job that pays little but will be secure, and so many other goodies you get for serving time in prison. Just think the best medical and dental care available for free will be ours in prison. I wonder if they have given any thought to the numbers of new prisons that may have to be bought and the amount of income taxes that would be lost by all that imprisoning.
Maybe we need to just organize a non-tax payment group.
I'm kind of glad I won't have to sell my house and 401K if I get sick.
Would you be willing to join my non-tax payment group that would soon lead them to have to back off from imprisonment for non-payment. Surely they wouldn't put tax slackers in maximum security lockups.
Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that everyone will have private insurance, not public ones. I was talking about the caps. I am glad about the removal of the caps, which are the root cause of most personal bankruptcies in US. I am also happy about the country wide insurance exchange and the removal of the pre-existing condition clauses.
I have ALWAYS had insurance, but I always worried about losing everything if I got sick. For me that was the biggest weakness of our current system. That, and the fact that the rising cost is putting companies out of business.
You don't seem to know about or worry about the amount of money doctors have to add to their charges and the number of tests they have to throw in to cover their butts to allow them to pay their malpractice insurance payments or the way lawyers can profit so much from suits against doctors that didn't do all the possible tests.
Could there be any lessening in expense if these things were addressed? Yep, but not by the Dems.
Would you be willing to join my non-tax payment group that would soon lead them to have to back off from imprisonment for non-payment. Surely they wouldn't put tax slackers in maximum security lockups.
So you believe you'd be locked up in max-security prison for non-payment? Why not, you also believed that Obama was going to send you to a concentration camp just for being a Republican
I don't think there are many stupid enough to live without insurance.
So, if you are in an accident or have a heart attck, you just tell the ambulance to take you to the insurance company before going to the hospital?
You don't know that there are up to 10 million in this country that opt for lifestyle instead of health insurance? I guess you don't know how many single people there are in the 19 to 30 age group that do this little trick without this law.
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.
