What, no thread on health care yet?

Another Question:

I kept hearing about how the Dems could never get this through because the Rep would filibuster, so they needed that super majority. Why is it the Rep did not do the filibuster they feared? And why the heck did they fear it anyway, I mean they could just wait them out. The fact that a majority was having issues getting something passed seems strange to me (infighting?, not all would vote for it?).

aircooled wrote: Question (in case anyone is still reading): If federally mandated health care is against the constitution, then why isn't federally mandated social security or medicare? (If the social security and medicare are unconstitutional, then why haven't people been screaming about those the end of the country for the many years they have been in effect.) Just curious.

One huge difference - in those programs, government collects the money, and government distributes the money. In this new one, government is mandating that the citizens engage in a transaction with a private entity.

Additionally, a lot of us have been screaming about those being the end of the country for years. Personally, I think that the empending Social Security implosion will be what finally does us in.

chaparral wrote: The point of Social Security is that no matter how badly your investments and savings do, you will not be destitute in your old age. Poor, yes, but not destitute. It allows you to take large risks with your long-term savings and reap the rewards.

True. The big problem with Social Security as it sits now is that those who have really done well with investments etc still receive a SS check.

I was told a few years back by a woman whose husband died and left her very well off that she used her SS check to make the payments on her Jaguar.

If means testing were put in place, that type of thing would end. Some studies suggest that means testing by itself would extend the Social Security insolvency to somewhere around 2060.

^ Agreed.

Jensenman wrote:

chaparral wrote: The point of Social Security is that no matter how badly your investments and savings do, you will not be destitute in your old age. Poor, yes, but not destitute. It allows you to take large risks with your long-term savings and reap the rewards.

True. The big problem with Social Security as it sits now is that those who have really done well with investments etc still receive a SS check. I was told a few years back by a woman whose husband died and left her very well off that she used her SS check to make the payments on her Jaguar. If means testing were put in place, that type of thing would end. Some studies suggest that means testing by itself would extend the Social Security insolvency to somewhere around 2060.

Except that's exactly redistribution of wealth - punishing people for success and all that, which I want no part of.

93celicaGT2 wrote:

aircooled wrote:

Strizzo wrote: the issue is not that healthcare is federally mandated, its that the law requires everyone to buy insurance or else they pay a fine.

But they require people to pay into SS and medicare, you don't even have an option to pay a fine. I am really just trying to figure out why "they" are FREAKING out about this and not SS / medicare. I actual saw two American flags out this morning Hanging Upside Down!!! That's freaking out... I wonder which talking head suggested they do that...

Personally, i freak out about both of those things. Every paycheck. When i find that i've taken home somewhat less than HALF of what i've "made" that pay period.

Me too, this is just one more in a line of more expensive and more insidious and less helpful government programs that all are unconstitutional and run into the ground.

What, no thread on health care yet?

(nerdvoice) For me the grief is still too near (/nerdvoice.)

Jensenman wrote: True. The big problem with Social Security as it sits now is that those who have really done well with investments etc still receive a SS check. I was told a few years back by a woman whose husband died and left her very well off that she used her SS check to make the payments on her Jaguar.

I fail to see the issue with this. You pay in, you get paid. If you selectively pay out based upon need then you must allow me to selectively pay in or you are just garnishing my wages.

Why should I (who has paid a lot in) forfeit my small payout just because I was more successful managing my cash and don't really need it? They forced me to pay in or I would never have done it. I'd like to force them to give me whatever I can recover of those thousands upon thousands. If I feel like being noble and giving it to the poor - I SHOULD MAKE THAT CALL.

Or... better... lets scrap the whole thing and give me back my damn money at zero interest.

Am I the only one who thinks maybe this isn't nearly as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be?

One side, we have Democrats running around in their underpants eating cotton candy in celebration. On the other side we have Congressman Shamey McShamerson acting like a Catholic school nun to a batch of misbehaving children.

But it will be a big deal, and I'm not trying to add to the fear mongering here - but what happens when employers realize that it's cheaper to pay a $2K fine and force their employees into the public pools than to offer insurance?

Or when they offer insurance for ONLY the employee but not for the employees dependents?

Or what's going to happen to premiums when parents plans have to start paying for Susie's illegitimate baby because she got knocked up at age 26?

Or what going to happen to private premiums when they get taxed 40% because they are considered a "Cadillac" plan, which by the way is only 8% of plans now but according to Slate.com will be 37% of all private plans by 2018 when the tax kicks in.

