Fuck this healthcare Reform...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Why not? It's passed so supporters of this plan no longer care how much the bill costs. The entire reason the unreasonable 1099 statute was in there in the first place was to try to gather as much revenue as possible so CBO scoring could be kept under $1T.

We'll now see all the other unpopular parts of the bill get pulled while all the stuff that really costs us money will stay. And that's what the Democrats want. It was a plan, and the Republicans are falling for it hook, line and sinker.

This is the way it should have been done:


Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) offered another amendment to repeal the provision but paid for it by issuing new taxes on oil companies.

He argued that lawmakers have to decide where money would be spent — not OMB. The Stabenow amendment, he said, would be “abandoning our role in appropriating spending.”

“We cannot pass that buck and we should not,” Levin said.

His amendment failed, 44-54.


Business as usual, the spend-now/pay later far-right is once again in total control of our destiny.
 
Doesn't the far-right have any "news sources" that can spell correctly or report simple facts without pretending they mean something entirely different?

There's no scam here, and the "article" resembles a Mixum post.

It's Congressional testimony. The meaning is quite clear: You can't count the same dollar twice.
 
A glimpse of our future from Massachusetts:

I won't vote for Romney if you won't.

Well, actually I won't even if you do.

barfo
 
More small businesses are offering health benefits to workers

Reporting from Gladstone, Mo.—
Major insurers around the country are reporting that a growing number of small businesses are signing up to give their workers health benefits, a sign of potential progress for the nation's battered healthcare system.

The increase, although not universal, has brought new security to thousands of workers, many of whom did not have insurance or were at risk of losing it.

An important selling point has been a tax credit that the nation's new healthcare law provides to companies with fewer than 25 employees and moderate-to-low pay scales to help offset the cost of providing benefits. The tax credit is one of the first few provisions to kick in; much of the law rolls out over the next few years.

"We certainly did not expect to see this in this economy," said Gary Claxton, who oversees an annual survey of employer health plans for the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. "It's surprising."

For insurers, the market presents a big opportunity. Nationally, three-quarters of businesses with 10 to 24 workers offer benefits. About half of those with three to nine employees provide health plans. By comparison, 99% of firms with more than 200 employees offer benefits.

Now some insurers are reporting significant jumps in coverage.

In the six months after the law was signed in March, UnitedHealth Group Inc., the country's largest insurer, added 75,000 new customers who work for companies with fewer than 50 employees. The Minnesota company called the increase notable but declined to reveal further details.

Coventry Health Care Inc., an insurer in Maryland that focuses on small businesses, signed contracts to cover 115,000 new workers in the first nine months of this year, an 8% jump.
...
Nationwide, the Kaiser survey found that 59% of firms with three to nine employees offered health benefits, up from 46% last year.
 
yeah romney is gonna get killed on that, if he dares to bring it up
 
Clearly if those companies can afford health care for the employees, they must be making too much profit. Tax the hell out of them.
 
let sick babies die, they deserve it, its not MY responsibility, if their parents wanted their children to live they would make more money.

and where do these cancer patients get off? just shut up and die already, im not paying a fraction of a cent to help you receive medication, go to hell.
 
let sick babies die, they deserve it, its not MY responsibility, if their parents wanted their children to live they would make more money.

and where do these cancer patients get off? just shut up and die already, im not paying a fraction of a cent to help you receive medication, go to hell.

Ever heard of Medicaid? We have a government program to pay for health care for those that can't afford it themselves.

Question: How much extra are you willing to pay to ensure that someone else doesn't have to pay for their own health insurance?

Also, you do know that there are plenty of charities out there that cover health care expenses. Not everything has to be done through the government.
 
america, love it or leave it!
 
Last edited:
you understand nothing, people arent put on earth to answer every regurgitated hackjob rhetorical question posed by every bible thumping ditto head

so you are saying EVERYONE who cant afford healthcare will receive it for free from medicaid?... :lol: what a joke

its cool, I will save all the dying babies and cancer patients, you can keep your couple bucks lol, how very compassionate of you.
 
Clearly if those companies can afford health care for the employees, they must be making too much profit. Tax the hell out of them.

Umm, actually it sounds like these companies are getting a tax break to partly pay for the insurance.

Ever heard of Medicaid? We have a government program to pay for health care for those that can't afford it themselves.

Let's say you just lost your job & found out you had cancer. Your income will be too high to qualify for Medicaid. COBRA premiums will cover you but at a cost of $500 - $1500(maybe more!) & that doesn't last forever. Once that ones out you are not going to get insurance from a private insurer. You might be able to get into a state run high risk pool, but not all states have them & they're not exactly cheap. Plus how are you going to pay for it now that you're out of a job? Perhaps your spouse has a job & they have their own insurance, but since yours was better & cheaper your family was covered under yours. Given out electing insurance coverage works, most likely your spouse won't be able to get your family covered under their insurance until re-electing their benefits later in the year.

