Viva Socialism!

[ThinkerX]

Sheesh...

If I understand this health care thing correctly (and it is possible I don't), then...It looks like I get to fork over even more money to the infernal revenue service than usual for the next few years...and after that, despite my desires otherwise, I get to become a parasite.

As to the rest of you: What are you going to do when whatever your forking over for Health Care now triples over the next year or so? This is a *when*, not an *if* issue. And you do realize, of course, that you will *still* be denied coverage on a whole slew of technicalities? And let us not forget all the nifty annual fees that are going to be tacked in.

[TheKassi]

As to the rest of you: What are you going to do when whatever your forking over for Health Care now triples over the next year or so? This is a *when*, not an *if* issue. And you do realize, of course, that you will *still* be denied coverage on a whole slew of technicalities? And let us not forget all the nifty annual fees that are going to be tacked in.

Is it not obvious? Pass single payer or something similar. There is a reason why this thread is called viva socialism. This is a step in what is argued the right direction. No one considers this bill an end. That is why a fixes bill already exists.

No one likes this bill for what it is. Republican, democrat, liberal conservative or moderate, everyone knows it sucks. Again, one needs only to look to the fixes bill for proof of that.

Those who are pleased by it's passage look forward to the future, to when this stepping stone leads to something they view as better.

Odds are in ten years or so America's military spending will slide below two hundred billion (which would still put us as having the world's most expensive and robust standing military.) in order to pay for social reform.

[Annelise]

I like the no preconditions thing

This is why I ended up supporting the individual mandate in this bill. By that I mean I think we're tippy-toeing around the cost issues and our approach in this bill is surely riskier than it needs to be. But that's what was politically viable right now, so.

[Guest Raidne]

So, pardon me, but this is freaking ridiculous:

What if I have federally subsidized insurance and need an abortion? Who pays for it?

You do. The compromise struck between the House and the Senate says that federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. So if the federal government fully subsidizes your plan, you have to pay out of pocket for abortions—except in cases of rape or incest. (This is the same arrangement for women covered by Medicaid.) Even if the government only partly subsidizes your insurance, you still have to pay for the portion of the insurance that covers abortion. Here's how it works: You write two separate checks to your insurance company every month—one to cover possible abortions, one for all other treatments and services. The federal government then contributes a third stream of money, which cannot be used to pay for abortions. Insurers that offer abortion coverage are required to keep those three pots of money separate. So any time someone gets an abortion, it's paid for from the account devoted exclusively to abortion coverage. (Pro-life advocates who claim that the health care bill subsidizes abortion argue that even if you keep the pots of money separate, the government is still contributing to plans that allow abortion.)

Oh, there's that relentless drive toward eliminating bureaucratic waste that Republicans are known for!

Seriously, guys, you're totally at odds in your own party. These social conservatives are making you look stupid.

And, also, I'd have to agree with the pro-life advocates. If my husband and I split the grocery bill, and I refuse to pay for Cheetos, I don't avoid that by dividing up our grocery funds into (1) funds for Cheetos, (2) funds that cannot be used for Cheetos, and (3) joint Cheeto and non-Cheeto funds.

It would, however, waste a lot of my freaking time.

[alguien]

I love Digg. It allows me to find little links like this one that lead to quite funny (and very insightful) little tidbits such as this:

Say No to Socialism!

--which I thought was especially appropriate, given the thread's title. :thumbsup:

[Mya Stone]

I love Digg. It allows me to find little links like this one that lead to quite funny (and very insightful) little tidbits such as this:

Say No to Socialism!

--which I thought was especially appropriate, given the thread's title. :thumbsup:

:lol:

I love it. I totally want a button like that now.

Also, Raids...I'm completely disgusted with what you posted. That's a whole other can of worms, but I'm so glad the Republicans decided to waste their time including that lil' nugget of goodness in there. You know, coming from the party of "Less Government in the Personal Lives of Citizens (especially concerning their healthcare)" this reeks of shit.