The plan has some great things in it and some that are or can be very destructive to my own well-being.

But as I was taught in life - EVERYTHING costs something and you get what you work for.

BTW a upside down flag is a sign of a soldier in distress (or in this a case a country).

One other thing, did anybody see a little know mandate in the Healthcare Bill?

Now restaurants will have to have the caloric intake of all items posted on the menuboard.

Cheeseburger>$2.99>2000 calories

WTF???

I'm not a right wing angry rant type person, but I really dislike this law. It is very likely that the majority of people will be worse off for this. It does nothing to address "skyrocketing health insurance premiums", other than to force them even higher through new rules. Another tidbit that has received very little press is that FSA Contribution limits are being cut in half and some types of prescription drugs are no longer elligible for reimbursement. That will effectively raise taxes for many Americans while "not raising taxes". Nice.

aircooled wrote: Question (in case anyone is still reading): If federally mandated health care is against the constitution, then why isn't federally mandated social security or medicare? (If the social security and medicare are unconstitutional, then why haven't people been screaming about those the end of the country for the many years they have been in effect.) Just curious.

I'm pretty sure that if you don't work you don't have to pay Medicare or Social Security. You have a choice whether or not you want to work, and thus indirectly have a choice whether to pay Medicare and SS. With the health care bill you have no choice. If you don't work you still have to pay for health care, that is why people are arguing that this is unconstitutional.

Bob

it also takes over all student loans, so the gov't can decide who gets a loan for school and who doesn't

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Jensenman wrote: True. The big problem with Social Security as it sits now is that those who have really done well with investments etc still receive a SS check. I was told a few years back by a woman whose husband died and left her very well off that she used her SS check to make the payments on her Jaguar.

I fail to see the issue with this. You pay in, you get paid. If you selectively pay out based upon need then you must allow me to selectively pay in or you are just garnishing my wages. Why should I (who has paid a lot in) forfeit my small payout just because I was more successful managing my cash and don't really need it? They forced me to pay in or I would never have done it. I'd like to force them to give me whatever I can recover of those thousands upon thousands. If I feel like being noble and giving it to the poor - I SHOULD MAKE THAT CALL. Or... better... lets scrap the whole thing and give me back my damn money at zero interest.

Social Security was (and still is) an insurance program, basically. It was intended as a safety net of last resort. It is also known as OASDI: Old Age, Survivors and Disability INSURANCE.

http://www.investorwords.com/5688/OASDI.html

Just like any other type of insurance (car, health, etc) it is quite possible to pay a wad into it and never be able to claim a dime.

At the time the system was devised, people did not live as long as they do now. It was never intended as the first line of defense, so to speak. But over the years it's morphed and been bastardized into an entitlement for all, thereby leading to the current (or more accurately near future) fiscal disaster.

Schmidlap wrote: I'm pretty sure that if you don't work you don't have to pay Medicare or Social Security. You have a choice whether or not you want to work, and thus indirectly have a choice whether to pay Medicare and SS. With the health care bill you have no choice. If you don't work you still have to pay for health care, that is why people are arguing that this is unconstitutional. Bob

If you don't work, you don't have income. If you don't have income, it's subsidised, so you aren't going to be paying a fine OR the insurance costs. So worrying that you're gonna get raped by either insurance costs or government fines if you don't have a job is unwarranted.

Chris_V wrote:

Schmidlap wrote: I'm pretty sure that if you don't work you don't have to pay Medicare or Social Security. You have a choice whether or not you want to work, and thus indirectly have a choice whether to pay Medicare and SS. With the health care bill you have no choice. If you don't work you still have to pay for health care, that is why people are arguing that this is unconstitutional. Bob

If you don't work, you don't have income. If you don't have income, it's subsidised, so you aren't going to be paying a fine OR the insurance costs. So worrying that you're gonna get raped by either insurance costs or government fines if you don't have a job is unwarranted.

Is it warranted to be PO'd about paying for government-influenced, higher personal insurance AND paying for someone else's, too?

That's only one of many underlying questions by people who do not support this legislation.

I just wish everyone had referred to it as "Federally mandated purchase of health insurance" the whole way through.

SS is basically a govt. enacted savings plan. You get out a certain percentage of what you pay in. Also, SS cards are not meant to be used as ID. That's the way they sold the plan but as you can see that didn't last. Many people still claim that it is not constitutional.

