Health Care Passed - 2010 Health Care Reform Act Forum

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Health Care Passed

Displaying all 12 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2010-03-23 04:39 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 941

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36002627#36002627

Well it has passed, something is finally done. Now lets improve and perfect it.

2010-03-24 12:29 PM

Magpie
Denver, CO
Posts: 5

It would have been better if the Republicans had participated in the process in good faith. As Obama stated, the law does contain several Republican contributions, and perhaps some of their members would have contributed additional good ideas to make the legislation even better, had they been free to do so. However, when the Republican leadership decided early on that they were going to oppose the bill and make it "Obama's Waterloo" then they were on a course to say no or obstruct at every opportunity.

With the basic philosophical differences between the two parties...one believes basic health care is a right and the other a priviledge...then it is doubtful that anything meaningful can ever be achieved with bi-partisanship. Obama tried, but as he found out, there are some hurdles the Republicans will never jump over.

2010-03-27 09:59 AM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Magpie Wrote: It would have been better if the Republicans had participated in the process in good faith. As Obama stated, the law does contain several Republican contributions, and perhaps some of their members would have contributed additional good ideas to make the legislation even better, had they been free to do so. However, when the Republican leadership decided early on that they were going to oppose the bill and make it "Obama's Waterloo" then they were on a course to say no or obstruct at every opportunity.

With the basic philosophical differences between the two parties...one believes basic health care is a right and the other a priviledge...then it is doubtful that anything meaningful can ever be achieved with bi-partisanship. Obama tried, but as he found out, there are some hurdles the Republicans will never jump over.

Why would it have better for the GOP to "cave" on an issue as visible and emotional as this ?

First, there is the whole issue of the government getting involved in health care. Most true republicans don't see that as the business of the federal government.

Second, from my standpoint, I am more pissed at the GOP for dropping the ball back in '93 when the Hillarycare effort got going. At that point, the GOP should have acknowledged the issue and taken control of the dialogue. They could have kept it from becoming this (contentious fight). It starts with the questions I am going to ask on another thread. And once you have asked and discussed those questions you know what both sides are willing to do.

It is not surprising that it came to this. The issue festered for way to long. But the GOP has no business getting cozy with Barrack Obama. That is why we have the system we do.

Finally, the only thing I have to ask is why it took the GOP so long to find it's balls. For six years they let GWB spend this country into oblivion all the while somehow thinking they had a mandate to act like total morons.

And if they did, they certainly lived up to the madate.

No, the empahsis needs to be on making sure American understands that:

Health care does not come free
That our "free market" system of health care is really nothing more than large insurance companies propped up by the government.
That people fall on hard times.
That we need to balance helping people with government regulation an control.
That nothing is ever fixed (One of the statements that Obama made on the campaign trail....he really did sound like a good republican for a while....was that you can't elect people and just expect your problems to go away). It is the people who need to adjust in a balance of social systems and government to changing needs.

2010-03-27 10:04 AM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Zach F Wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36002627#36002627

Well it has passed, something is finally done. Now lets improve and perfect it.

First, "Health Care" did not pass. A health care availability system passed that includes forcing people to do things against their will (someone asked if something else is American....I have yet to hear a liberal tell me how forcing people to buy insurance is American).

Next, Please tell what improved or perfected would look like to you. This is not a baited question. But I hope you are able to discuss costs. Some of my liberal friends think that taxes should be at 50% if that meant that everyone got all the "health care" they needed.

What question I ask is when does anyone have "enough". It is truly amazing that many people don't think of it in those terms.

2010-03-28 09:39 AM

Magpie
Denver, CO
Posts: 5

Listening wrote: "Next, Please tell what improved or perfected would look like to you. This is not a baited question. But I hope you are able to discuss costs. Some of my liberal friends think that taxes should be at 50% if that meant that everyone got all the "health care" they needed."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most recent Gallup Poll of March 24th shows that all age groups by a 49-40 margin think the health care bill is a good thing.

Seniors age 65 and older comprise the largest group of those opposed by a large margin. Only 36 support versus 54 percent against. Some of these seniors may have Medicare Advantage (Part C), the private part of Medicare in which the government carries most of the risk and the private companies reap the rewards. The new health care bill will cut back on that gravy train, which may have a knock on affect on benefits/costs to seniors that are in Part C. Overall seniors on Medicare Parts A, B and D benefit by new provisions to close the prescription drug donut hole and by free preventive services. Seniors earning more than $85,000 will pay higher Part B premiums. As a whole though, seniors benefit, and the large margin against suggests that the misinformation campaign conducted by Republicans and Fox News has been successful.

