Obama on healthcare bill

[Kratos]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4113350/f...0.000000:b0:z5

[Iron_Pig]

Hope and change


I hope they do not find out I am a total Dumbass.

Change I will rewrite the constitution and just do it my way. And to hell with the American people.

[Mooseman33]

this has to be the worst bill ever proposed....

and its going to pass.....

[Voice of Reason]

http://www.wearechange.org

[Kratos]

did anybody notice he wouldn't answer a single question?

[Kratos]

how can a trillion dollar healthcare bill reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years?

how do you spend a trillion and save money?

duh, you don't, you have to raise taxes

Democrats delayed most of the major spending provisions until 2014 to make the bill appear cheaper over the CBO’s 10 year budget window; claimed as revenue premiums from a new long-term insurance program, even though that same money is supposed to pay off future benefits; and it siphoned nearly $19.4 billion from an unrelated student loan bill.

For the first time, the Medicare payroll tax would be applied to investment income, beginning in 2013. A new 3.8 percent tax would be imposed on interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.

The bill also would increase the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percentage point to 2.35 percent on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.

40 percent tax on health benefits would be delayed until 2018 and would apply only to premiums exceeding $10,200 a year for individuals and $27,500 for families.

The search for revenue to pay for health care has been made more difficult by Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. The result is a bill that would raise a total of $438 billion in new taxes over the next decade, mainly from high-income taxpayers and fees on the health care industry.

The new Medicare taxes would raise an estimated $210 billion over the next decade. The new tax on investments would be on top of capital gains and dividends tax increases already proposed by Obama. The president wants to increase the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends from 15 percent to 20 percent. If Congress goes along, the new top rate would be 23.8 percent in 2013, when the health care taxes kick in.

— The new tax on high-cost insurance plans, $32 billion.

— A fee on the makers and importers of brand-name drugs, $27 billion.

— An excise tax on the makers and importers of certain medical devices, $20 billion.

— An annual fee on health insurance providers, starting in 2014, $60 billion.

— The repeal of a tax loophole that could allow paper manufacturers to get tax credits for generating alternative fuel in the paper making process, $24 billion.

Democrats argue that high-income families fared well under tax cuts enacted in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. Republicans argue that many of those taxpayers are small business owners struggling to stay afloat.

"I have no problem with it," Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., said of the new Medicare taxes. "Income is income. Most Americans work by the hour, get paid by the hour. Some other people get their money in other ways but it's still income."

[Kratos]

so, tax medicare more to make up the deficit...um, you can't tax medicare more and then steal from a nearly bankrupt program...it doesn't work like that.

atax high cost insurance plans...who's gonna be buying a 20k insurance plan anymore when they can just pay the small penalty and be covered by obama care

in fact what businesses are going to provide health insurance when the penalty is cheaper?

so...tax drug makes, medical devices, and health insurance providers...won't that add to the cost of health care that this same bill is providing?

[Kratos]

"it sets up a NEW COMPETITIVE HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices the members of Congress will have."

he keeps repeating that like a mantra

well fvck shitty that's crazy, you're going to give me insurance as good as members of congress...I'll be treated like royalty. I'll walk into a hospital and the nurses will postitute themselves to me and bill it to insurance. It will be awesome.

but wait, wtf does that mean?
does anybody know?
no, they don't
it means you are welcome to go into your pocket for an ass load and buy some decent insurance, should you decide to do so.

[Kratos]

more taxes always = more money for the gvmt right?

not always,

if taxes are 100%, would you bother to work to give all of it to the gvmt? Could you afford to buy any consumer goods or participate in the market economy?

of course not.
diminishing returns, eventually negative returns for increased taxes
it's a bell curve, and many economists feel we're already on the back side of the bell

Stephen Entin and colleagues estimates that the investment tax would depress GDP by about 1.3% and reduce capital formation by 3.4%, and thus reduce the after-tax incomes of everyone not paying the tax directly in the neighborhood of 1.1% to 1.2%. Labor productivity and wages would fall across the board, while the lost government revenues from the more-sluggish economy would offset the expected receipts.


