Obama Care Could Be Deadly

I always see the title of this thread and I think how asinine it sounds. Is it nu-cu-ler deadly? Anyway, here's a legit criticism rather than the paranoid stupidity from the Repukes.

Nurses Say Senate Bill Entrenches Chokehold of Insurance Giants
http://www.thenation.com/blog/nurses-say-senate-bill-entrenches-chokehold-insurance-giants

John Nichols on December 21, 2009 - 8:14 PM ET
Want to know what's wrong -- really wrong -- with the health-care "reform" bill being pushed through the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid?
Ask a nurse.
"It is tragic to see the promise from Washington this year for genuine, comprehensive reform ground down to a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the health-care crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry," says National Nurses Union co-president Karen Higgins, RN.
"Sadly," adds Higgins, "we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the test of true health-care reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost effective care for all Americans, and instead are further locking into place a system that entrenches the choke-hold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health. If this bill passes, the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations."
The 150,000-member NNU, the largest union and professional organization of registered nurses in the U.S., condemned Reid's bill -- which is expected to gain Senate approval this week -- as a deeply flawed measure that grants too much power to the nation's largest private and for-profit insurers.
Specifically, the union that takes in the powerful California Nurses Association, cited 10 fundamental flaws in the Senate bill:



1. The individual mandate forcing all those without coverage to buy private insurance, with insufficient cost controls on skyrocketing premiums and other insurance costs.

2. No challenge to insurance company monopolies, especially in the top 94 metropolitan areas where one or two companies dominate, severely limiting choice and competition.
3. An affordability mirage. Congressional Budget Office estimates say a family of four with a household income of $54,000 would be expected to pay 17 percent of their income, $9,000, on healthcare exposing too many families to grave financial risk.
4. The excise tax on comprehensive insurance plans which will encourage employers to reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, promote proliferation of high-deductible plans, and lead to more self-rationing of care and medical bankruptcies, especially as more plans are subject to the tax every year due to the lack of adequate price controls. A Towers-Perrin survey in September found 30 percent of employers said they would reduce employment if their health costs go up, 86 percent said they'd pass the higher costs to their employees.
5. Major loopholes in the insurance reforms that promise bans on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, and no cancellations for sickness. The loopholes include:
· Provisions permitting insurers and companies to more than double charges to employees who fail "wellness" programs because they have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol readings, or other medical conditions.
· Insurers are permitted to sell policies "across state lines", exempting patient protections passed in other states. Insurers will thus set up in the least regulated states in a race to the bottom threatening public protections won by consumers in various states.
· Insurers can charge four times more based on age plus more for certain conditions, and continue to use marketing techniques to cherry-pick healthier, less costly enrollees.
· Insurers may continue to rescind policies for "fraud or intentional misrepresentation" – the main pretext insurance companies now use to cancel coverage.
6. Minimal oversight on insurance denials of care; a report by the California Nurses Association/NNOC in September found that six of California's largest insurers have rejected more than one-fifth of all claims since 2002.
7. Inadequate limits on drug prices, especially after Senate rejection of an amendment, to protect a White House deal with pharmaceutical giants, allowing pharmacies and wholesalers to import lower-cost drugs.
8. New burdens for our public safety net. With a shortage of primary care physicians and a continuing fiscal crisis at the state and local level, public hospitals and clinics will be a dumping ground for those the private system doesn't want.
9. Reduced reproductive rights for women.
10. No single standard of care. Our multi-tiered system remains with access to care still determined by ability to pay. Nothing changes in basic structure of the system; healthcare remains a privilege, not a right.
In fairness to Reid and his fellow Senate Democrats, most of the flaws in their bill are also present in the House bill. And that's the really depressing part.
While members of the Obama administration and key senators claim that the legislation should be enacted because it seeks to expand coverage, places new regulations on insurers and might be improved in the House-Senate conference committee, NNU co-president Deborah Burger, RN, offers a more realistic diagnosis:
"Those wishful statements ignore the reality that much of the expanded coverage is based on forced purchase of private insurance without effective controls on industry pricing practices or real competition and gaping loopholes in the insurance reforms."