Young adults, age 18 to 34 are most supportive at 58 percent, probably in part because of the provision that they can stay on their parent's coverage until age 26.

The 35-49 year age group supports it by a 50-40 margin, and likewise those 50-64 support it by a 48-41 margin.

There are other provisions that small business owners, low income earners and people with a pre-existing condition will like, and also those that worry that their policies might be cancelled if they get sick. These provisions considered in isolation will likely not be contentious in the continuous debates on health care. The one provision that irks Republicans is the provision forcing people not currently on health insurance by choice to take it. However, with implementation of other provisions that say you cannot be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, what would stop people from waiting until they got sick to get health care insurance?

The costs of these individul provisions are an important part of the debate but only in relation to the status quo. I have not seen those numbers broken down anywhere yet.

The public debate should continue as it is only through that debate that people will improve their understanding. It is also the responsiblity of the media to present factual information and not distort or lie.

2010-03-28 12:49 PM

Kosko
Portland, TX
Posts: 1018

Listening Wrote:
Zach F Wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36002627#36002627

Well it has passed, something is finally done. Now lets improve and perfect it.

First, "Health Care" did not pass. A health care availability system passed that includes forcing people to do things against their will (someone asked if something else is American....I have yet to hear a liberal tell me how forcing people to buy insurance is American).

Next, Please tell what improved or perfected would look like to you. This is not a baited question. But I hope you are able to discuss costs. Some of my liberal friends think that taxes should be at 50% if that meant that everyone got all the "health care" they needed.

What question I ask is when does anyone have "enough". It is truly amazing that many people don't think of it in those terms.

Test

2010-03-28 07:57 PM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Magpie Wrote:
Listening wrote: "Next, Please tell what improved or perfected would look like to you. This is not a baited question. But I hope you are able to discuss costs. Some of my liberal friends think that taxes should be at 50% if that meant that everyone got all the "health care" they needed."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The most recent Gallup Poll of March 24th shows that all age groups by a 49-40 margin think the health care bill is a good thing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

This shows a list of the 12 polls RealClear uses for it's average. Of these 12, only Gallup has the bill in the approval plus side. The rest show more disapprove that approve.

I will go back to my original question.

What is an imporved or perfected system look like. I don't think it is just a matter of differentials unless you have models to back up the current system flaws.

2010-03-28 10:07 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 941

Listening Wrote:

What is an imporved or perfected system look like. I don't think it is just a matter of differentials unless you have models to back up the current system flaws.

Dropping the mandatory requirement on the bill would be one of the first improvments I would be in favor for. That was one of my biggest dislikes of the bill. And, obviously, with all government activities, Democrat and Republican alike, there is going to be a lot of extra spending that can be cut out. Exactly what that spending is, I do not know.

2010-03-29 08:34 AM

Magpie
Denver, CO
Posts: 5

Thanks Listening for the link to RealClearPolitics polls. I will be the first to acknowledge that you can't trust poll data as there are so many factors that can bias the results from media hype to the way questions are asked. I tend to look at polls not in absolute terms but rather for trends and to identify differences between groups as the Gallup poll had done.

I browsed through some of the questions in the various polls and picked out the Bloomberg poll as one to highlight. Consistent with many of the other polls, people by a 12 point margin opposed the current health care overhaul plan. But looking at the some of the other questions that they asked might reveal the reasons for that opposition.

When asked if they thought the current health care system is fine the way it is, only 20 percent mostly agreed or strongly agreed. And 79 percent mostly disgreed or strongly disagreed.

On the question, "Health care is so complicated it is hard for the average American to understand the proposals that are currently being discussed," 60 percent mostly agreed or strongly agreed while 35 percent mostly disgreed or strongly disagreed.

On the basis of these two questions, then, one might conclude that Americans certainly don't support the status quo, but one of the reasons they don't necessarily support the current bill is that they don't understand it. I for one am not going to state that I support something that I don't understand. However, I understand enough of it to say it's a first step and more needs to be done to fine tune or fix it as problems are identified.

It will be interesting to see how public opinion changes over time. Republicans will continue to repeat their talking points with an eye on the November elections, but can they ride that carpet all the way to 2012? And Democrats will continue to push their talking points on the immediate benefits to certain groups while side stepping the question of costs.