JIM CRAMER: I think this is a bill where if you get amnesty, it goes into law, you get amnesty. You break the budget. That means we're going to see 50-60% federal tax—I'm not kidding. And I also think we see capital gains and dividends being taxed at ordinary income rate. I know the bill doesn't say that now --

[Kratos]

Democrats delayed most of the major spending provisions until 2014 to make the bill appear cheaper over the CBO’s 10 year budget window; ."

to be clear what that means...we get 10years of raised taxes and 6 years of health care reform to show less deficit.

taxes go up as soon as the bill passes.

[Mooseman33]

^^^^^^^^^
that is how they estimate it will lower the deficit.

they have 72 hours to read a 2700 page bill before a vote....

i like how the LA purchase will help the earthquake victims in Hawaii?
what the fvk was that?

[Kratos]

hasn't been a earthquake in hawaii since 2006

I'd like to know how much extra burden is still on the medicaid system from Katrina. In real dollars that is...healthcare only.

200 billion in federal aid not to mention several billion in private contributions

how much are they short?

[Kratos]

are we terminally stupid enough to think spending an estimated trillion dollars is good for the budget?

[TITANIUM]

We are screwed.

Best

T

[KimboHalfSlice]

Hey... I'm from Europe... and to be honest it sounds like a 3rd world thing to me for people not to be able to get medical care because they can't afford it.

This was going to hit America sooner or later. Really, you guys were living in barbaric times. The rest of the world has free medical care.

[Hazard]

Hey... I'm from Europe... and to be honest it sounds like a 3rd world thing to me for people not to be able to get medical care because they can't afford it.

This was going to hit America sooner or later. Really, you guys were living in barbaric times. The rest of the world has free medical care.

Your medical care is not "Free" per se..... you don't get directly charged for medial care...... but your taxes are higher..... so you actually indirectly pay for your medical care.

Here in america..... medical coverage is an option. You don't want it.... you don't have to have it. You can do what you want with your money instead of the government taking it and making you have healthcare.

~Haz~

[Hazard]

Honestly..... both systems have their problems......

However..... I think this new bill is going to fvck us royally.... ah well..... atleast I can say I didn't vote him in.....

~Haz~

[RANA]

I am actually worried about the direction we are headed

[Quo]

to be clear what that means...we get 10years of raised taxes and 6 years of health care reform to show less deficit.

taxes go up as soon as the bill passes.

I am not saying I disagree with you, but the "how do we lower the deficit by introducing a trillion in new spending?" question is a red herring and not conducive to productive debate on the subject. Obviously, other programs will be replaced by this bill, and that is how they are proposing costs will actually be cut.

Again, I am not saying I disagree with you necessarily, but there are other points that are more worthy of discussion such as the constitutionality of requiring all Americans to purchase health care.

[Sparhawk]

*a.. The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.*

*e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.*

*f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.*

*You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.*


*AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM? *

*IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH CARE, IT'S ABOUT TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT!*

[Quo]

*You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.*

Patently false. The government has not failed in everything it has done. Again, not saying I disagree with you in principal, but this is another red herring that doesn't help your position and alienates those who would otherwise be inclined to be persuaded by more logical arguments. It's just more empty rhetoric.

[KimboHalfSlice]

Your medical care is not "Free" per se..... you don't get directly charged for medial care...... but your taxes are higher..... so you actually indirectly pay for your medical care.

Here in america..... medical coverage is an option. You don't want it.... you don't have to have it. You can do what you want with your money instead of the government taking it and making you have healthcare.

Is "medical coverage" really such a bad thing to force on people?

That's a serious question.

Let's say you've been saving up for a truck and you've got $15k, and then your appendix decides to get inflamed. That's your savings down the drain.

Even worse, let's say your appendix gets inflamed and you simply don't have any money saved up.

Or imagine you get diagnosed with lung cancer and you've got no money.

Or you're doing squats, you tear some cartilage, and you haven't got the money to get it fixed.

Where I'm from, in Britain, these things don't happen. You go to the hospital, you get treated, you leave. They don't chase you down with a bill for thousands of pounds.

Maybe the transition to free healthcare will be a bumpy ride for the USA... but it's a ride you all would have to take at some stage... there was always going to be a point when a wealthy, civilised society would evolve to provide free healthcare for the people who can't afford it.

