Health Care Bill passes House

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, I would rather have open competition and not with the government who can continue printing money or raising taxes. Private companies do not have that luxury. That gives the government an unfair advantage and it would put the private sector at a huge loss.

It's a fact that private sector insurance premiums are going up, up, up. Why? Because of nearly 50 million uninsured and under insured citizens. When these citizens go to the ERs and don't pay their medical bills the medical field has to make up for the loss by raising the price of health care. When the price of health care increases the insurance companies have to raise premiums. When premiums continue to rise more Americans opt out of carrying health insurance or choose to be under insured because they can't afford it. Then you have more uninsured and under insured going to ERs and being unable to pay their medical bills driving up the cost even more... and the cycle repeats itself.

The only way to drive down prices is to increase the number of insured citizens. Once health care providers are being paid prices will stabilize and begin going down. Then, as private insurance providers have to compete with each other AND the public system providers will lower prices in accordance with the lowering cost of health care. It's simple market forces.

We need to reform the system by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. We should, at least, begin there. The only plans that are currently available for purchase are plans that are offered from companies based within the state that you reside. Two or three having the monopoly.

We did that with the credit card companies and we see where that got us. The majority of those companies moved to states that allowed them to charge higher interest rates and then they spread their marketing campaigns from coast to coast. Allowing credit card companies to compete across state lines only allowed them to find ways to increase interest and so the cost of credit went up, up, up.

If competition across state lines were open, people would be able to purchase the most affordable plans for their families. That gives them the American right to free choice and free enterprise. That, in itself, would cause all rates to come down because the insurance companies would want to remain competitive.

Not really. Different states have different laws. You'd see providers moving to states and regions where they could keep prices inflated and competition would coalesce in that region alone with rates inflated.

In addition the health care industry isn't like other businesses. For example, the auto industry. If you show up at a car lot and say that you need a car they will take cash or work out a loan. If you don't have the cash or the credit... you don't get a car. But let's assume that the auto industry was run like our current health care industry. Let's say you show up at a car lot and say you need a car and you don't have cash or credit. But the auto dealer is under an oath to provide you an automobile. So they provide you a car. So they bill you. Guess what, now expand on that, imagine there are millions of you going to the auto dealer getting billed for a car every year. What would that do to the cost of automobiles? You'd see dealers raise the coast of automobiles to offset the loss millions are bringing to the system. As costs rise, more people can't afford auto mobiles so more people are going in for their car and simply choosing to be billed. Now imagine that tens of thousands choose not to pay their bill at all. You'd see the auto industry inflating in costs and crashing. Opening up state lines for dealers isn't addressing the issue. The issue is the millions who can't afford cars getting free cars or being slow pay on the bills from the auto dealer. The issue that has to be addressed are the millions who are milking the system dry.

In both scenarios presented above only one of two resolutions will stabilize costs. One, deny people who can't afford services treatment. That's right. Outright deny treatment. If someone shows up at the ER without insurance... send them home or sit them on the curb side to die. Or two, pass a law forcing everyone to pay SOMETHING toward their care. That requires a public option.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Some are saying that the Republicans shouldn't have voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment, but I'm not sure I agree with that.

Mike Pence was saying that voting for the amendment had nothing to do with voting for the bill overall.

I don't see how they could have voted against the Stupak Amendment. The alternative Republican healthcare bill wording does not allow for Federal funding for abortion unless there is the case of emergency - rape, mother's life in danger, etc.

That is one reason why I believe the Republicans voted in favor of the Stupak - it pushed the Democrats against the wall. I think Pelosi thought she pushed the Republicans in a corner, but I think it backfired.

Anyway, found this clip showing that what many expected - many Democrats will try to have the wording left out of the bill when it gets to the Senate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6tb4...layer_embedded

DOA

Yep, Republicans playing politics with the blood of unborn babies. Same ol' song different dance.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWQN...layer_embedded

GOP Congressman: If Healthcare Bill Is So Fabulous, Why Criminalize Those Who Want To Opt-Out?

Why should people have a right to health care without paying a dime? The only way to stabilize costs is to deny services to those who can't afford them or to make everyone pay something toward their health care. No free rides.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This doesn't address people who currently don't have insurance because they CAN'T AFFORD it.

There are a number of programs and charity hospitals in place already in place for those who are destitute and unable to afford insurance. The issue is most uninsured Americans are working class who simply can't afford their rising premiums. The measure is to primarily stabilize the costs of health insurance. For these families the taxes involved and the negotiated premiums will be less out of pocket than their private sector insurance would be. Add into the mix stabilized costs by an increase in the insured and private sector competition with the public option and costs stand to go down even more as time passes.