The Nation: Nurses Knock Health Care Reform Bill
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121801022
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']You think that cutting off food donations to the homeless at city shelters is clever? Please explain why this is so clever?

You think that banning salt is a ploy to stop all food regulations? Mel Gibson is that you?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='YendelTrex']I thought Knoell said sin tax not donations of food to the homeless or a salt ban.

What point are you trying to make because right now you are all over the place.

I posted it on Knoell's link because it is just as ridiculous as a salt ban.[/QUOTE]

Ye gods you may be duller then Knoell.

Obviously banning food to the homeless is not a bright move if your goal is to help the homeless.

Bloomberg doesn't about the health of the homeless. He wants them out of the city.

Obviously you can get more homeless to leave NYC by cutting off food donations. If they can't eat, they won't want to stay.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ideally, yes.
But if you're not concerned about the cost, do you wait and try to make an appointment in a time frame that's convenient with your family physician/local clinic, or just pop in to the ER whenever, where ever?[/QUOTE]

They still have to pay some kind of co-pay.

And are there studies showing that if people start getting subsidized insurance that they previously didn't have, they continue to go to the ER for minor things like they did before?
 
[quote name='camoor']Ye gods you may be duller then Knoell.

Obviously banning food to the homeless is not a bright move if your goal is to help the homeless.

Bloomberg doesn't about the health of the homeless. He wants them out of the city.

Obviously you can get more homeless to leave NYC by cutting off food donations. If they can't eat, they won't want to stay.[/QUOTE]

What on god's green earth are you going on about? You are bouncing around like a pinball in a pinball machine. :bouncy:
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']What on god's green earth are you going on about? You are bouncing around like a pinball in a pinball machine. :bouncy:[/QUOTE]

Politics motherfucker. Do you speak it
(no you don't)
 
[quote name='camoor']Politics motherfucker. Do you speak it
(no you don't)
[/QUOTE]

Ouch!!! If I wasn't so busy laughing I might get upset by that. Not!!
 
[quote name='camoor']Ye gods you may be duller then Knoell.

Obviously banning food to the homeless is not a bright move if your goal is to help the homeless.

Bloomberg doesn't about the health of the homeless. He wants them out of the city.

Obviously you can get more homeless to leave NYC by cutting off food donations. If they can't eat, they won't want to stay.[/QUOTE]

Bloomberg is counting on people like the people in this forum to look at that bill and go "well, it makes sense I mean, homeless eating unhealthy food just isn't right, we really should make sure they are getting nutritious food."

Then anyone who disagrees with this bill he can point out as someone who doesn't care about the poor homeless people.

So yes you are right, and it is just a shock to me that you finally understand the manipulative nature of these bills. The problem though isn't with Bloomberg putting forward these ridiculous bills, it is the people who look at it on paper and say "that makes sense!" who need some enlightening.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Bloomberg is counting on people like the people in this forum to look at that bill and go "well, it makes sense I mean, homeless eating unhealthy food just isn't right, we really should make sure they are getting nutritious food."

Then anyone who disagrees with this bill he can point out as someone who doesn't care about the poor homeless people.

So yes you are right, and it is just a shock to me that you finally understand the manipulative nature of these bills. The problem though isn't with Bloomberg putting forward these ridiculous bills, it is the people who look at it on paper and say "that makes sense!" who need some enlightening.[/QUOTE]

Well - I will agree that anyone who thinks it is a good idea to deny free bagels to the homeless because they are worried about homeless salt intake is ignorant of the plight of the homeless.

But I vehemently disagree that it's the only problem here. Bloomberg is pulling every dirty trick in the book to defund homeless programs. This is just the latest in a long string of actions to deny them housing, deny them medical care, and starve them out of NYC.

Bloomberg doesn't give a shit about how much salt anyone ingests and he doesn't give a shit about the homeless. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a sad fool.
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']Ouch!!! If I wasn't so busy laughing I might get upset by that. Not!![/QUOTE]

Well it was a joke so I'm glad you laughed. People get a little serious in here - I try to lighten the mood some :)
 
Anyone know of any sites that are taking wagers on the outcome of this? Not that I'm willing to bet, but I'd love to see what kind of odds they're offering...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Fun story.