Tying health coverage to employment is a joke & only makes the deck of cards fall faster on people when they get seriously ill. I guess that's good motivation for them not to be lazy then & go get a damn job! Stop being so lazy, mooching cancer patients!

Question: How much extra are you willing to pay to ensure that someone else doesn't have to pay for their own health insurance?

As much as it takes to ensure everyone has at least catastrophic health insurance. We're already paying for it at the emergency rooms anyways, but much less efficiently. People get cancer, break a leg, need surgery, most people can't pay those out of pocket costs.

For non-emergency/catastrophic, maybe focus more on building companies like ZoomCare & for the low-income give out vouchers they can use at clinics like this.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that any of us have a government-given right to live any more than we have a God-given right to live.

It's sad, but some people are lucky and some ain't.

We tether food and housing and almost everything else to making money/being employed. I'm not sure why health care should be any different.

Ed O.
 
lol, fuck poor people, it's their own damn fault, why dont they just get a better job

if their kids die, they deserve it
 
lol, fuck poor people, it's their own damn fault, why dont they just get a better job

if their kids die, they deserve it

You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It doesn't make it any more applicable or "right".

Very few people "deserve" to die, whether they are poor or not. It doesn't follow that everyone should be kept alive at all costs.

Ed O.
 
"at all costs"??? :lol:

Keep putting the word out, maybe someday we will finally be rid of all those dirty peasants
 
"at all costs"??? :lol:

Keep putting the word out, maybe someday we will finally be rid of all those dirty peasants

Wait... so you think that there should be limits to saving a poor child's life?

Why?

If a rich kid can be saved, why not a poor child?

"lol, fuck poor people, it's their own damn fault, why dont they just get a better job"?

You're being hypocritical.

Ed O.
 
Wait... so you think that there should be limits to saving a poor child's life?

Well what are you proposing? That we should spend limitless money on healing a sick child? Weren't you the one who said that "some people are lucky and some aren't", which mean what? Some kids are lucky, some aren't? Some people are lucky some aren't? That's true, but that's not a valid excuse to let people die from preventable or curable diseases. Saying "oh they don't have a job, thus they deserve to die from a treatable illness" is basically what you're saying & yes it's similar to saying "they don't deserve to eat because they don't have a job". People who believe otherwise have this emotion called "empathy".

But you may go "money money money money, who's going to pay for it, money money money". Money is an instrument created by human beings. While money is a convenient excuse to not give a fuck about people, it still doesn't change the truth that we are all human.

If a rich kid can be saved, why not a poor child?

Yes, why not?
 
Last edited:
Dude pay attention, dont let me get to you so easy

Does the current plan already use the "at all costs" approach? No it doesn't, that's why I lold, you used that to try and get your point across

Frantically putting words in my mouth? Weak
 
Well what are you proposing? That we should spend limitless money on healing a sick child? Weren't you the one who said that "some people are lucky and some aren't", which mean what? Some kids are lucky, some aren't? Some people are lucky some aren't? That's true, but that's not a valid excuse to let people die from preventable or curable diseases. Saying "oh they don't have a job, thus they deserve to die from a treatable illness" is basically what you're saying & yes it's similar to saying "they don't deserve to eat because they don't have a job". People who believe otherwise have this emotion called "empathy".

But you may go "money money money money, who's going to pay for it, money money money". Money is an instrument created by human beings. While money is a convenient excuse to not give a fuck about people, it still doesn't change the truth that we are all human.

Borders are something created by humans, too.

Why aren't we covering Mexican poor children with health care?

I'd say it's because we don't value human life to that extent. And/or because we can't afford it.

Ed O.
 
Dude pay attention, dont let me get to you so easy

Does the current plan already use the "at all costs" approach? No it doesn't, that's why I lold, you used that to try and get your point across

Frantically putting words in my mouth? Weak

I'm not being frantic at all. You're not "getting" to me... you're just being snide and I don't think hypocrites shouldn't act like that.

You're the one who is saying that poor kids are going to die without the government stepping in. I don't think that's accurate, and so I thought you were participating in a thought experiment. There are other reasons

You are the one who seems to be claiming that people opposed to expanded health care value dollars over health. You are the one who implied I'd rather get rid of "peasants" than take care of them.

And yet you aren't willing to pay whatever cost is necessary to save them. You put limits on the amount of coverage a poor child can receive.

I want to know why.

If a rich family can afford to mortgage their second and third homes and sell their yacht to stave off their child's death for a few months... why SHOULDN'T the government do that for a poor child, too?

Ed O.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top