And the Proposed Obama Health Care Reform bill is.....

[fordhamkid7721]

Obama Fail!

[Y2Julio]

Obama Fail!

 

That is such a great and well thought out argument and statement in regards to Obama's performance. Please post more of your wonderful insights of this administration.

[fordhamkid7721]

That is such a great and well thought out argument and statement in regards to Obama's performance. Please post more of your wonderful insights of this administration.

 

Obama In my honest black in the middle of the two sides opinion, is truly full of shit. He swore to uphold the constitution. This bill is unconstitutional seeing as this bill is basically forcing people to buy health care. The constitution does not provide the Federal Government with the power to force Americans to buy anything. On top of that there is a threat of fine or imprisonment...that's some real bullshit...he's gonna force people basically to buy something they couldn't afford in the first place. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution limits the Federal Government powers to what is only outlined in the Constitution. Anything that is not covered, reverts back to the States and the people. I do agree that health care needs reform but this again IMO isn't the way to do it, and Obama says he is trying to get a system like Canada or Britain's which are both epic failures. Obama owns 30 percent of the economy and with this it'll go up to about 45 percent which would basically turn him into a Socialist. I think he's just trying to garner up as much power as possible to turn this once great nation into a socialist dictatorship..call me crazy if you wish but that's what I see from my eyes. The more you depend on the government to run your life, the more they can take away from you. Although we are to respect the government, I don't think we're supposed to use them as a friggin crutch as this is after all.."The Land of The Free". So there's my two cents.

[Y2Julio]

Much better than your previous comment. B)

[Grand Concourse]

Well stated, fordham. :tup:

[R62A 1991]

Should there not have been any attempt to achieve reform in the first place? I don't have health insurance because it's too expensive for my mom to afford, but everyone keeps telling me that this is not the method to change the system. Is there a proper way to do it, or should it have been left alone? I don't think I am informed enough to have an answer or opinion on this issue right now.

[SubwayGuy]

What if some dude stops smoking for a day, goes to the doctor, says "I quit", and then smokes again?

 

Then the doctor, upon examination of his lungs, will find that they are as full of shit as he is when he told that lie, and declare him a smoker and therefore raise his premiums.

 

To Julio, people who are overly athletic and have high BMI but not necessarily of fat, are also high health risks for torn tendons and muscle injuries, so while their risks are different they are definitely there and should be factored in.

[SubwayGuy]

Should there not have been any attempt to achieve reform in the first place? I don't have health insurance because it's too expensive for my mom to afford, but everyone keeps telling me that this is not the method to change the system. Is there a proper way to do it, or should it have been left alone?

 

See my earlier post: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=247836&postcount=44

[engineerboy6561]

Obama In my honest black in the middle of the two sides opinion, is truly full of shit. He swore to uphold the constitution. This bill is unconstitutional seeing as this bill is basically forcing people to buy health care. The constitution does not provide the Federal Government with the power to force Americans to buy anything. On top of that there is a threat of fine or imprisonment...that's some real bullshit...he's gonna force people basically to buy something they couldn't afford in the first place. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution limits the Federal Government powers to what is only outlined in the Constitution. Anything that is not covered, reverts back to the States and the people. I do agree that health care needs reform but this again IMO isn't the way to do it, and Obama says he is trying to get a system like Canada or Britain's which are both epic failures. Obama owns 30 percent of the economy and with this it'll go up to about 45 percent which would basically turn him into a Socialist. I think he's just trying to garner up as much power as possible to turn this once great nation into a socialist dictatorship..call me crazy if you wish but that's what I see from my eyes. The more you depend on the government to run your life, the more they can take away from you. Although we are to respect the government, I don't think we're supposed to use them as a friggin crutch as this is after all.."The Land of The Free". So there's my two cents.