If I wasn't playing with my money, I'd totally get in on some of this action.[/QUOTE]
Maddof?
 
Haha the news agencies are trying very hard to get the info out.

So the individual mandate IS unconstitutional under the commerce clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts had noted that however that the mandate would have been struck down based on the commerce clause , saying it would "open a new and vast domain" for Congressional power.

But it's going to be a tax or something.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol... So it is a tax after all?

Remember when Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the poor? :D :D :D

More broken promises. Who's shocked?[/QUOTE]

Lol. At least come up with your own spin.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol... So it is a tax after all?

Remember when Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the poor? :D :D :D

More broken promises. Who's shocked?[/QUOTE]

Anyone with a brain knew that was a lie. All the man talks about is rasing taxes. He is a P.O.S.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Just one more tax, yippee.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Pliskin101']Anyone with a brain knew that was a lie. All the man talks about is rasing taxes. He is a P.O.S.[/QUOTE]

And look who joins the party. Welcome, gentlemen.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Here's the process and my take on the current political climate:
1. Democrats in the House and Senate passed separate bills.
2. Democrats lose control of the House during the election.
3. Senate Republican's filibuster the House bill.
4. House Democrats pass the Senate bill with no changes (no conference committee needed).
5. Law is deemed constitutional.

Now, my take on the situation. The Republican's KNEW that the law could be deemed constitutional yet they still refused to participate and would not work with Democrats. If they believed it would be thrown out, they still could have worked with Democrats and gotten bipartisan ideas put into it. That would not have impacted the constitutionality of the bill/law. Now the Republican's have a Democrat passed law that will be near impossible to repeal since Senate Democrats can filibuster any bill that rolls it back.

Our system has become WAYYY too partisan and this is a symptom of the bigger problems we're experiencing. I'm sorry but the Republican's should have participated in writing the House bill and the Senate Republican's shouldn't have filibustered it. It's all sour grapes now.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']lol... So it is a tax after all?

Remember when Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the poor? :D :D :D

More broken promises. Who's shocked?[/QUOTE]
It isn't an additional tax as long as you get health insurance. There are also waivers and subsidies for those that qualify. I know, this information would require you not to be ideological and actually know something, but you can't help being you.

[quote name='perdition(troy']Just one more tax, yippee.[/QUOTE]
You know you're better than this. Don't be bob.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It isn't an additional tax as long as you get health insurance. There are also waivers and subsidies for those that qualify. I know, this information would require you not to be ideological and actually know something, but you can't help being you. [/QUOTE]

Actually, it raises capital gains tax which in my opinion is too low anyway.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Here's the process and my take on the current political climate:
1. Democrats in the House and Senate passed separate bills.
2. Democrats lose control of the House during the election.
3. Senate Republican's filibuster the House bill.
4. House Democrats pass the Senate bill with no changes (no conference committee needed).
5. Law is deemed constitutional.

Now, my take on the situation. The Republican's KNEW that the law could be deemed constitutional yet they still refused to participate and would not work with Democrats. If they believed it would be thrown out, they still could have worked with Democrats and gotten bipartisan ideas put into it. That would not have impacted the constitutionality of the bill/law. Now the Republican's have a Democrat passed law that will be near impossible to repeal since Senate Democrats can filibuster any bill that rolls it back.

Our system has become WAYYY too partisan and this is a symptom of the bigger problems we're experiencing. I'm sorry but the Republican's should have participated in writing the House bill and the Senate Republican's shouldn't have filibustered it. It's all sour grapes now.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. The Republicans were actually VERY instrumental in shaping the bill by feigning compromise and injecting ideas before voting the whole thing down. The final contributions to the bill were to break the filibuster to get two Republican Senators, Snowe and someone else, to vote for the bill, which they did. As much as the Republicans try to disavow their contributions, they are just as responsible for PPACA as the Democrats. I think we should thank them for it!:lol:

So rather than just expanding Medicare, we now have this bandaid measure that will benefit the health insurance agencies than they people they're supposed to serve. Do I blame Obama? Of course I do. But I also blame the Republicans for the smear campaign that characterized PPACA as fucking communism. I blame the insurance companies and conservative think tanks for funneling money to astroturf the entire process.
 