[durak]

uggghh... keep it simple. We have medicare already. It is broken. there is 30 some odd trillion in unfunded liabilities. solvency of 7 years. and we are going to expand it to everyone? we are being set up for failure...

ps. America pays more for it medical care so the company can charge less in other parts of the world. If we go down the tube so does everyone else.

(irrelevant to topic but: textbook prices are the same way)

[lovbyts]

Honestly..... both systems have their problems......

However..... I think this new bill is going to fvck us royally.... ah well..... atleast I can say I didn't vote him in.....

~Haz~

x2
Was he voted in?

My long term goal for the next 10 years is to bank/hide what I can, invest in non US and get the fvck out in 10 years or less.

[lovbyts]

It's all stupid. The uninsured, poor, welfare, illegal immigrants already have free health-care. They go into any emergency and get free care.

It's the middle class who has always been screwed who if you get cancer or??? your insurance stops and you dont get help until every single asset you have worked for is gone or you are dead.

In the future you will just die because it will take you months to get diagnosed or in to see a doctor, the few that are left practicing.

[Hazard]

Is "medical coverage" really such a bad thing to force on people?

That's a serious question.

Let's say you've been saving up for a truck and you've got $15k, and then your appendix decides to get inflamed. That's your savings down the drain.

Even worse, let's say your appendix gets inflamed and you simply don't have any money saved up.

Or imagine you get diagnosed with lung cancer and you've got no money.

Or you're doing squats, you tear some cartilage, and you haven't got the money to get it fixed.

Where I'm from, in Britain, these things don't happen. You go to the hospital, you get treated, you leave. They don't chase you down with a bill for thousands of pounds.

Maybe the transition to free healthcare will be a bumpy ride for the USA... but it's a ride you all would have to take at some stage... there was always going to be a point when a wealthy, civilised society would evolve to provide free healthcare for the people who can't afford it.

Look at how you worded that..... "forcing"..... would you like to be "forced" into doing anything?

What if the guy who wants a new truck can't even begin to save for it because his taxes are too high from having to pay for universal healthcare?

Also..... I've heard of people having to wait months on end to have simple surgeries done because they aren't as urgent as others..... If thats the case..... I want nothing to do with it.....

~Haz~

[Kratos]

I am not saying I disagree with you, but the "how do we lower the deficit by introducing a trillion in new spending?" question is a red herring and not conducive to productive debate on the subject. Obviously, other programs will be replaced by this bill, and that is how they are proposing costs will actually be cut.

Again, I am not saying I disagree with you necessarily, but there are other points that are more worthy of discussion such as the constitutionality of requiring all Americans to purchase health care.

No, it is not a red herring. I suggest you go back to school and learn your fallacies.

I'm not detracting for the issue at hand here. I'm introducing the issue that any claim of budget reduction is related to an increase in taxes and not the reform measures.

The CBO rates the bill's cost at 1 trillion...if I were to rate it, it would be much higher. I don't expect it to come in on budget.

And the tax increases are in the bill. I've listed them for all to see.
where is the fallacy?

This bill costs money, the money is proposed to be paid for through tax increases. True statement. Stop trying to sound smart, it isn't working.

[Kratos]

Is "medical coverage" really such a bad thing to force on people?

That's a serious question.

Let's say you've been saving up for a truck and you've got $15k, and then your appendix decides to get inflamed. That's your savings down the drain.

.

Is it worse to loose your saving for your truck to illness...or never be able to save it in the first place due to 50 percent tax rate?

[DSM4Life]

Hey... I'm from Europe... and to be honest it sounds like a 3rd world thing to me for people not to be able to get medical care because they can't afford it.

This was going to hit America sooner or later. Really, you guys were living in barbaric times. The rest of the world has free medical care.

Nice nickname.

[Quo]

No, it is not a red herring. I suggest you go back to school and learn your fallacies.

I'm not detracting for the issue at hand here. I'm introducing the issue that any claim of budget reduction is related to an increase in taxes and not the reform measures.

The CBO rates the bill's cost at 1 trillion...if I were to rate it, it would be much higher. I don't expect it to come in on budget.

And the tax increases are in the bill. I've listed them for all to see.
where is the fallacy?

This bill costs money, the money is proposed to be paid for through tax increases. True statement. Stop trying to sound smart, it isn't working.