 

I respectfully disagree totally and completely with the above sequence of arguments. I understand the argument behind "he who governs best, governs least" but this argument was put forth during a fundamentally different time and took hold during post-WWII America for a fundamentally different set of reasons than for the reasons it is oh-so-happily bandied about today by conservatives.

** * *To begin with, that argument was formulated under fundamentally different circumstances than it is being applied to today. First of all, it was developed after the American Revolution as a response to a British government that paid little respect to American civil liberties. Second, during this time there was no such thing as a representative democracy on a national scale and the common belief was that if left alone our government would do the same. The idea of the "small government" principle was to prevent backsliding. Economically speaking, the times were also different; small government was both safe and feasible because we were largely dispersed into self-sustaining agrarian communities. This was so for two reasons: first, there was so little of day-to-day life that went on outside local communities that we really only needed state and federal governments for such things as war, international and interstate trade, and Indian relations. Second, the decentralized, rural nature of our economy meant that large, centralized corporations did not exist yet and thus there was no chance of corporate misconduct or usury in the sense that we would think of today. Therefore, the only place the government could exercise regulatory powers was within the private lives of its citizens, and that was and still is unacceptable.

** * *The second major factor lending this idea credence is the association of laissez-faire or "free-market" capitalism as espoused by Adam Smith with democracy and the association of government involvement in the economy with complete economic pre-planning and Soviet-style communism. I noticed that this argument also featured strongly in your post; I understand where you are coming from but the truth is not that simple. The system that we really were pitting against the Soviets was not true laissez-faire capitalism but rather a golden mean in which corporations were allowed to operate with a great amount of latitude but within fair-play codes daring back in part to the New Deal. Corporations were strong, but so were unions and the middle class (unlike now) and this created a balanced economy with a robust enough manufacturing sector that we could afford to carry on the arms race with the Soviets.

** * *Frankly, the kind of small-government laissez-faire economics espoused by the conservatives do not hark back to the "good old days" between 1945 and 1968, but to a somewhat less pleasant period in our history: the Gilded Age from 1869 to 1929. Then, as now, industry was exploding into all kinds of new fields. Also, the government on all levels tended to be rather weak and corrupt during that time. Finally, a large population of immigrants allowed for a corporate race to the bottom in terms of pay and working condition (only now the slums are in Beijing and Mumbai rather than New York and Chicago). The Gilded Age economy was a mess like ours has been, with a decent-sized recession every decade or so and a severe crash every twenty to thirty years. Governmental inaction also led to one of the most skewed distributions of wealth in our history, with a small population of super-rich and the vast majority of people either poor already or slowly losing their grip on a middle-class life.

** * *My argument to you is that true prosperity has not come in this country when we permit private capital to have the run of the market; that simply leads to a repeat of the Gilded Age and that is not a pretty picture. Neither do we want total government control over the economy, as the Soviet Union proved to us. I believe that we should return to the golden mean of the 1950s and 1960s, when corporations were unhampered but a combination of strong regulations and strong rival interest groups kept all sides honest. I choose to support this bill despite my discomfort with the individual mandate because the health insurance market has been one of the worst in terms of abuse; I don't need to restate the horror stories here because we have all heard them. As Shortline Bus has said, these abuses have created a two-tier healthcare system in this country; for the wealthy and super-wealthy, American medicine is light-years ahead of anything else. However, most of the rest of us, even the middle-class to upper middle-class who see themselves as half a step below the wealthy, would be better off in Britain or Canada because treatment that come with a wait over there come with a bill that makes them out of reach for most over here. My only real issue with the bill is the fact that it has the mandate without the public option, and thus the government requires you to get coverage without providing a choice of last resort. However, that can be remedied by passing the public option separately. *

[INDman]

Then the doctor, upon examination of his lungs, will find that they are as full of shit as he is when he told that lie, and declare him a smoker and therefore raise his premiums.

 

To Julio, people who are overly athletic and have high BMI but not necessarily of fat, are also high health risks for torn tendons and muscle injuries, so while their risks are different they are definitely there and should be factored in.