[Greywolf2375]

So, pardon me, but this is freaking ridiculous:

Oh, there's that relentless drive toward eliminating bureaucratic waste that Republicans are known for!

Seriously, guys, you're totally at odds in your own party. These social conservatives are making you look stupid.

And, also, I'd have to agree with the pro-life advocates. If my husband and I split the grocery bill, and I refuse to pay for Cheetos, I don't avoid that by dividing up our grocery funds into (1) funds for Cheetos, (2) funds that cannot be used for Cheetos, and (3) joint Cheeto and non-Cheeto funds.

It would, however, waste a lot of my freaking time.

And looking at this from a different angle, there is a strong chance that this type of requirement will cause hell with the various systems that are actually going to be used to support these various buckets. For instance, someone doesn't use checks but has an auto-draft done from their account to pay. Now that person will need two? Now the recipient of those funds will need to have separate triggers to ID the funds to go into the separate buckets. Not impossible by any stretch, but ridiculous to have to build. Yeah...efficiency at work.

[Guest Raidne]

I assumed the "two checks" thing was metaphorical, and just referred to the portioning that will be done to your payment after you send it in.

But I suppose it could be that stupid.

[MercenaryChef]

so will or won't cheetos be covered under the new health bill? and will i be allowed the puffs or just the crunchy variety?

[nige4c]

I hope many of the opponents will come round in time.

:lol:

Yeah, right. :)

It’s happened everywhere else that has universal healthcare. Very few people in the likes of Britain, Australia, France etc… would want to swap their health care system with the States. There was a lot of opposition when the NHS came in, expect there would have been the same in the equivalent health systems elsewhere.

Admittedly may take a generation or two for you Americans to mostly accept it, but will happen!

From the outside looking in personally think the current/previous healthcare system is barbaric and some of the arguments from those against it are laughable regarding it changing the constitution and moving towards socialism. Also some of the stuff I’ve seen on youtube from Fox News about it is completely ridiculous and an embarrassment to your country that people entertain such thoughts.

People in America seem fine about everyone paying for the police, fire service, roads etc… but not health. Health’s arguably more important that any of those. If you haven’t got your health, what have you got? It shouldn’t be something only those with money can afford.

Realise parts of the bill are flawed, but it’s a huge step in the right direction and something that should have been done years ago.

[Artas]

Realise parts of the bill are flawed, but it’s a huge step in the right direction and something that should have been done years ago.

Amen to that. Pretty sure people will come round to it, in time.

[The Real Will]

So, pardon me, but this is freaking ridiculous:

Oh, there's that relentless drive toward eliminating bureaucratic waste that Republicans are known for!

Seriously, guys, you're totally at odds in your own party. These social conservatives are making you look stupid.

And, also, I'd have to agree with the pro-life advocates. If my husband and I split the grocery bill, and I refuse to pay for Cheetos, I don't avoid that by dividing up our grocery funds into (1) funds for Cheetos, (2) funds that cannot be used for Cheetos, and (3) joint Cheeto and non-Cheeto funds.

It would, however, waste a lot of my freaking time.

While there is no doubt that this provision is stupid, I think it could be argued that if you and your husband each agreed to pay for 50% of the groceries, and further agreed that any Cheetos purchased would be an additional charge to your husband that you would not support, then you are not paying for your husband's Cheetos habit. You've even, kind of, got your three pots. (1) The additional expense to your husband is funds for Cheetos, (2) your 50% of the non-Cheeto grocery bill is funds not to be used for Cheetos, (3) I guess it's arguable that your husbands 50% of the bill is also funds not to be used for Cheetos, but doesn't the same apply to pot 3 under the healthcare bill?

Yeah, that's right. I read this whole thread and it was the Cheetos I choose to comment on. :smoking:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It is? There's no way I'm that cool.