I think Reagan said it best.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

-- Ronald Reagan
 
[quote name='dohdough']Not exactly. The Republicans were actually VERY instrumental in shaping the bill by feigning compromise and injecting ideas before voting the whole thing down. The final contributions to the bill were to break the filibuster to get two Republican Senators, Snowe and someone else, to vote for the bill, which they did. As much as the Republicans try to disavow their contributions, they are just as responsible for PPACA as the Democrats. I think we should thank them for it!:lol:

So rather than just expanding Medicare, we now have this bandaid measure that will benefit the health insurance agencies than they people they're supposed to serve. Do I blame Obama? Of course I do. But I also blame the Republicans for the smear campaign that characterized PPACA as fucking communism. I blame the insurance companies and conservative think tanks for funneling money to astroturf the entire process.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm fairly sure that no Republican's voted for the Senate bill. Remember, the Democrats had 60 votes then. AFTER the bill passed, Kennedy died and Scott Brown was elected to replace him. The house was even worse, they couldn't get ANYONE there (that was a Republican) to vote for the thing or work on it.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Actually, it raises capital gains tax which in my opinion is too low anyway.[/QUOTE]
Well, yes and no. It only affects a single person that makes over $200k a year and makes over $250k in net profit from a house sale. What this means is that if that person bought a house for $200k and sold it for $450,001, they'd pay 3.8% on $1. For couples, the additional tax kicks in at $250k for income and $500k net profit. So it isn't really an across the board capital gains tax hike, but one that targets a fraction of a percentage of the population.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Well, yes and no. It only affects a single person that makes over $200k a year and makes over $250k in net profit from a house sale. What this means is that if that person bought a house for $200k and sold it for $450,001, they'd pay 3.8% on $1. For couples, the additional tax kicks in at $250k for income and $500k net profit. So it isn't really an across the board capital gains tax hike, but one that targets a fraction of a percentage of the population.[/QUOTE]

Well, Yes and no to you. Capital gains on a home sale isn't the only kind of capital gains out there. I own stock in THQ. If I sell that at a profit, that's a capital gain which right now has a limit of 15% max.


About no Republican's voting for the bill, I was right. I guess my memory is better. :)
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/...nd_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html

The law was the largest single legislative achievement of Mr. Obama’s first two years in office, and the most controversial. Not a single Republican voted for the final version, and Republicans across the country campaigned on a promise to repeal the bill. In January 2011, shortly after they took control of the House, Republicans voted 245 to 189 in favor of repeal, in what both sides agreed was largely a symbolic act, given Democratic control of the Senate and White House.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Actually, I'm fairly sure that no Republican's voted for the Senate bill. Remember, the Democrats had 60 votes then. AFTER the bill passed, Kennedy died and Scott Brown was elected to replace him. The house was even worse, they couldn't get ANYONE there (that was a Republican) to vote for the thing or work on it.[/QUOTE]
Whoops, you're right. I could've sworn that Snowe actually voted for it. Guess I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.

edit: I'm fully aware of how capital gains works, but thanks anyways. What I'm getting at about capital gains is that it's only a miniscule step in a better direction. I'm in full agreement with you on it being too low and would rather see a comprehensive hike to a much higher level. The only compromise I would be ok with is to have the rates inline with progressive earned income tax rates.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Whoops, you're right. I could've sworn that Snowe actually voted for it. Guess I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.[/QUOTE]

Snowe and a couple other moderates worked on it with the Democrats but towards the end they abandoned it because of political pressure from the right (tea party).

By the way, I'm not sure about the income requirement for the capital gains. I googled a bit but couldn't find it anywhere. If it's really over 200k then most people wouldn't pay the extra capital gains for sale of stock either.
 