 

So you want to punish fat people and now you want to punish those who live a very active life style? Yea I can understand want obease people to pay more them your average person becaue their codition will impact their health. Punishing people who are very active such as those who play sports (non profesionaly) because they maybe blow out their knees or they may break something is just plain rediculus.

[engineerboy6561]

So you want to punish fat people and now you want to punish those who live a very active life style? Yea I can understand want obease people to pay more them your average person becaue their codition will impact their health. Punishing people who are very active such as those who play sports (non profesionaly) because they maybe blow out their knees or they may break something is just plain ridiculous.

 

THANK YOU. My issue with most of the alternative healthcare proposals floating around this thread is that they come from people who accuse the government of preparing to slash quality for people but rather than consider (gasp!) higher taxes, even and for some odd reason especially if they target the wealthy, they instead look to take the costs out of someone else's hide by hiking premiums for a given group because of their lifestyle. Increased premiums for obese people and smokers I have some discomfort with, but it is not totally absurd. However, punishing athletes on the off chance of a sports injury is the same money-grubbing behavior that has landed the insurance companies in such hot water. If that's not punitive governmental interference in our private lives, then I don't know what is.

[MTARegional Bus]

Not worry this law won't be implement on still 2014 so by that time there well be a new president to take it out,I hope B)

[INDman]

Not worry this law won't be implement on still 2014 so by that time there well be a new president to take it out,I hope

 

Thankfuly I think the "choosen one" has put any chance of re-election in jepordy when he and his people shoved this unconstutional bill down our collective American throughts.

[SubwayGuy]

So you want to punish fat people and now you want to punish those who live a very active life style? Yea I can understand want obease people to pay more them your average person becaue their codition will impact their health. Punishing people who are very active such as those who play sports (non profesionaly) because they maybe blow out their knees or they may break something is just plain rediculus.

 

You can be in shape and not have a huge BMI. Many professional athletes do pull it off. While "SOME" athletes have high BMI that doesn't mean that "ALL" athletes do, because they don't.

 

And anyone who is a high risk to need treatment should pay more. Those who are low risks to need treatment should pay less, it's pretty simple and makes sense.

 

It's not about how "healthy" it makes a person it's about how likely they are to need care. Care which is being paid for from a pool of money that ALL of us would be contributing to. So I'd rather that those who are the greatest RISKS based on lifestyle pay more, whatever that lifestyle is.

 

Higher BMI in an athlete = more strain on tendons and ligaments, which is a HEALTH RISK, they should pay more.

[SubwayGuy]

THANK YOU. My issue with most of the alternative healthcare proposals floating around this thread is that they come from people who accuse the government of preparing to slash quality for people but rather than consider (gasp!) higher taxes, even and for some odd reason especially if they target the wealthy, they instead look to take the costs out of someone else's hide by hiking premiums for a given group because of their lifestyle. Increased premiums for obese people and smokers I have some discomfort with, but it is not totally absurd. However, punishing athletes on the off chance of a sports injury is the same money-grubbing behavior that has landed the insurance companies in such hot water. If that's not punitive governmental interference in our private lives, then I don't know what is.

 

That's not at all what I said. It never ceases to amaze me the inability people have on these forums to grasp NUANCE, SUBTLETY, and DETAIL. It's as if things are not catch all explained in one sentence with all four letter words it boggles the shit out of them.

 

Nowhere did I say anything about hiking athletes' premiums. What I said was hike people's premiums who had high BMI and were clinically obese REGARDLESS of whether or not they are "athletes."

 

If they're athletes, and that weight is muscle, that doesn't matter...because it puts strain on their tendons and ligaments, which can tear or rupture, and is therefore a HEALTH RISK just like those carrying a lot of fat contain a HEART DISEASE RISK.

 

Fact of the matter is MANY athletes do NOT meet the definition of obese. Nowhere did I say anything about making them pay more, because they are LESS of a risk than those with higher BMI.

[INDman]

Ok so by that, cops, fire fighters, TA workers, construction workers, and many other professions that are injury prone will have to pay more.

[mediccjh]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[engineerboy6561]

That's not at all what I said. It never ceases to amaze me the inability people have on these forums to grasp NUANCE, SUBTLETY, and DETAIL. It's as if things are not catch all explained in one sentence with all four letter words it boggles the shit out of them.

 

Nowhere did I say anything about hiking athletes' premiums. What I said was hike people's premiums who had high BMI and were clinically obese REGARDLESS of whether or not they are "athletes."

 

If they're athletes, and that weight is muscle, that doesn't matter...because it puts strain on their tendons and ligaments, which can tear or rupture, and is therefore a HEALTH RISK just like those carrying a lot of fat contain a HEART DISEASE RISK.

 

Fact of the matter is MANY athletes do NOT meet the definition of obese. Nowhere did I say anything about making them pay more, because they are LESS of a risk than those with higher BMI.

 

I beg to differ; the point that I was trying to make is that I disagree with the idea of targeted premiums except in extreme cases. BMI worries me in particular because it disproportionately affects the poor and working class, who in fact can cover these costs the least. My argument is considering how profitable the insurance market is, insurance companies do not need and therefore have no right to ask for extra from already struggling people. If this new system needs funding to cover people's bills, this funding should come out of eithercthe corporations' pockets or from those making over $250-300,000 per year because they can afford it most.

[Y2Julio]

That's not at all what I said. It never ceases to amaze me the inability people have on these forums to grasp NUANCE, SUBTLETY, and DETAIL. It's as if things are not catch all explained in one sentence with all four letter words it boggles the shit out of them.

 

Nowhere did I say anything about hiking athletes' premiums. What I said was hike people's premiums who had high BMI and were clinically obese REGARDLESS of whether or not they are "athletes."

 

If they're athletes, and that weight is muscle, that doesn't matter...because it puts strain on their tendons and ligaments, which can tear or rupture, and is therefore a HEALTH RISK just like those carrying a lot of fat contain a HEART DISEASE RISK.

 

Fact of the matter is MANY athletes do NOT meet the definition of obese. Nowhere did I say anything about making them pay more, because they are LESS of a risk than those with higher BMI.

Make those that fall under the normal BMI pay extra too. I would imagine that those are skinny would be more prone to weak bones and would be at risk to break them if they were to fall. Those with low BMI can also suffer from eating disorders which cause health problems too.

[NX Express]

Obama In my honest black in the middle of the two sides opinion, is truly full of shit. He swore to uphold the constitution. This bill is unconstitutional seeing as this bill is basically forcing people to buy health care. The constitution does not provide the Federal Government with the power to force Americans to buy anything. On top of that there is a threat of fine or imprisonment...that's some real bullshit...he's gonna force people basically to buy something they couldn't afford in the first place. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution limits the Federal Government powers to what is only outlined in the Constitution. Anything that is not covered, reverts back to the States and the people. I do agree that health care needs reform but this again IMO isn't the way to do it, and Obama says he is trying to get a system like Canada or Britain's which are both epic failures. Obama owns 30 percent of the economy and with this it'll go up to about 45 percent which would basically turn him into a Socialist. I think he's just trying to garner up as much power as possible to turn this once great nation into a socialist dictatorship..call me crazy if you wish but that's what I see from my eyes. The more you depend on the government to run your life, the more they can take away from you. Although we are to respect the government, I don't think we're supposed to use them as a friggin crutch as this is after all.."The Land of The Free". So there's my two cents.

So...the law mandating homeowner's insurance is unconstitutional too?

[fordhamkid7721]

So...the law mandating homeowner's insurance is unconstitutional too?