As far as insurance premiums there is no way they are not going up. They have been mandated by law to give more benefits with no more income. Where do you think that money is going to come from in the long run. This bill did ZERO to actually reduce any costs. It adds costs in and then it tells other parties to pick up the tab. A lot of the waste that goes on with insurance companies is government mandated. You should see the paperwork that goes into a medicare claim.

My wife works for an Internist and he refuses to take any more medicare patients because he cannot afford them either through time or money. She spends a huge portion of her day filing medicare claims for the few patients they see that use it. And they still send it back for more paperwork.

They were filing for some type of walker for a patient the other day it took something like 14 documents filled out by doctor and personally signed, plus they talked to 3 or 4 different people. This is billable time that takes away from his patients and his ability to make money. They don't turn a profit every month and some months he has to personally pick up the slack. They have to average $65 per patient with a set number per hour just to break even. The man is also a total liberal and with this passed is now contemplating retirement. It is totally insane and this is our future.

Back to insurance companies though, they are going to have to raise rates to stay in business, and then the govt. will use that excuse to get rid of them totally. There is no way around this as it currently sits. Businesses have to make a profit to stay in business, period. The Great OBlosi can't wave his hand over it and make it not so no matter what CNN tells you.

Most people don't quite grasp how bad this really is, and the damage that is being done to the country. SS and medicare alone are getting close to bankrupting the country, and this makes them pale in comparison.

chaparral wrote: 50K for a family of seven will be HEAVILY into the "subsidy" category. Federal poverty level income for seven is $33,270 this year. I don't know how much the subsidy level is in the final bill but in Massachusetts you'd be eligible for a full subsidy up to 150% of FPL income (around $49,500), with a linear slide down to zero subsidy at 300% of FPL. Your insurance would be almost completely taxpayer-funded, SVreX, if the subsidy limits are similar to those of "Romneycare" in Massachusetts.

Great post if the figures are accurate.

SupraWes wrote:

chaparral wrote: 50K for a family of seven will be HEAVILY into the "subsidy" category. Federal poverty level income for seven is $33,270 this year. I don't know how much the subsidy level is in the final bill but in Massachusetts you'd be eligible for a full subsidy up to 150% of FPL income (around $49,500), with a linear slide down to zero subsidy at 300% of FPL. Your insurance would be almost completely taxpayer-funded, SVreX, if the subsidy limits are similar to those of "Romneycare" in Massachusetts.

Great post if the figures are accurate.

Wes, how great a post is it when "Romneycare" costs far more than ever projected and the state is turning to the federal government for a financial bailout?

Just askin?

As the great Homer Simpson declared..."OMG, we're all gonna die!"

Am I legally allowed to eat donuts still?

racerdave600 wrote: SS is basically a govt. enacted savings plan. You get out a certain percentage of what you pay in.

and of course the biggest [fiscal] problem with it is the percentage back is often far more than 100% of what's put in.

tuna55 wrote:

ignorant wrote: I really am getting tired of all the "fox news/glenn beck libretarians" that are popping up. Go on, ride the bandwagon now. It wasn't an issue with them when someone else was spending their money at a massive pace, or more importantly when things like Habeas corpus were suspended.... but.... touch their wallet and boy look at the "patriots" coming out of the woodwork. I'm floundering this thread hard, because you guys make me sad.. Infact you're nearly the definition of the "sheeple" you rant and rave about... ( 1st guy to post, but I was this before that and all those other people are posers comment, gets a cookie)

Ig, It was absolutely an issue for many of us (myself included_ when the republicans and Bush were in power doing the same crap. I didn't vote for McCain, either, for that very reason. You almost make my point for me as you point out explicitly that you're talking about libertarians, who, as even you might notice, are not republicans.

The post wasn't directed at anyone on this board in particular, but I'm seeing more and more of these band wagon folks coming out of the woodwork and it's feckin stupid.

SVreX said: I have 5 children. We have never been able to sustain insurance. We've had it at times, but there were always big cost increases that meant we had to drop it. Last time I checked, basic coverage for my family would cost $2200 per month. That would be $26,400 in after tax dollars per year- more than half my income. No chance.

That's sad.

This is the problem with your healthcare system, and it hasn't been addressed.

racerdave600 wrote: SS and medicare alone are getting close to bankrupting the country, and this makes them pale in comparison.

I would have guessed that military spending had more to do with it than SS and medicare.

I feel badly for all of you -- it sounds like the worst of all possible solutions to the issue.