Many of the questions that you have asked cannot be answered until people have had time to see how it works. The April 5th edition of Time magazine has a good discussion of the health care bill and raises many of the same questions you have raised:

"While the health reform law is expected to reduce the federal deficit by $124 billion in the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, its impact on family budgets is much more of a mystery. Unlike plans to expand coverage and end discrimination against the sick, there's no proven strategy in the reform bill — or anywhere else, for that matter — guaranteed to fix the most daunting problem in U.S. health care: medical costs that are rising at twice the rate of inflation."

2010-03-29 12:34 PM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

There is a difference between wanting reform and wanting this bill.

I want reform. I have great health care, but I have four adult children and three grandchildren (and hope to have many more) who must deal with what we give them.

Again, I want reform.

I daresay it is terrible, lousy, awful process to pass a bill and then figure out what it means.

Truthfully, can anyone agree with this approach ? If they can't explain it to us, how do they know what they passed ?

Finally, The CBO's numbers are only as good as the data and assumptions given them. I don't trust them (the numbers for a minute).

But, then again, I don't know why conservatives argue this point. It is not about CBO's numbers. They don't justify a government system IME, good or bad. Government in health care is not what I want...period. Understanding that my voice is just one of may.

The whole concept in unconstitutional and the GOP should have been spreading that message as well as working on alternative solutions for sixteen years. They didn't and look what happened.

I am more pissed at them than I am the democrats. The flat blew it !

2010-03-29 07:44 PM

Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 941

Listening Wrote:
I daresay it is terrible, lousy, awful process to pass a bill and then figure out what it means.

The whole concept in unconstitutional and the GOP should have been spreading that message as well as working on alternative solutions for sixteen years. They didn't and look what happened.

True, passing lesgislation annd then figuring out what it means is very dangerous. Just look at the PATRIOT Act and what a horrible train wreck that has been. The difference between the PATRIOT Act and the Health Care Act is that there is healthy oppisition to the Health Care Act, enough to where, I assume, enough people have read it to get a basic understanding of the information in the act. While complete understanding with the ability to foresee every loophole and exploitation of any legislation is near impossible, I feel this act is understood well enough to be passed.

In what way is government offering health care unconstitutional? I have heard this claim many times with no arguements to back it.

2010-03-30 07:46 PM

Listening
Lenexa, KS
Posts: 49

Zach F Wrote:
Listening Wrote:
I daresay it is terrible, lousy, awful process to pass a bill and then figure out what it means.

The whole concept in unconstitutional and the GOP should have been spreading that message as well as working on alternative solutions for sixteen years. They didn't and look what happened.

True, passing lesgislation annd then figuring out what it means is very dangerous. Just look at the PATRIOT Act and what a horrible train wreck that has been. The difference between the PATRIOT Act and the Health Care Act is that there is healthy oppisition to the Health Care Act, enough to where, I assume, enough people have read it to get a basic understanding of the information in the act. While complete understanding with the ability to foresee every loophole and exploitation of any legislation is near impossible, I feel this act is understood well enough to be passed.

In what way is government offering health care unconstitutional? I have heard this claim many times with no arguements to back it.

I would say that one of the reasons this bill got so much opposition was that it was rushed through and very few people actually knew what was in the bill.

We are only now starting to hear what the impact will be.

I recently read an article about a medical device company in the state of Massechusets that claims (notice I said claims.....I am so suspicious of any reporting right now....) they will take a 10 million dollar hit this year because of health care when their total profits last year were 9.5 million. Essentially, they said they will be moving 2000 jobs offshore because it is the only way to compete. If this is true (notice I said "If"), then you have to consider how many other potential losses there are.

Why was not this kind of thing being broadcast before ? For one reason, I don't think people knew. Sure, you had lots of time to read the evolutionary remnants of the bills and amendments, but only five days to read the final. If this kind of information (assuming it is true) were being broadcast before, it might have had others looking around.

As to your question about it being unconstitutional, there are ton of arguments both ways.

Nothing is actually unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is. But things like Roe V. Wade are very much at odds with my basic understanding of the USC and I have no problem saying the Warren Court was wrong (and the USC was not written so that you needed high powered "constitutional attorneys" to figure out what it means....the common man can understand it at it's basic level).

But, the basic place to start with constitutionality is the 10th amendement. This, in my estimation (and again, I understand I am just one voice), clearly violates that clause of the USC. But there are many things that do the same. Yes, they should not be there either. But the fact that they exists at all is not a reason to keep making the same error.

And if someone makes the counterclaim that the USC is a "living document", my response is "great". We'll just migrate it to the point where health care is unconstitutional regardelss of what else the USC says. Depsite the rantings of Chuck Schumer (a true conservative in many ways), the SCOTUS can change precedent (as they have in his favor so many times).

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES