No one can ever see the outcome until they try.
And if it fails? How many government programs can you list that they canceled due to failure?
I mean if you look at it this way, they thought that the stimulus package was a waste. Believe ot or not, from where I live its working! I see a lot of construction being done in my commute. More highways= more jobs! A tractor store is being built along with a new car dealership. More buildings= more jobs! More jobs= more business. I went through a road. Used to be full of forsets. After obama, all I see is Red lobster, best buy, sonic's, boarders, Five guys burgers and fries, pet smart, olive garden, Lowes, red robin (yum!), and a lone star resturant. So if this happened from stimulus. With health care reform, who knows what wonders it may pull.
There is no way you had an entire commercial district get built up from forests since stimulus began passing out money in May. And unless any of those construction jobs have a sign specifically saying that it is Reinvestment and Recovery Act spending then it isn't stimulus, it is those evil capitalists the president keeps talking about doing what they always do, create jobs without stealing money from other people (unless they are involved in government cronyism, like most of the Stimulus supported companies).
Before you praise stimulus as "working" I suggest you research Bastiat's broken window fallacy.
To me, I would define it as working if it did what the president claimed it would do, keep unemployment under 8%. Instead it went over 10%.
Think about that for a second. The same economic advisers that told the president he was going to keep unemployment from breaking 8% didn't even predict we would see 10% unemployment without stimulus. Now those same, obviously incorrect, advisers are telling him that this health care plan will A) work and B) reduce the deficit.
Yet, the same people who predicted that stimulus would not slow job losses, and even said it could get even worse than predicted, are now saying that this health care plan will not work.
Who are you more willing to trust, the people with a track record of accuracy or the ones
that admit they miscalculated how the economy works and keep pushing back when they believe the full effect of the stimulus will occur? How far back can they push the results of a health care plan that takes six years just to be fully implemented?
The USA health system is one of the worst in the world,
I have been using this system my entire life, as I have had problems since birth, and I will disagree.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=119716
I don't know how is this new system, but I'm sure it's better than the current.
So, since you feel that we have the world's worst health system would you ever force someone to use it? Because that is what this new system is doing. This is not government provided health care. This is forcing people to buy health care in the current system.
I read that about 50 million people don't have health insurance, How can that happen in a first world country?
According to the
White House's own blog the number that will get it from this plan is 32 million. Either your number is way off or this is still failing 18 million people.
But to answer your question: Maybe some people don't want it? Maybe some of those people pay out of pocket instead of using insurance? Maybe some of them made bad life decisions and we haven't chosen to hand them our own money. Maybe the statistic counts every claim throughout the year, and doesn't subtract a person from the count if they later get a job and insurance. And maybe some are just hard on their luck. There are a lot of reasons.
I'm starting to see the whole issue with the Constitutional slant. What I'm still struggling to grasp is the socialism aspect. Why is this so wrong?
Because it takes from one person, without bothering to ask permission, and gives to another. Why is that right?
I mean, it's not like there isn't other aspects of the American society that isn't socialist; the pensions for one.
And if you look around in these Opinions forums you will see those of us that are opposed to it in this instance are opposed to it in other instances. Although you would have to give more detail in regard to "pensions" since an employer provided pension is an mutually agreed upon benefit of working there.
I think the line that is trying to be drawn through what should and should not be expected by all is an issue of basic human rights.
As is the pursuit of happiness. But where do you draw that line? Food? Water? There are things that are much more important to living that we don't guarantee. Health care is starting at an awfully awkward place.
Yes there is an element of the rich paying for the poor but seriously, is a few bucks here or there mean more than helping your country, your society?
You are right. It would be wonderful for people to donate a few bucks here and there to help out those who are struggling. Unfortunately no one asked before taking those few bucks here and there. They just took it.
There were reports, and supposedly video, of protesters shouting racial, and even homophobic, slurs at the Congress members.
wait ... I know the current system, in fact, years ago (when I lived in LA) I spent much time in hospitals, that cost me a lot of money and if I could not pay the hospital now probably I'd be on a wheelchair.
I am sorry to hear you had medical problems in the past. I know how hard that can be. But you can rest assured that no one had to have their hard earned money taken from them to pay for your time in the hospital.
That system is unjust, do you have money? yes, welcome to your new hospital, no, then go to die your ****ing house.
You would prefer a system that says, "Do you have money? Yes? Give half of it to this guy over here? No? Take that guy's money. Don't worry, if he disagrees we will arrest him at gunpoint.
Or in the case of this new system: Do you have money? Buy insurance. You have no choice. That insurance is too good, pay 40% more. A lot of money? Pay some to that other guy too. Or, no? Buy insurance. Can't? Pay this fine. Can't? Go to jail. Really poor? Take the rich guy's money and use it to buy insurance.
Yeah, The New York Times is the bastion of unbiased reporting these days. I am sure we can call anyone that hire Paul Krugman as an economic columnist extremely biased toward Keynesian economic theory.
But while you are posting these:
Things that I find alarming in Reuters:
2010
*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
I guess it is a charge because it can increase cancer risks? So, the government is now in the business of trying to affect our personal decisions that may effect our long-term health? What is next, a ban on smoking in public and restaurants serving certain kinds of foods? Oh wait...
