I work in the health insurance field. This bill does not address the real problems. High co-pays deductibles and co insurance. Until these are brought under control not a lot will change. I see many patients with this situation. Lets say $1000 is charged for an x-ray etc. Insurance reduces the bill due to usual and customary charges. So now the bill might be down to $500. If you have an 80/20 plan with co-pay of $100 for an ER visit you pay at least $300 while insurance pays $200 or less. Thats the real problem. Many many policies are like this now. Insurance companies are getting away with this and this bill does absolutely nothing to address this. Employers can still buy into plans like these. Just everyone will have it. This is glorified Medicaid. The only difference is now you will be forced to have insurance and it might not pay a whole lot.

I Wear Pants wrote: Are you aware that we don't live in Venezuela?

Actually, no.

Paladin wrote: Great day for most Americans. Future will be to make it even better. The cry from the misfits will soon be moot. And I'm expecting more improvements very soon.

More government intrusion, you mean, comrade?

visionquest wrote: I'm dumb, so, will someone smarter than I please explain why this bill is bad for me? Or, rather, why it's good for me? Either one is fine...I just want to be in the know.

I came across this opinion tonight on RealClearPolitics.com Article

It talks about the winners and losers of this legislation.

...Like any major piece of legislation, this bill assigns winners and losers. The winners will be those who today are uninsured, but who will (eventually) acquire insurance. But there will not be a major reduction in the uninsured until 2014. So, the actual winners are going to be pretty few in number for some time.

Meanwhile, the losers begin to feel the effects immediately. Between now and the next presidential election, ObamaCare is going to pay out virtually zero dollars in benefits, but it will take billions out of Medicare. This is bad for seniors. They have an incentive to oppose portions of this bill (while supporting others, like the closing of the "Doughnut Hole," which Republicans will never repeal). While the Democrats will claim that this reduction in benefits will have no effect on the quality of their care, CBO is much less certain...

In regards to the above from FactCheck:

The bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion.

Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Hb31187 wrote: If this is the worst thing we have to deal with, we should consider ourselves lucky.

I keep hearing that every time a bad piece of legislation gets passed. Soon we won't be considering ourselves lucky.

bigmanbt wrote: Uninsured as well, I could possibly be one of the poorest people in America (college student), and I hate this bill. Every poor person I personally know hate this bill.

I'm pretty sure that you are not considered one of the poorest people in America if you are in college. You can eat and have shelter and also have access to an education.

BCSbunk wrote: Well now you will get healthcare if you really cannot afford it. There will be no first state to secede so I would suggest moving to a country that has no government involved healthcare. Oh thats right all first world nations have government involved healthcare. Canada, Japan, Ireland, Scotland, Denmark etc.

Why is it that the US has the best healthcare system then? With no government involvement, the US was/is the best healthcare system in the world. Canada, Japan, Ireland, etc. citizens come to the US for healthcare if they can afford the trip. It's because the healthcare systems in their respective countries are not nearly as good as it is in the US. Now where will people go when we have similar healthcare as those countries?

We also have the most expensive health care system in the world.

Apple wrote:

visionquest wrote: I'm dumb, so, will someone smarter than I please explain why this bill is bad for me? Or, rather, why it's good for me? Either one is fine...I just want to be in the know.

I came across this opinion tonight on RealClearPolitics.com Article

It talks about the winners and losers of this legislation.

...Like any major piece of legislation, this bill assigns winners and losers. The winners will be those who today are uninsured, but who will (eventually) acquire insurance. But there will not be a major reduction in the uninsured until 2014. So, the actual winners are going to be pretty few in number for some time.

Meanwhile, the losers begin to feel the effects immediately. Between now and the next presidential election, ObamaCare is going to pay out virtually zero dollars in benefits, but it will take billions out of Medicare. This is bad for seniors. They have an incentive to oppose portions of this bill (while supporting others, like the closing of the "Doughnut Hole," which Republicans will never repeal). While the Democrats will claim that this reduction in benefits will have no effect on the quality of their care, CBO is much less certain...

The way I understand the bill, there will be several important aspects that will go into effect immediately.

*HMOs will not be allowed to put caps on healthcare claims.

*It will give immediate relief to those with serious illnesses that have pre-existing conditions.

*There will be immediate relief for children with pre-existing conditions.

*Children will be covered until the age of 26.

*Small business will get immediate tax credits to help them provide for their employees.

*Insurance companies will be forced to cover preventive care that could offset disease or illness.

*There will be an appeals process for those that think they were wrongly denied care by their health insurer.