It's not a quick fix and the free rides that milk the system and drive up costs will become fewer and fewer.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's a fact that private sector insurance premiums are going up, up, up. Why? Because of nearly 50 million uninsured and under insured citizens. When these citizens go to the ERs and don't pay their medical bills the medical field has to make up for the loss by raising the price of health care. When the price of health care increases the insurance companies have to raise premiums. When premiums continue to rise more Americans opt out of carrying health insurance or choose to be under insured because they can't afford it. Then you have more uninsured and under insured going to ERs and being unable to pay their medical bills driving up the cost even more... and the cycle repeats itself.

The only way to drive down prices is to increase the number of insured citizens. Once health care providers are being paid prices will stabilize and begin going down. Then, as private insurance providers have to compete with each other AND the public system providers will lower prices in accordance with the lowering cost of health care. It's simple market forces.

We need to reform the system by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. We should, at least, begin there. The only plans that are currently available for purchase are plans that are offered from companies based within the state that you reside. Two or three having the monopoly.

We did that with the credit card companies and we see where that got us. The majority of those companies moved to states that allowed them to charge higher interest rates and then they spread their marketing campaigns from coast to coast. Allowing credit card companies to compete across state lines only allowed them to find ways to increase interest and so the cost of credit went up, up, up.



Not really. Different states have different laws. You'd see providers moving to states and regions where they could keep prices inflated and competition would coalesce in that region alone with rates inflated.

In addition the health care industry isn't like other businesses. For example, the auto industry. If you show up at a car lot and say that you need a car they will take cash or work out a loan. If you don't have the cash or the credit... you don't get a car. But let's assume that the auto industry was run like our current health care industry. Let's say you show up at a car lot and say you need a car and you don't have cash or credit. But the auto dealer is under an oath to provide you an automobile. So they provide you a car. So they bill you. Guess what, now expand on that, imagine there are millions of you going to the auto dealer getting billed for a car every year. What would that do to the cost of automobiles? You'd see dealers raise the coast of automobiles to offset the loss millions are bringing to the system. As costs rise, more people can't afford auto mobiles so more people are going in for their car and simply choosing to be billed. Now imagine that tens of thousands choose not to pay their bill at all. You'd see the auto industry inflating in costs and crashing. Opening up state lines for dealers isn't addressing the issue. The issue is the millions who can't afford cars getting free cars or being slow pay on the bills from the auto dealer. The issue that has to be addressed are the millions who are milking the system dry.

In both scenarios presented above only one of two resolutions will stabilize costs. One, deny people who can't afford services treatment. That's right. Outright deny treatment. If someone shows up at the ER without insurance... send them home or sit them on the curb side to die. Or two, pass a law forcing everyone to pay SOMETHING toward their care. That requires a public option.

Aquila,
I do want to address the issue of the "underinsured" and the "uninsured" because I think it is very important. I've been really busy and will address you, hopefully, tomorrow.

I will leave you this, because underlying everything - this is the big issue and the big truth of it!

Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus.

So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

...according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...235765894.html

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes, taxes will increase. But that’s not the whole story.

On the private market it’s not uncommon for a family of four to be paying an average of $600 to $700 a month in premiums for a plan that truly meets their family’s needs. If their taxes increased $400 a month and they took the public option with a negotiated monthly premium of $50 to $100, that equals to paying a total of $450 to $500 a month. Compare that to the $600 to $700 monthly premium they were paying. So even with tax increases, negotiated premiums in a public option will be significantly less, thereby offsetting the tax increase and equaling a savings.

Question… Would you rather pay a total of between $450 and $500 a month out of pocket under Obama’s public option or the $600 to $700 a month (and rising) out of pocket for the private insurance?

I would very happily keep paying the $700 out of my pocket to keep the Federal Gov out of the insurance business!

WHY do some people think the Fed has any business invading every facet of our lives? Serioulsy! Did people actually pay any attentioin at all to history and what the founders thought about "big government"?

I think some of you would happily trade our Gov for a dictator King if he promised enough handouts and freebies.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

I would very happily keep paying the $700 out of my pocket to keep the Federal Gov out of the insurance business!

WHY do some people think the Fed has any business invading every facet of our lives? Serioulsy! Did people actually pay any attentioin at all to history and what the founders thought about "big government"?

I think some of you would happily trade our Gov for a dictator King if he promised enough handouts and freebies.

I think they have already. He promied change. Just didn't tell them what the change would be. How ignorant can some people be?

If I tell you I will give you a job. If you have any sense you would want to know what the job is. You just might not like cleaning the sewers!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's a fact that private sector insurance premiums are going up, up, up. Why? Because of nearly 50 million uninsured and under insured citizens. When these citizens go to the ERs and don't pay their medical bills the medical field has to make up for the loss by raising the price of health care. When the price of health care increases the insurance companies have to raise premiums. When premiums continue to rise more Americans opt out of carrying health insurance or choose to be under insured because they can't afford it. Then you have more uninsured and under insured going to ERs and being unable to pay their medical bills driving up the cost even more... and the cycle repeats itself.

