QuakerOats wrote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63181

“The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform…”


Note the word, "ENFORCER".

More ............................... change we can believe in ..................

More competition is good for the people. Insurance companies had effective monopolies on state markets and now we will have more choice and more competition.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/23/how_pushing_for_repeal_may_hurt_republicans.html

How Pushing for Repeal May Hurt Republicans
A big reason Democrats have paid a political price for pushing health care reform, Tom Jensen notes, is that Americans wanted them to focus on jobs and economic growth.

"If the Republicans now keep health care in the spotlight by trying to repeal it, they will be the ones independents voters see as having skewed priorities and they may start to pay the price. Yes, repeal will play well with the base. But focusing on that has a high potential to turn off independent swing voters who have been leaning toward the GOP but are sick of the health care debate and want Washington to be more focused on something else."

BCSbunk wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63181

“The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform…”


Note the word, "ENFORCER".

More ............................... change we can believe in ..................

More competition is good for the people. Insurance companies had effective monopolies on state markets and now we will have more choice and more competition.

The government can now effectively mandate that you purchase anything they want in the interests of interstate commerce. It's for the good of this country that every American is now required to purchase a GM vehicle. Also, it would lower life insurance policies if everyone purchased a plan. See what's happening here? Get your pocketbooks handy. Don't give me the crap about a slippery slope being bullshit, because that is the very precedent that is now set. Congress can MAKE citizens buy a product.

tk421 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63181

“The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform…”


Note the word, "ENFORCER".

More ............................... change we can believe in ..................

More competition is good for the people. Insurance companies had effective monopolies on state markets and now we will have more choice and more competition.

The government can now effectively mandate that you purchase anything they want in the interests of interstate commerce. It's for the good of this country that every American is now required to purchase a GM vehicle. Also, it would lower life insurance policies if everyone purchased a plan. See what's happening here? Get your pocketbooks handy. Don't give me the crap about a slippery slope being bullshit, because that is the very precedent that is now set. Congress can MAKE citizens buy a product.

There's a liberal mindset for you:

Government force = Choice & Competition

More competition is good for the people. The GOVERNMENT is the one preventing people from buying insurance across state lines. That STIFLES competition.
Also, the Obamacare bill mandates that insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. So if you're healthy and take care of yourself- too bad, your premiums cover you and everyone else who trashes their own bodies.

This bill stifles competition and stifles freedom, but you libs are so drunk with rage against the "evil insurance companies" that you will never figure it out.

jhay78 wrote:
There's a liberal mindset for you:

Government force = Choice & Competition

More competition is good for the people. The GOVERNMENT is the one preventing people from buying insurance across state lines. That STIFLES competition.
Also, the Obamacare bill mandates that insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. So if you're healthy and take care of yourself- too bad, your premiums cover you and everyone else who trashes their own bodies.

This bill stifles competition and stifles freedom, but you libs are so drunk with rage against the "evil insurance companies" that you will never figure it out.

The ignorance of so many plays right into the GREED of radical leaders in D.C. To not have the ability to grasp the notion that health care will be rationed and costs are going to skyrocket is not only sad, but indicative of what truly ails us: real education, honesty in our elected officials, and accountability from the media.

God save the Republic.

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

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?

Are you saying we should go outside the constitution?

What makes you think the government in Washington is any more moral and compassionate than the governments in Columbus, Albany, Sacramento, and all 50 of the states. Do you believe that private individuals, local, and state governments would turn away from caring for a helpless child?

The best solutions come from those closest to the problem. Empowering a massive federal bureaucracy from Washington to manage these issues for all 300 million of us is not the solution.

Yes and they have in the past.

I understand that the classical economic views tell us that companies and people in charge of companies will do what's best for us/the market because it's good for them. But the fact of the matter is that that is not what has been happening. If people act rationally as classical economics teaches then yes, that's what would happen but we all know that people are irrational greedy bastards.

So you want to empower the insurance companies and health care institutions to solve the problem? Didn't they already have like the entirety of their existence to do so? What makes you think that they were going to shift course so drastically, why would screwing over people (and that's what we're dealing with people just like you and me. Not merely lazy freeloading bastards) all of the sudden be off the table for them?

QuakerOats wrote:

jhay78 wrote:
There's a liberal mindset for you:

Government force = Choice & Competition

More competition is good for the people. The GOVERNMENT is the one preventing people from buying insurance across state lines. That STIFLES competition.
Also, the Obamacare bill mandates that insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. So if you're healthy and take care of yourself- too bad, your premiums cover you and everyone else who trashes their own bodies.

This bill stifles competition and stifles freedom, but you libs are so drunk with rage against the "evil insurance companies" that you will never figure it out.

The ignorance of so many plays right into the GREED of radical leaders in D.C. To not have the ability to grasp the notion that health care will be rationed and costs are going to skyrocket is not only sad, but indicative of what truly ails us: real education, honesty in our elected officials, and accountability from the media.

God save the Republic.