*Seniors will receive an extra $250 to help pay for expensive medicine.

So... the author of that article considers these factors literally inconsequential?

I Wear Pants wrote: In regards to the above from FactCheck:

The bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion.

Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.

Don't be fooled by the feds cutting 500 million from Medicare. With Medicare destined for insolvency you would think it wise to use the predicted savings and apply it to try and keep Medicare solvent. Instead it is used to fund their new program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/03/18/ST2010031801317.html

QuakerOats wrote: She's at 11% ............... and a socialist.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html

Are you going to vote for her opponent when she faces re-election?

Or Reid's?

Will you send money to their opponents' campaigns?

Or will you simply whine and bitch about them?

RedBlackAttack wrote: The way I understand the bill, there will be several important aspects that will go into effect immediately.

There are certain aspects that will go into effect immediately.

Oh good. I was afraid it would take years for premiums to skyrocket as a result of this debacle.

*HMOs will not be allowed to put caps on healthcare claims.

Have to raise premiums to make up for this.

*It will give immediate relief to those with serious illnesses that have pre-existing conditions.

*There will be immediate relief for children with pre-existing conditions.

Give immediate relief? Is it going to cure their condition? I'm not surprised that Barack would claim to heal the sick.

*Children will be covered until the age of 26.

Covered by what? What if their parents don't have insurance? Will Barack put them on his?

*Small business will get immediate tax credits to help them provide for their employees.

The businesses that take advantage of this will drive up demand, as well as the cost of insurance. Good job keeping prices down.

*Insurance companies will be forced to cover preventive care that could offset disease or illness.

Add some more $$$ onto that premium.

*There will be an appeals process for those that think they were wrongly denied care by their health insurer.

They have that right now. It's called a lawsuit.

*Seniors will receive an extra $250 to help pay for expensive medicine.

Seniors are getting $250 to go toward their medicine? Guess how much the cost of their medicine just went up overnight?

So... the author of that article considers these factors literally inconsequential?

The whole thing is inconsequential because when we are cut off from our Chinese credit card the government won't be able to pay for any of this anyway, let alone the government option they will have to start because all of these insurance providers will be out of business.

So you don't think that providing health care to children with "pre-existing conditions" that were denied care is important?

Kids are covered by their parents policy until age 26? Good grief that is 1/3 of a person's life. I was out of the house at age 18. If you are not in college at that time, get out and get a effen job!

I Wear Pants wrote: So you don't think that providing health care to children with "pre-existing conditions" that were denied care is important?

Sure I do. I don't know what that has to do with the federal government.

Little Danny wrote: Kids are covered by their parents policy until age 26? Good grief that is 1/3 of a person's life. I was out of the house at age 18. If you are not in college at that time, get out and get a effen job!

I think the 26 year thing is hinged upon the fact that you are enrolled in college. Probably was added because of how long it takes to get a degree these days with all of the vitally important "core curriculum" classes that we have to take anymore.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: So you don't think that providing health care to children with "pre-existing conditions" that were denied care is important?

Sure I do. I don't know what that has to do with the federal government.

What does it have to do with?

Cleveland Buck wrote: The whole thing is inconsequential because when we are cut off from our Chinese credit card the government won't be able to pay for any of this anyway, let alone the government option they will have to start because all of these insurance providers will be out of business.

Sorry... I don't subscribe to doomsday scenarios. We could always *shutter* cut our massive defense budget *shutter* to help pay for important social programs, but I know that you were probably in the forefront of the push into Iraq, the subsequent surge, the war in Afghanistan and the subsequent surge there.

If anything is going bankrupt this country, it is our proclivity for occupying lands around the world and our love for the newest, coolest military toys.

Then again, my post wasn't even weighing the pros and cons of the healthcare bill and its impact on the country. I was simply responding to the article which said that people would not see any of the proposed changes to the system until 2014, which is factually incorrect. Whether you agree with the legislation or not, claiming that it will take four years for any of these proposed services to take hold just isn't true.

I'd prefer to have an honest debate. I hope you feel the same.

RedBlackAttack wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: The whole thing is inconsequential because when we are cut off from our Chinese credit card the government won't be able to pay for any of this anyway, let alone the government option they will have to start because all of these insurance providers will be out of business.

Sorry... I don't subscribe to doomsday scenarios. We could always *shutter* cut our massive defense budget *shutter* to help pay for important social programs, but I know that you were probably in the forefront of the push into Iraq, the subsequent surge, the war in Afghanistan and the subsequent surge there.