*goes to perhaps clear list*

Starkimus. You may want to check out David Frum. He was linked in the last thread a few times. He's a former speech writer for Bush who has been writing on what the path back to power for Conservatives ought to be. I'll just say that he didn't recommend uniting behind the Tea Baggers.

In fact, even before the Tea Bagger movement developed, he was already recommending that the right ditch the "scorched Earth rhetoric."

Frum made a lot of good points in his article, and I especially liked the one about less regulation on the policies sold through the Exchange to make more affordable policies available. He also pointed out that this is the wrong time to be raising taxes, assuming that any time is a good time. But that's where I think his article falls apart. You can't finance this plan if you don't want to increase taxes. And if you read his article, he's against the taxes. So I'm not sure where that leaves him.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And that is how you get a moderate bill that left the far left want so much more and was crafted by the industry and old Republican ideas, yet you see the right acting like it's the second coming of fascism, as is explained in my sig.

It seems like you guys are talking out of both sides of your mouths on this. Not necessarily you in particular, but the supporters of this bill on this Board. And, frankly, outside this Board as well.

On the one hand, you and Annelise basically say that this is just incremental regulation and nothing for Republicans to get excited about. But on the other hand, you have a whole boatload of folks saying thinks like what TheKassi said here:

Is it not obvious? Pass single payer or something similar. There is a reason why this thread is called viva socialism. This is a step in what is argued the right direction. No one considers this bill an end. That is why a fixes bill already exists.

There are plenty of other folks essentially saying that this bill is just an intermediate step towards a full single payer system, we all know that's coming next, etc. And I think those people are absolutely correct. As has been pointed out, it is entirely possible that employers who look at the numbers will start dumping coverage en masse, leaving more and more people having to move into the heavily-regulated Exchange for individual policies. Once you get to that point, a single payer system is a lot closer.

In terms of the importance of this legislation, Republicans and conservatives (not always the same) see things exactly as TheKassi and others do. That this was a huge philosophical hurdle for the country to have crossed, and was a huge first step to a single payer system. And that's exactly why they fought it so hard.

[Guest Raidne]

While there is no doubt that this provision is stupid, I think it could be argued that if you and your husband each agreed to pay for 50% of the groceries, and further agreed that any Cheetos purchased would be an additional charge to your husband that you would not support, then you are not paying for your husband's Cheetos habit.

Interesting...as I read it, a portion of his 50% contribution would be separated out to pay for Cheetos, leaving me paying the same percentage I was before and him paying for less than what would have been his fair share without Cheetos.

Which is why, despite my best efforts, I would still, practically speaking, be a Cheeto supporter/baby killer.

ETA: FLOW, yeah we'll move on to a single-payer system eventually, probably. If this works. Because if this works to reduce health care costs, than it's possible a single-payer system would work to reduce health care costs. Are you not concerned about what works, or not concerned about reducing health care costs?

Lastly, it's, just, ironic, isn't it that Mitch Romney fought a more liberal version of this same bill so hard that he ended up passing it?

[Iskaral Pust]

Sorry to just parachute in to a long-running discussion. I'm delighted that we finally have some health insurance reform and I look forward to it leading to genuine health care reform down the road.

I cannot believe that we still have some people who agree that we should not deny medical coverage for pre-existing conditions, but they protest the individual mandate. You cannot have one without the other. The only logical outcome of not having the mandated is that millions of people will drop health insurance until the day they are diagnosed with some critical illness. I feel like this has been explained a million times. Why do you think the individual health insurers in California are requesting such enormous premium increases? We collectively cannot take more out of the health care system than we put in.

I'm confident that within five years this will be a very popular part of social policy despite the noisy "grass-roots" opposition we see now. I'm also hopeful that whatever credibility and support the tea-party movement might have with the centre-right will dissolve in their bigoted, racist vitriol. It was fun watching elected officials pander to a bunch of fuck-wits.

