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.
Look I am all for healthcare reform. We need it. But I am totally against entitlement programs (in this case, healthcare premium subsidies) that has an endless budget.
People always talk about the Bush Tax Cuts. He cut taxes for all working americans (you know the people who actually work, not just the wealthy).
The issue I have with healthcare subsidies isn't the subsidies itself, it's that there's zero cost containment. Insurance companies can keep on increasing premiums but the governments subsidies to the insurance companies will keep on increasing. Sounds like a big win win for the insurance companies. It's like a patchwork and wait and we can fix it years down the road bill. You don't want to be trapped in entitlement programs which will never go away (see Social Security And Medicare some of the biggest drains on our economy).
Let's pass healthcare reform. But set a time limit. Make the current legislation the Socalists/Democrats want law. But let it set to expire in 5-8 years. If the public isn't happy with higher taxes that will be needed to support this program, the future Congress will have to re-vote to extend the healthcare entitlement program. If the future Congress can't come to a compromise, than the healthcare subsidies/reform reverts back to what we have in 2010.
Don't you think that's the more reasonable way to get reform enacted? Bush's tax cuts for everyone will expire in 2011. The current administration won't extend it. That's fine. It didn't go on forever.
Why can't they set a time limit on healthcare entitlement? This keeps the insurance companies honest because they can't keep messing around to screw people over. Keeps the doctors honest, so they can't over perform procedures to collect more income. Keeps the patients honest because those who overuse the system will see what a drain they are on the system and will limit themselves. Not sure what do to with the malpractice laywers. You've never get them to agree on anything that affects their income.
First off the tax cuts will be extending for all of those with the exception of the portions of the income in the top two brackets, that is above $250,000 for those who are married and filing jointly, and above $200,000 for those filing single.
Secondly, having the subsidies and having many more people with insurance will help reduce any future increases as well as bring down costs itself. Those without insurance or without adequate insurance increase the costs for everyone. We are already paying for the care they get when they seek treatment. When they get seek treatment, go to the ER, etc and they can't afford it, the costs then get passed down to everyone else's premiums. Not only that, but those who lack the insurance often miss out on things like preventative care, which results in people getting sicker, or when they have a disease and illness for it to be caught later rather than earlier. This means the treatment is more expensive than it otherwise would have been and again these costs are already being passed on to us.
Exactly. Extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone not in the top two brakcets was in the FY2010 budget, and it's in the FY2011 budget. People who think their tax cuts are going to expire when they aren't in those brackets have simply fallen prey to another right-wing scare tactic.
The health care bill is meanwhile by definition a start point. Just as the Social Security Act today looks nothing like the Act that was passed in 1935, changes and amendments will happen to health care as time goes by. A general plan for how things can work can be set out, and there are some things that can be changed right away. But you've got tens of millions of American families whose livelihood and well-being are tied into the system as it is. You can't wreak all sorts of havoc on insurance companies or drug manufacturers without hitting all those people much harder than any CEO would be hit. Not a good idea. The one thing that is drop-dead certain in this is that the present path is one that leads quickly to disaster. Pass the bill...get off the old path...get on a new one. There, we have a chance. Here, we don't...
any bill passed can be overridden by future legislation. no matter what bill passes, a future congress can override it in the future.
no such thing as forever to mortals.
But didn't they have some special wording in one of the bills about overriding it in the future ? It was something out of the ordinary to make it very difficult to override.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,255 posts, read 24,317,550 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Then why the widespread panic from the Republican Tea Party?
What scares them is that, when this bill starts providing benefits, the American people might find that we like it. This is much what happened with Social Security and Medicare and is now happening with Schip and Medicare Part D (which is why the new law fills the hole in Part D). And then they will be sitting there with egg on their face.
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.