The only way to drive down prices is to increase the number of insured citizens. Once health care providers are being paid prices will stabilize and begin going down. Then, as private insurance providers have to compete with each other AND the public system providers will lower prices in accordance with the lowering cost of health care. It's simple market forces.

The number of the uninsured has dominated the debate on healthcare reform, but it provides very little substantive information that can be used to make effective policy solution, IMO. In other words, from what I keep running across while reading, is that it is always assumed that nearly all of the uninsured, who lack coverage, do so because they can't afford it. There is no quantitive evidence to prove that.

Also at issue - Not having health insurance is always equated with having a lack of healthcare in spite of the fact that individuals, without coverage, are often receiving medical services from a wide variety of sources in the healthcare system. Our family would be one example. We pay out of pocket.

The uninsured use fewer health services, but they still receive a large amount of care, therefore, the lack of health insurance is not a likely factor in the cause of higher mortality rates as some suppose. Most studies will show that the evidence for any higher mortality rates among the poor would be because of education, socioeconomic status, and health-related habits like smoking. I don't see "mandatory" heath program helping these people or lowering health costs.

If we don't get a handle on this, we cannot effectively reform the healthcare system or write any type of policy that will be effective.

Some could argue that it would be reasonable to establish a required "low-cost catastrophic insurance". Because of the burden placed on the public taxpayer, due to unexpected health emergencies or accidents, it is something to consider. But a government takeover - no - I cannot be for that.

We need to reform the system by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. We should, at least, begin there. The only plans that are currently available for purchase are plans that are offered from companies based within the state that you reside. Two or three having the monopoly.

We did that with the credit card companies and we see where that got us. The majority of those companies moved to states that allowed them to charge higher interest rates and then they spread their marketing campaigns from coast to coast. Allowing credit card companies to compete across state lines only allowed them to find ways to increase interest and so the cost of credit went up, up, up.



Not really. Different states have different laws. You'd see providers moving to states and regions where they could keep prices inflated and competition would coalesce in that region alone with rates inflated.

In addition the health care industry isn't like other businesses. For example, the auto industry. If you show up at a car lot and say that you need a car they will take cash or work out a loan. If you don't have the cash or the credit... you don't get a car. But let's assume that the auto industry was run like our current health care industry. Let's say you show up at a car lot and say you need a car and you don't have cash or credit. But the auto dealer is under an oath to provide you an automobile. So they provide you a car. So they bill you. Guess what, now expand on that, imagine there are millions of you going to the auto dealer getting billed for a car every year. What would that do to the cost of automobiles? You'd see dealers raise the coast of automobiles to offset the loss millions are bringing to the system. As costs rise, more people can't afford auto mobiles so more people are going in for their car and simply choosing to be billed. Now imagine that tens of thousands choose not to pay their bill at all. You'd see the auto industry inflating in costs and crashing. Opening up state lines for dealers isn't addressing the issue. The issue is the millions who can't afford cars getting free cars or being slow pay on the bills from the auto dealer. The issue that has to be addressed are the millions who are milking the system dry.

In both scenarios presented above only one of two resolutions will stabilize costs. One, deny people who can't afford services treatment. That's right. Outright deny treatment. If someone shows up at the ER without insurance... send them home or sit them on the curb side to die. Or two, pass a law forcing everyone to pay SOMETHING toward their care. That requires a public option.

There is only one way that purchasing across state lines will work - We have to make sure that we have a bill that states that insurance policies purchased across state lines must take precedence and must honor the consumer's home state laws and restrictions. If we don't, then the insurance companies will do the same thing as the credit card companies and gouge everyone!

We can prevent that from happening!

[Pressing-On]

[Pressing-On]

REP. MIKE ROSS (D-AR): “With More Than $400 Billion In Cuts To Medicare, It Could Force Many Of Our Rural Hospitals To Close, Providing Less Access And Care For Our Seniors” (Rep. Ross, Press Release, 11/8/09)

REP. LARRY KISSELL (D-NC): “From The Day I Announced My Candidacy For This Office, I Promised To Protect Medicare … I Gave My Word I Wouldn’t Cut It And I Intend To Keep That Promise.” (“North Carolina's Blue Dogs And Health Bill: It's Complicated,” McClatchy, 11/6/09)

REP. MIKE MCINTYRE (D-NC): “It Raises Too Much In New Taxes And Imposes New Requirements That Will Harm The Ability Of Too Many Small Businesses To Compete And Create Jobs.” (Rep. McIntyre, Press Release, 11/7/09)

And many more in the link:

http://republican.senate.gov/public/...f-5a2c31773e1f