We can vote out the greedy in DC, I can't vote out some despotic bastard that runs Aultra,

I Wear Pants wrote:

QuakerOats wrote:

jhay78 wrote:
There's a liberal mindset for you:

Government force = Choice & Competition

More competition is good for the people. The GOVERNMENT is the one preventing people from buying insurance across state lines. That STIFLES competition.
Also, the Obamacare bill mandates that insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. So if you're healthy and take care of yourself- too bad, your premiums cover you and everyone else who trashes their own bodies.

This bill stifles competition and stifles freedom, but you libs are so drunk with rage against the "evil insurance companies" that you will never figure it out.

The ignorance of so many plays right into the GREED of radical leaders in D.C. To not have the ability to grasp the notion that health care will be rationed and costs are going to skyrocket is not only sad, but indicative of what truly ails us: real education, honesty in our elected officials, and accountability from the media.

God save the Republic.

We can vote out the greedy in DC, I can't vote out some despotic bastard that runs Aultra,

How exactly is are the people running insurance companies despotic? What exactly are they doing that is so evil?

Show of hands

Who really deep down inside thinks that it is a good thing for businesses having to compete with the federal government?
- 1 has a limited base of consumers for money
- 1 has everybody in the country to take money from

What, exactly is being reformed?
- remember, government expansion is NOT reformation

Who is totally for this new bill, no matter what?
- and why?

I Wear Pants wrote: Yes and they have in the past.

And of course we have not seen such past activity from the federal government. I also asked why you think a government in Washington is any more moral or compassionate than the government's in the capitals of any of the 50 states, or private groups (charities, churches), and local governments

I Wear Pants wrote: I understand that the classical economic views tell us that companies and people in charge of companies will do what's best for us/the market because it's good for them. But the fact of the matter is that that is not what has been happening. If people act rationally as classical economics teaches then yes, that's what would happen but we all know that people are irrational greedy bastards.

And of course none of these people are found in the federal government.

I Wear Pants wrote: So you want to empower the insurance companies and health care institutions to solve the problem? Didn't they already have like the entirety of their existence to do so? What makes you think that they were going to shift course so drastically, why would screwing over people (and that's what we're dealing with people just like you and me. Not merely lazy freeloading bastards) all of the sudden be off the table for them?

Who said anything about empowering insurance companies. I just don't beleive a federal solution is constititutional or the best course of action. Doesn't mean I and others don't care about those in need. Don't forget the largest rejector of health care claims is Medicare.

I Wear Pants wrote: We can vote out the greedy in DC, I can't vote out some despotic bastard that runs Aultra,

In the 200 plus year history of the federal government. When have we ever been able to by our voting power completely purge Washington of greed. It is as impossible to purge it in DC as it is in the private sector. One posseses power over all 300 million of us. The other just its customers.

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: We can vote out the greedy in DC, I can't vote out some despotic bastard that runs Aultra,

In the 200 plus year history of the federal government. When have we ever been able to by our voting power completely purge Washington of greed. It is as impossible to purge it in DC as it is in the private sector. One posseses power over all 300 million of us. The other just its customers.

The private sector owns the governmnent. Bought and paid for. Virtually all legislative action is passed with the tacit approval of the private sector. Even the AMA approved Obamacare.

Footwedge wrote: The private sector owns the governmnent. Bought and paid for. Virtually all legislative action is passed with the tacit approval of the private sector. Even the AMA approved Obamacare.

The monopolies that own the government are not part of the private sector. They have no risk. If they are in trouble, the printing press will be there to save them. They are the government. They are the public sector.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

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.

Good responses ro every point...except the last one. The insurance companies will thrive with this legislation.

The only way for them to thrive is to jack up premiums so high that no one can afford them.

That will not happen. The insurance companies will be around..and they will thrive. They may have to tighten their gluttonous belts, but they will sell plenty of insurance to plenty of people.

Most of these insurance companies don't have "gluttonous belts". They make a 3-5% profit. Their expenses will definitely go up more than 3-5%.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Footwedge wrote: The private sector owns the governmnent. Bought and paid for. Virtually all legislative action is passed with the tacit approval of the private sector. Even the AMA approved Obamacare.

The monopolies that own the government are not part of the private sector. They have no risk. If they are in trouble, the printing press will be there to save them. They are the government. They are the public sector.

I think that was my point. By private sector, I'm speaking of the oligopolies...including the insurance conglomerates BTW. This is one of the reasons why the insurance companies will remain viable. They also, are too big to fail.

Insurance companies are simply legalized bookies that take their "vig" and invest it back in the market. Whereby health insurance companies differ in what they insure as opposed to the AIG's of the world, the modus operandi is one and the same.

Cleveland Buck wrote: Most of these insurance companies don't have "gluttonous belts". They make a 3-5% profit. Their expenses will definitely go up more than 3-5%.

They will show in profit what they want to show. Any "excess" profit will be divied out in personal bonuses and kept off of the corporate bottom line. It's what they do and how they do it.

I had this exact same debate with LJ regarding the oil company cartels of the world.

And I'm sure you were just as wrong then.

tk421 wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63181

“The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform…”


Note the word, "ENFORCER".