 

We're FORCED TO buy healthcare now and pay for what we don't even need. Are you forced to own a home? no. It's necessary if you own a home like car insurance is necessary if you own a car.

[Urbanfortitude]

We're FORCED TO buy healthcare now and pay for what we don't even need. Are you forced to own a home? no. It's necessary if you own a home like car insurance is necessary if you own a car.

 

See I have no problem being mandated to have health insurance. It blows big time sitting here without it praying you don't get sick, get hurt or some way shape or form need to pay a visit to any doctor. So I'm honestly trying to understand what the big deal is about that. If your parents have you on their health insurance guess what kid, you're covered till you're 26.

 

I wish that was signed into law before I turned 21. The only thing I care about is that I'll be able to find an insurance policy that I can pay for. I see myself as being no different from the car or home that can meet with an unfortunate accident at any given minute or hour of the day and I don't wanna be uninsured when it happens. Which is the thing I think you're missing. Nobody who is uninsured wants to be uninsured.

 

So it's not forcing the people to go out there to get something they don't want. It's forcing the insurance companies to provide something that everybody should have.

[SubwayGuy]

Make those that fall under the normal BMI pay extra too. I would imagine that those are skinny would be more prone to weak bones and would be at risk to break them if they were to fall. Those with low BMI can also suffer from eating disorders which cause health problems too.

 

Fine by me if the medical evidence backs that up.

[SubwayGuy]

Ok so by that, cops, fire fighters, TA workers, construction workers, and many other professions that are injury prone will have to pay more.

 

No because that has nothing to do with their lifestyle. What their jobs require them to do is different from what choices they make, which is what is being targeted. You seem to be fixating on "athletes" as though it's a job. Many athletes are of perfectly healthy BMI, only those that "bulk up" too much and become muscle bound will run into trouble. Again, it has nothing to do with the fact they're an athlete. Many of these "athletes" that would be hit by this don't even actually get paid to play sports, it's just something they do. They do other jobs in the meantime.

 

And by the way, what you're talking about (which you mistakenly think I was suggesting) was already partially worked into the bill but was scaled back, which is what I'm against. High value "cadillac" plans which are given to workers in the most dangerous jobs, ARE going to be taxed at a higher rate (it was scaled back due to complaints by unions), but what I'm proposing is an alternative since the money has to come from somewhere.

[SubwayGuy]

I beg to differ; the point that I was trying to make is that I disagree with the idea of targeted premiums except in extreme cases. BMI worries me in particular because it disproportionately affects the poor and working class, who in fact can cover these costs the least. My argument is considering how profitable the insurance market is, insurance companies do not need and therefore have no right to ask for extra from already struggling people. If this new system needs funding to cover people's bills, this funding should come out of eithercthe corporations' pockets or from those making over $250-300,000 per year because they can afford it most.

 

I am against big corp's making huge profits, I've been over that here before. They have a DUTY to distribute profits to shareholders not hoard them and pay themselves huge bonuses. I am in favor of keeping corp taxes the same, but raising those on high earning individuals and couples b/c that goes directly to benefit the already too rich to discourage corp's from paying out huge bonuses, or if they do, making sure a lot of that is recouped by the gov't for debt service to PAY DOWN OUR DEBT.

 

The increase in taxes on wealthy individuals and couples is already incorporated into the new bill.

 

However, what is NOT incorporated into the new bill is any kind of actual cost containment. It SOUNDS nice, but what will keep costs from rising at the astronomical rate they have been in the future? Not much. Subsidies. You know what happens to subsidies? Inflation. When the cost of something goes from $500 to $1000 over 20 years, suddenly that $200 "subsidy" being received to help pay for it doesn't look so good anymore to a person who has $400 to spend on it.

 

The solution is cutting costs now and into the future, permanently, and containing them, not coming up with temporary taxes that will pay for it for the next few years until some dipshit accountant misses a 15 year forecast estimate by a couple trillion dollars again.