Wirelessly posted (well lookie here!)

So what does everyone think about the Healthcare reform!
Just looking for honest personal thoughts as to your perspectives. Not trying to start up an overly heated debate! Though if it comes to that fine just keep it honest a respectable!

I have no idea what has been or might be passed. Depending on what has been passed the number of democrats reelected might be less than they are hoping in the next election.

Something has to be done but I am not sure if this will address all the issues. Free medical care for illegals is not the answer.

I think I'm tired of paying for lazy ass people to sit at home and get everything I worked my ass off for.

Probably depends on which side of the political landscape you are on.

I have not read the legislation and neither have most Americans (including the Congressmen and Senators (IMHO), so I can only go by what I have heard and read.

I am sure we will see and hear more in the coming days - more than we probably care to hear.

And to be fair and honest - I agree with ez 100%.

My only opinion is I like the way things are in Canada. Having medical is great!

I think the biggest problem is that there's no public consensus about what specifically is broken, let alone how to fix it.

Is health care a human right? Should there be universal coverage? If so, should the same options be available to everyone? At what cost, and to whom? If health care is a human right, what role is there for profit-driven corporations? For the government? As the population ages and the tax base shrinks, is it fair to ask the young to carry a greater tax burden than those who came before them, in order to provide the more expensive care that the elderly typically need? Is it right that the costs of the uninsured are being passed along to the insured? That some people pay much more but receive far less for their money? That others have unequal access simply because of where they live or work? If care is available to all, and one person needs millions of dollars of care while the costs of ten thousand others barely scratches that amount - and there is only so much money to go around - is it right to cut short the treatment of the "expensive" patient to provide treatment to thousands of others? Who will make those decisions? Will there be any sort of review process? And since all the insurance in the world will do you no good if you can't find a doctor: when primary care doctors make millions less than specialists, are more likely to see the uninsured and the government insured, and are far less likely to even turn a profit (let alone prosper) how can we lure enough medical students to first line fields to maintain adequate primary care for everyone?

No one I know can agree on these things, and there's been no meaningful debate about the problems themselves.

I think we really put the cart before the horse with this bill. Passing this legislation to fix what's wrong with health care, without a consensus as to what the problem is, is really knee-jerk. Typical Washington: the people yell "do something!" and Washington does. Who knows what the consequences will be, but by God they did "something," and they have their bullet point for the next election. Which, as we all know, is the real issue... it was never health care.

Very well said, Kathryn and I agree. I think it is something that is needed, but I think they rushed to get this passed without putting nearly enough thought into it.

Here is a decent breakdown on the bill: Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I don't know how many of you read bills, but they're not the easiest things to read.

I agree. Very well said. I have spent the last couple of weeks diving into 6 gig of health care data for a major corporation, and the issues that you raise are quite germane. The key focus is to "do something" without having necessarily done the research to identify the consequences of what they are proposing.

I remember back in the 1970s a very well respected statistician did an analysis of the "success" of various social initiatives. He sampled a range of things that the government had done, including initiatives sponsored by both the political left and the political right. The outcome was equally fascinating. True success existed but was not as frequent as one would hope. Incompetence (i.e., failure to accomplish anything) was prevalent. Outright failure (defined in this context as having consequences counter to the expected outcomes planned) was nearly as prevalent as success.

To the best of my knowledge no one has followed up on that study in the intervening 30+ years (Jeez, I'm getting to be old), but my gut tells me that the success rate has not improved, while the failure rate may have declined modestly.

Oh, and BTW, in the study that I mentioned the initiatives sponsored by both the political left and the political right had equal success outcomes. Both sides were equally incompetent!

I watched the news and learned absolutely nothing other than the speaker of the house is besides herself on pushing this through. I also heard that some of the states are going to take it to court as unconstitutional. As no clear documentation of what is actually in the bill was mentioned I have no idea if the bill would pass court test or not.

At this point I can only hope for the best but I have no idea what that is either.

Wirelessly posted (well lookie here!)

I do believe we need some sort of reform! But I absolutely disagree that my taxes should pay for those whom are capable of helping them selves and do not! I fear there will be far reaching consequences as yet to be even dreamed! This was rammed down the throats of americans! This is govt moving to quickly on something they know little about. I do believe there should be medical coverage available to all in some way! I certainly think that they way we pay should change! I had surgery once declined the after surgery pain meds (morphine) yet my insurance company was billed for it. When I brought it to my insurance companys attention they said it is part of the normal treatment package therefore paid for! WTF that's a lot of money that didn't need to be paid!
But I digress I shall continue to read the bill in its entirety not that I understand it all but atleast I can say I read it!