More ............................... change we can believe in ..................

More competition is good for the people. Insurance companies had effective monopolies on state markets and now we will have more choice and more competition.

The government can now effectively mandate that you purchase anything they want in the interests of interstate commerce. It's for the good of this country that every American is now required to purchase a GM vehicle. Also, it would lower life insurance policies if everyone purchased a plan. See what's happening here? Get your pocketbooks handy. Don't give me the crap about a slippery slope being bullshit, because that is the very precedent that is now set. Congress can MAKE citizens buy a product.

Umm no they can't. You can choose to kill yourself. There and I did not even invoke the fallacy of the slippery slope.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Show of hands

Who really deep down inside thinks that it is a good thing for businesses having to compete with the federal government?
- 1 has a limited base of consumers for money
- 1 has everybody in the country to take money from

What, exactly is being reformed?
- remember, government expansion is NOT reformation

Who is totally for this new bill, no matter what?
- and why?

THey are not competing with the federal government. THey are breaking effective monopolies that is stifling competition.

As an example Blue Cross blue shield has about 85% of the market in Alabama. That is no competition and no competition equals higher prices and a poorer product.

BCSbunk wrote:
THey are not competing with the federal government. THey are breaking effective monopolies that is stifling competition.

As an example Blue Cross blue shield has about 85% of the market in Alabama. That is no competition and no competition equals higher prices and a poorer product.

Is that a Democrat talking point?


Who do you think helped establish the monopoly? The government through their regulations. Insurance companies aren't even allowed to compete across state lines.

I was just reading in the Wallstreet Journal, and they are entirely right, that Anthem Blue Cross's decision to raise rates on individuals and small businesses this year is the single worst and most ill-timed decision in corporate history.

Scott Brown had just been elected, health care was dead in the water, and that one decision they said gave the President the talking point he had been missing for a year, and re-energized and galvanized the Democrats will to go for the brass ring realizing if they failed it would be another generation before they even had a shot.

If that rate increase does not happen, Obamacare does not control 1/6th of the U.S economy. It is amazing how history can turn on little things like that.

I wonder if those people in that board room realized they were making not only a decision to raise rates, but serve as the face for exactly why the government needed to comandeer control of $2.5 trillion a year worth of the U.S economy.

eersandbeers wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
THey are not competing with the federal government. THey are breaking effective monopolies that is stifling competition.

As an example Blue Cross blue shield has about 85% of the market in Alabama. That is no competition and no competition equals higher prices and a poorer product.

Is that a Democrat talking point?


Who do you think helped establish the monopoly? The government through their regulations. Insurance companies aren't even allowed to compete across state lines.

The state governments did. The federal government is correcting the mistakes made. They will be allowed to compete now.

This will bust the effective monopolies and that is a great thing for the people of the US.

eersandbeers wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
THey are not competing with the federal government. THey are breaking effective monopolies that is stifling competition.

As an example Blue Cross blue shield has about 85% of the market in Alabama. That is no competition and no competition equals higher prices and a poorer product.

Is that a Democrat talking point?


Who do you think helped establish the monopoly? The government through their regulations. Insurance companies aren't even allowed to compete across state lines.

Even assuming that the federal government put those monopolies in place, is it somehow a bad thing if they now are trying to reduce their monopolistic power?

Footwedge wrote:

majorspark wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: We can vote out the greedy in DC, I can't vote out some despotic bastard that runs Aultra,

In the 200 plus year history of the federal government. When have we ever been able to by our voting power completely purge Washington of greed. It is as impossible to purge it in DC as it is in the private sector. One possess power over all 300 million of us. The other just its customers.

The private sector owns the governmnent. Bought and paid for. Virtually all legislative action is passed with the tacit approval of the private sector. Even the AMA approved Obamacare.

Any one corporation deemed by the federal government as to big to fail and worthy of government bailout is inherently not a free market entity. Any entity not subject to the risk of failure and the consequences that would ensue either by subsidization, bailout, or tax law by the federal government is no longer a free market entity but merely to a varying degree an arm of the government.

I do understand your frustration. However I don't agree that the private sector rules the roost. Certain "private sector" entities wield greater influence on federal politicians than individual Americans. No doubt about that. Government is instituted among men to make the rules. With those rules come power. When concentrated that power becomes dangerous. There is no doubt where the power lies. It lies with the politicians in Washington DC. Central power over 300 million citizens is being solidified every day.

It is too bad the southern states chose an immoral and inhumane issue to make their stand on state sovereignty. They lost that battle and rightfully so. Their decision to make that stand on immorality cost us all and placed control of the ball in the federal government's court.

If we had the balance of power that most of the founders envisioned between the sovereign states and the federal government imagine how much more difficult it would be for corporate oligarchies to gain influential power. They would be forced to divide their power between 50 sovereign state plus Washington. Divide and conquer it is the only way.

This is why a true free market works so well, in the private sector. competing free markets bring down prices to the benefit of the consumer. It is no different for government. Competing free governments bring down unessential government influence to the benefit of the citizen.