But people said I was being crazy and conspiratorial in the trans fat thread
2011
*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.
What the hell is this? A fee for being a successful drug company? So, if a company found a pill that cured cancer they would obviously have a huge market share, thus have to pay a huge fee. This will actually dissuade drug companies from making effective drugs. Let me spell this out:
THIS WILL KILL PEOPLE LONG-TERM
People will die because companies didn't work as fast on new amazing drugs because it will be cheaper for them to be mediocre than successful. People can argue for socialism styled ideas all day, but this kind of backward idiocy is the end result. Why on Earth would you discourage anyone from trying to be the biggest success they can at making medicine?
2013
*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.
Seriously? Another penalty for trying to improve? I can buy a new MRI for home use
without penalty but the hospital has to pay an extra 2.9% tax? So now we are killing people by discouraging hospitals from buying new, more advanced equipment? So, a cancer that we have the technology to detect after 2013 might be missed because we incentivized hospitals to hang on to old technology?
2014
*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.
And again, a punishment for being successful. What is this Bizzaro America? This right here encourages insurance companies to only meet the minimum plan requirements set forth by the government and not try to create better and cheaper plans in order to create even better coverage. This basically is the blatant attempt to marginalize insurance companies, and then down the line the government will have to take over.
This also guarantees that you will never see a plan cheaper or better than the exchanges, because to do so would risk increasing market share, and thus the size of their fee.
2015
*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.
So, it is going to be more profitable for a doctor to see less patients as long as he does what the government perceives as a better job? I detect long waits to see a doctor and far less specialists in disease that have little known about them. Why would you study a new cancer when you can be an ear, nose, and throat specialist that only sees five patients a day and ensure they are very healthy when they leave?
2018
*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax.
And this is a message to employers: Do not make the government look bad or we will make you pay.
So, let me see. We are stifling innovation, success, and any private health care plans that are actually better than what the exchanges will offer? Yep, sounds like a plan only the idiots in government could come up with.
Hang on, I forgot the NY Times piece. How will I be affected?
If you are insured through your employer
You can keep your current plan — or — you can buy coverage through new state-run insurance marketplaces, called “exchanges,” starting in 2014.
If you keep your current plan
*Within six months, the plans will have to stop some practices, like setting lifetime limits on coverage and canceling policy holders who get sick. They will also have to allow children to stay on their parents’ policies through age 26 and cover children with pre-existing conditions, but can still deny adults with medical problems until 2014.
Wait. Which part of these new regulations guarantees I won't pay more? I mean, to keep my plan it would have to be free of new regulation, except that which forces prices to stay the same. Otherwise, it isn't my current plan and the president is a liar (shocker, I know).
*Insurers will have to pay a 40 percent excise tax on high-value group plans – those in which premiums for families are $27,500 or more, for instance – starting in 2014. Experts say the tax will likely be passed on to employees through higher premiums or lower benefits and wages.
How is it my plan if it just went up 40%? Or if this causes my employer to change my plan? And why am I being punished for buying into good insurance? I have a heart problem. I want good insurance, not some government minimum requirement.
*Starting in 2013, flexible spending accounts, which allow users to escape taxes on many medical expenses now, will be limited. There will be a $2,500 maximum on accounts that typically carry $4,000 or $5,000 limits now, and you will no longer be able to use the accounts for over-the-counter medicines.
Dear citizen: Do not hope to be responsible by using an account designed to help you plan for unexpected health expenses. We know that nothing in this bill limits maximum out of pocket to less than $5,000, but you cannot save up more than $2,500. If you go over that then you need to call us, the US Government.
Love, your government.
PS. Don't worry, we took enough from the rich to cover you (see next point).
*High-income earners — families making more than $250,000 – would pay several thousand dollars more in Medicare payroll taxes starting in 2018. Their unearned income, now exempt from the payroll tax, would also be subject to a 3.8 percent levy.
SOCIALISM!!!
There are still things that will need to be worked out in the Senate Reconciliation of the bill, but it appears as though President Obama will be seeing lawsuits from states tomorrow.
Fixed that for ya.
Given time, and a strong understanding of the bill, chances are that people would be less-opposed to it. Presumably after it goes into effect, the favorability of the bill will likely increase.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
Of course, if the things I pointed out above are commonly known and people stop thinking of success as some evil thing then they might realize this will actually be bad for them.
Which were what again? Social Security? The FDIC? The Conservation Corps? The backing of Unions through the NLRA? Charges of Socialism and even Communist intent were just as ripe then as they are now, and yet they were very popular at the time. We face the same situation now. History marches forward, programs will either succeed or fail, and we learn from them.
I believe that what we are seeing today points out that we have yet to learn from failed social government programs.
It will be interesting to see how things play out come November.
Shockingly, my representative, Ben Chandler (D), didn't vote for this. He was one of the few dissenting Democrats. Looks like he actually listened to his constituents for once.
Republicans making a case for a single-payer system. Whoops!
Where on Earth did you get that notion?