I expect that the implementation of the insurance exhanges and enforcing the mandate will be so convoluted that, combined with the utility-like regulation of health insurers, it will become obvious that we should just have a single-payer health care system. It's just a pity that our dysfunctional political system requires this half-assed stepping-stone approach, but hopefully we'll get there eventually.

[The Real Will]

Interesting...as I read it, a portion of his 50% contribution would be separated out to pay for Cheetos, leaving me paying the same percentage I was before and him paying for less than what would have been his fair share without Cheetos.

Which is why, despite my best efforts, I would still, practically speaking, be a Cheeto supporter/baby killer.

Ah, I see. I can't really tell from the quote which interpretation is correct. To me the quote seemed to suggested that abortion was a kind of optional extra, that the government would help out with the price of basic coverage, and you could sign up for extra abortion coverage, but if you did that it was on you. Hence, two checks, one to pay your share of the basic coverage, and one to pay for your own optional extras. I suppose it comes down to how the payments are divided up and whether there's a difference in the government's portion for abortion versus a non-abortion insurance.

Incidentally, if they're going to be this petty about the whole thing then women should pay for their own abortion coverage, but they should still be able to claim for half of the medical costs that would have been associated with the pregnancy if it had gone ahead. After all, that's all money that they've saved the insurance company (and by extension the government). I think they're entitled to their taste.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

ETA: FLOW, yeah we'll move on to a single-payer system eventually, probably. If this works. Because if this works to reduce health care costs, than it's possible a single-payer system would work to reduce health care costs. Are you not concerned about what works, or not concerned about reducing health care costs?

When you say "costs", exactly what are you talking about? The amount of money the nation as a whole spends on health care, or the amount paid by the average individual citizen? Because I don't think it is possible to have any significant reduction in the former without reducing, in some respects, the care available. You obviously can reduce the costs to individuals simply by taking businesses for the money, though.

Lastly, it's, just, ironic, isn't it that Mitch Romney fought a more liberal version of this same bill so hard that he ended up passing it?

The bill that passed in Massachusetts wasn't the bill Romney introduced, and they overrode his vetoes on some of parts of that bill. That being said, he still signed the damn thing. As for how the whole thing there is going....

The state program has been a success in that more people have health insurance in Massachusetts than anywhere in the country. Less than 3 percent don't, compared to 15 percent nationally.

But with residents losing their jobs and enrollment increasing, combined with sagging revenue in a recession, the system is in trouble. Costs associated with the plan are expected to rise far more than originally anticipated in the coming years. The $1.3 billion annual program is up from $630 million in fiscal year 2007, according to a February report by Physicians for a National Health Program titled "A Failed Model for Health Care Reform."

Last week, Boston Medical Center, one of the city's largest metropolitan hospitals, filed a lawsuit against the state claiming it's being shortchanged by a whopping $181 million annually. The hospital claims the state is not adequately covering the costs of Medicaid, Commonwealth Care and the uninsured, saying reimbursement rates have dropped to just 64 cents on the dollar to cover the poor.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:cwDXW9UjwjgJ:www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/20/massachusetts-health-care-woes-cast-cloud-romney-bid/+romney+healthcare+massachusetts&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[alguien]

I've read about Michelle Bachman and Jim DeMint have vowed to introduce legislation right away that will repeal the bill, which seems like a laughable symbolic gesture since even if it managed to pass in Congress, it would require a presidential signature.

So those moves seem all about sound and fury, signifying nothing.

What about the 10 states preparing lawsuits? Same thing? Or do those present more serious challenges?

One thing the people enacting these political stunts need to be aware of is if this bill becomes accepted as the norm, if there are no doomsday scenarios (either in a financial or real sense) then the people who fought against it will have to weather the political storm that they tried to take away 30 million people's healthcare insurance.

[Tempra]

What does this bill mean for you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/?hpid=topnews

A neat little tool for all you Muricans.

"There will be no change to your insurance coverage.

You will not pay any additional taxes."

yay?