Here's one thing I don't understand, from the link jsconyers posted.

I don't know how the government can mandate this. And how are they going to enforce it. :?

The so-called reform is going to send all of us to the poorhouse because we, the working class, people are going to be paying for it. And I agree with zerog46. I have seen many people on disability that were plenty able bodied to work at something, and they sit at home collecting public money. I've seen mothers who were drug users have a child taken away, then they turn around and get pregnant again so they can collect more money. And they keep on using drugs bought with their welfare checks. I don't want to be paying for that crap.

This is the provision that is being challenged on Constitutional grounds. The government is mandating that individuals buy a product/service just for being a citizen or resident. Nothing else is like that. You can have a poll tax to vote for example.

It will be enforced by the IRS. You will have to file proof of insurance with the IRS or pay the fine. Even people who don't owe taxes would have to file proof. However those with low income also qualify for subsidies, so they will actually be forced to get the subsidy and buy insurance. Or go on Medicaid. Or pay the fine even though they have low income.


Since the fine will be lower than insurance premiums for many people, and insurers can no longer restrict pre-existing conditions, many people will just pay the fine.

The CBO estimate of deficit reduction will be wrong. No entitlement program has ever come close to forecast. Romneycare in Massachussetts, for example, was 20% higher cost than forecast within 3 years. Medicare was something like 900% higher than originally forecast for 1990.

Even the "stimulus" bill which was forecast to cost $787 billion is now projected to cost $862 billion. That's almost 10% higher in just a year. The original cash for clunkers had to be increased because it lasted something like 3 days instead of weeks.

If the government gives out handouts, more people than expected show up, and those people use more than expected. Not only will taxes have to be increased, but insurance premiums most certainly will go up.

Here's a bit about prior estimation accuracy relating to healthcare programs:
$829 Billion Is Lowballing It xxx8212; Just Look at History « The Enterprise Blog

my feeling is that this country is screwed. We can not afford such a bill. Why should I be forced to get something I would never use. I don't go to the doctor. I used a midwife in both pregnancys. The only medicine I have ever taken in my life is asprin. I just don't understand how this can be good for the US. I wonder since I am Native American if I will be forced to have this?

But some of us need medication, like me. Having medical is such a great luxury, and it's a privelage I enjoy.

I am not sure why you wouldn't. If African Americans will be forced to have it, I would assume Native Americans will as well. From my understanding, all legal citizens will fall under this reform.

Native Americans (tribe members) are different. They have their own governments and their own laws, and some U.S. laws don't apply to them. I don't know specifically which ones, only that there are some exclusions.

As far as health care goes, I assume that Native Americans will be in or out depending on whether they are included in things like Medicare/Medicaid, and pay those taxes. Since this health care plan shifts many people into those programs in addition to creating insurance pools, I'll bet that factor will answer Angelbear's question.

Thanks for the information. I was not aware of that.

When i register my car every year with the DMV i am required to show proof of insurance. The state of CA also requires Insurance companies to notify them of a lapse in coverage. a letter will be sent out to the insured and if new insurance isn't presented to the state your registration is suspended.

now my question is, how is this constitutional but requiring an individual to carry health insurance unconstitutional?

Let me make myself clear too, i am no fan of this bill. I just don't understand what is unconstituional about requiring insurance.

Car insurance is a state requirement, not a Federal requirement. The Federal government is Constitutionally restricted to certain roles, with the rest of the rights reserved for the states and individuals. See Article I, Section 8 for what the Federal Government is allowed to do, and the 10th Amendment. Try to pick out which clause in Section 8 allows it.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

There are also alternatives to having car insurance in many states. You can post a bond in some cases or self insure. And if you drive a vehicle only on private property like say a farm and don't hit public roads, you can go uninsured. That used to be the case in CA. Not sure if it still is. But again it is the state that legislates this, not the Feds.

Also, the required car insurance is to cover the damage to other other people's vehicles/property and for other people's medical care. If you own your car outright, you don't need to insure it. You can also refuse treatment if the paramedics show up.


Here's a NY Times op-ed from a former CBO Director on how rigged the inputs into CBO calculation were:
Op-Ed Contributor - The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com

There is a government program specifically for American Indians, the Indian Health Services. Based on a 1787 treaty.

Indian Health Service

Unfortunately, it's continues the long history of screwing over American Indians:
Indian Health Carexxx039;s Broken Promises | Reznet News