If anything is going bankrupt this country, it is our proclivity for occupying lands around the world and our love for the newest, coolest military toys.

Then again, my post wasn't even weighing the pros and cons of the healthcare bill and its impact on the country. I was simply responding to the article which said that people would not see any of the proposed changes to the system until 2014, which is factually incorrect. Whether you agree with the legislation or not, claiming that it will take four years for any of these proposed services to take hold just isn't true.

I'd prefer to have an honest debate. I hope you feel the same.

But, but, but...Obama proposed it so how can anything of value come from it?

I Wear Pants wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: So you don't think that providing health care to children with "pre-existing conditions" that were denied care is important?

Sure I do. I don't know what that has to do with the federal government.

What does it have to do with?

The constitution defines who has the power to deal with this situation.

RedBlackAttack wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: The whole thing is inconsequential because when we are cut off from our Chinese credit card the government won't be able to pay for any of this anyway, let alone the government option they will have to start because all of these insurance providers will be out of business.

Sorry... I don't subscribe to doomsday scenarios. We could always *shutter* cut our massive defense budget *shutter* to help pay for important social programs, but I know that you were probably in the forefront of the push into Iraq, the subsequent surge, the war in Afghanistan and the subsequent surge there.

If anything is going bankrupt this country, it is our proclivity for occupying lands around the world and our love for the newest, coolest military toys.

You have no idea what my views are on our defense spending, but that is irrelevant. Why don't you tell me how much of our defense budget to cut and how much that will pay for? Don't bother. If cut out every single cent of defense spending right now we would still run a deficit right now before any of this health care disaster gets added on the tab.

You heard for years on CNN about what the war in Iraq costs, and didn't hear about what anything else costs, so your only reply to someone who opposes your president's takeover of the economy is that we can cut defense spending to pay for it, when that isn't close to being true.

A lot of people are warning about the upcoming downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, not just me. They aren't all doom-and-gloomers. They are people who report on this stuff for a living. You have no idea the consequences if that happens, but you don't care to know. If it was important, Barack would tell you.

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: So you don't think that providing health care to children with "pre-existing conditions" that were denied care is important?

Sure I do. I don't know what that has to do with the federal government.

What does it have to do with?

The constitution defines who has the power to deal with this situation.

And who deals with it when they don't?

Cleveland Buck wrote:

RedBlackAttack wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: The whole thing is inconsequential because when we are cut off from our Chinese credit card the government won't be able to pay for any of this anyway, let alone the government option they will have to start because all of these insurance providers will be out of business.

Sorry... I don't subscribe to doomsday scenarios. We could always *shutter* cut our massive defense budget *shutter* to help pay for important social programs, but I know that you were probably in the forefront of the push into Iraq, the subsequent surge, the war in Afghanistan and the subsequent surge there.

If anything is going bankrupt this country, it is our proclivity for occupying lands around the world and our love for the newest, coolest military toys.

You have no idea what my views are on our defense spending, but that is irrelevant. Why don't you tell me how much of our defense budget to cut and how much that will pay for? Don't bother. If cut out every single cent of defense spending right now we would still run a deficit right now before any of this health care disaster gets added on the tab.

You heard for years on CNN about what the war in Iraq costs, and didn't hear about what anything else costs, so your only reply to someone who opposes your president's takeover of the economy is that we can cut defense spending to pay for it, when that isn't close to being true.

A lot of people are warning about the upcoming downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, not just me. They aren't all doom-and-gloomers. They are people who report on this stuff for a living. You have no idea the consequences if that happens, but you don't care to know. If it was important, Barack would tell you.

We can cut a lot of spending, not just defense. Though defense is a stupidly large part of our budget. How many of our hundreds of bases are truly needed?

If the people who are supposed to deal with it don't, then no one does. If it bothers you that much, I would suggest you contact your local and state reps to take care of the business they are supposed to deal with.

I Wear Pants wrote: We can cut a lot of spending, not just defense. Though defense is a stupidly large part of our budget. How many of our hundreds of bases are truly needed?

Not many of them are needed and we should eliminate most of them. That still won't come close to paying for a government take over of 1/6th of our $14 trillion economy.

Hell, it won't come close to paying for our current social spending.

Cleveland Buck wrote: If the people who are supposed to deal with it don't, then no one does. If it bothers you that much, I would suggest you contact your local and state reps to take care of the business they are supposed to deal with.

I assume you are just as much opposed to public libraries, roads, public schools, farm subsidies, the subsidies that put power in rural areas, etc.