It seems to me that it doesn't really fix what's wrong with the health care system and just makes what we already have bigger.
 
[quote name='Spokker']It seems to me that it doesn't really fix what's wrong with the health care system and just makes what we already have bigger.[/QUOTE]

It starts to fix it. What do you think it doesn't address? Keep in mind this law is huge...
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Snowe and a couple other moderates worked on it with the Democrats but towards the end they abandoned it because of political pressure from the right (tea party).[/quote]
Right.

By the way, I'm not sure about the income requirement for the capital gains. I googled a bit but couldn't find it anywhere. If it's really over 200k then most people wouldn't pay the extra capital gains for sale of stock either.
That's because it's not tied to all forms of capital gains, but only real estate sales hence my example.

If you google "PPACA capital gains," you'll find all the relevant links.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']It starts to fix it. What do you think it doesn't address? Keep in mind this law is huge...[/QUOTE]

It tries to act like a single payer system without really being a single payer system. It's a huge gift to big pharma. I think it's going to collapse under its own weight eventually.

Since a totally free market system is never going to happen because libertarians are evil, I would be happy with one of these systems, namely the Swiss or German systems.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's because it's not tied to all forms of capital gains, but only real estate sales hence my example.

If you google "PPACA capital gains," you'll find all the relevant links.[/QUOTE]

It does apply to sale of stock, divident, interest income, and all other capital gains by the looks of it. But only for high earners so it won't touch most people. Page 6, at the bottom.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...7HQ9B4&sig=AHIEtbRy88QDtDGcjzCk5_EN2NIAN-ssOg



[quote name='Spokker']It tries to act like a single payer system without really being a single payer system. It's a huge gift to big pharma. I think it's going to collapse under its own weight eventually.

Since a totally free market system is never going to happen because libertarians are evil, I would be happy with one of these systems, namely the Swiss or German systems.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why you would say it acts like a single payer system. A single payer system is drastically different than this. People will have to buy insurance or pay a tax (fee). Since this will bring so many healthy and uninsured people into the system, it will barely move the needle on cost for the unhealthy uninsured it brings in. That's the whole point of the mandate. Forcing someone to buy private insurance is not the same as a single payer system (by a long shot).
 
[quote name='Blaster man']It does apply to sale of stock, divident, interest income, and all other capital gains by the looks of it. But only for high earners so it won't touch most people. Page 6, at the bottom.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...7HQ9B4&sig=AHIEtbRy88QDtDGcjzCk5_EN2NIAN-ssOg[/QUOTE]
Right again. I like you!:lol:

I'm not going to lie though, I saw all of those think tank links and just jumped straight to snopes...LOLZ.
 
The biggest problem it doesn't address is the jacked up rates/fees that hospitals charge, and the cost of insurance/medical bills will continue to go up. Oh well, someday we will address the problems and stop putting bandaids on everything.
 
wow, it didn't even take a couple of minutes for the chicken little crowd to show up on the Yhaoo comments. These people are just hilarious...
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']The biggest problem it doesn't address is the jacked up rates/fees that hospitals charge, and the cost of insurance/medical bills will continue to go up. Oh well, someday we will address the problems and stop putting bandaids on everything.[/QUOTE]

If you subscribe to the notion that providers have to jack up their prices to cover the gap between covered procedures and what the patient ends up able to pay, then you can see that coverage costs (to the consumer) and payments (to the providers) should become more balanced.
 
Boner said he wasn't going to spike the ball if it got overturned...LOLZ...yeah right, but in the same spirit of the hyper partisanship that he and his party formented, SUCK IT REPUBLIfucks!
 
Yep it's a great day. Obama will NOT be re-elected.
Our government will spend millions of dollars and hours repealing this stupid ass shit. More wasted time and money. I am so happy :roll:. The economy sucks and yet there are more taxes to pay and more political BS like this for our government to waste its time and money on fixing.

So woohoo Obama will lose the election but boo as it will take valuable time, effort and money to do away with the monumental stupidity and recklessness of Obama.
 
bread's done
Back
Top