And why don't you stop acting like an asshole? You've obviously got your mind made up and aren't actually interested in discussion. You just want to preach. And I am not interested in being preached to.

And how dare you imply I am uneducated. You have no idea who I am, and I can assure you I am likely far more educated than you. So get off your high horse.

Conversation over.

[Kratos]

And why don't you stop acting like an asshole? You've obviously got your mind made up and aren't actually interested in discussion. You just want to preach. And I am not interested in being preached to.

And how dare you imply I am uneducated. You have no idea who I am, and I can assure you I am likely far more educated than you. So get off your high horse.

Conversation over.

I'm sry

[gixxerboy1]

Your medical care is not "Free" per se..... you don't get directly charged for medial care...... but your taxes are higher..... so you actually indirectly pay for your medical care.

Here in america..... medical coverage is an option. You don't want it.... you don't have to have it. You can do what you want with your money instead of the government taking it and making you have healthcare.

~Haz~

im not saying this bill is good.

but im a diabetic and cant get health insurance in my state. Every company deines me becasue of it.

What am i supposed to do?

[Kratos]

im not saying this bill is good.

but im a diabetic and cant get health insurance in my state. Every company deines me becasue of it.

What am i supposed to do?

curious how the bill will impact your life though...do you know?

Michael Cannon, a health care expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, says that the Democratic approach could have unintended consequences. While the law would bar outright rejections of applicants with pre-existing conditions, he said, there's nothing to stop insurance companies from treating such patients poorly, in the hope of foisting them -- and their higher health care bills -- on their competitors. Indeed, Cannon suggests, a failure to act this way could endanger the very economic viability of these insurers.

"The Democratic bills create such perverse incentives for insurers to offer inadequate care and lousy customer service that sick people with insurance may feel like the bill made things worse," Cannon said.

[Hazard]

I'm not saying our current system is great..... Lord knows it needs some work but having "universale healthcare" just isn't a good idea. Healthcare is going to suffer greatly..... longer waits.... cheaper treatments..... just overall shittier care.

Now here is where the two sides collide..... The group with health coverage doesn't want to risk the coverage they have now and get shittier coverage. Those without coverage think a shitty coverage is better than no coverage.....

What needs to happen is these insurance companies need to stop banking billions and billions of dollars. Imagine if health insurance was "non-profit"

~Haz~

[gixxerboy1]

curious how the bill will impact your life though...do you know?

Michael Cannon, a health care expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, says that the Democratic approach could have unintended consequences. While the law would bar outright rejections of applicants with pre-existing conditions, he said, there's nothing to stop insurance companies from treating such patients poorly, in the hope of foisting them -- and their higher health care bills -- on their competitors. Indeed, Cannon suggests, a failure to act this way could endanger the very economic viability of these insurers.

"The Democratic bills create such perverse incentives for insurers to offer inadequate care and lousy customer service that sick people with insurance may feel like the bill made things worse," Cannon said.

Like haz said and its said. but shity coverage is better then no coverage.

I dont mind paying a higher premium because of it but being unable to get any coverage isnt right either.

[Hazard]

Look at our food industry......

We have a choice of what food we want to eat. We can pay more for organic and whole grain foods which are better for us or we can go cheaper and buy the meat with hormones added..... fast food..... etc. Lets just say the government now takes over our food industry and it tells you what kind of food you will eat. Do you think the government will supply the entire nation with organic and whole grain foods? HELL NO - it would be too expensive.....

Our health coverage will be run by a government that can't fix current problems.....

~Haz~

[Hazard]

For the record..... I currently have no health coverage......

~Haz~

[Kratos]

what haapens if you make the cost the same for pre existing conditions?
if the penelty is cheaper than getting insurance...just wait to get sick

New York provides an object lesson: It enacted precisely these "reforms" in 1993. The next year, roughly 500,000 people canceled their insurance, according to a study by the actuarial firm of Milliman & Robertson.

With the young and healthy dropping out of the insurance pool, premiums will have to rise to cover the now-sicker insured population. That, in turn, will encourage more healthy people to drop out, raising premiums still further — and so on, in what's known as the "adverse-selection death spiral."

[Hazard]

I dont mind paying a higher premium because of it but being unable to get any coverage isnt right either.

Well this is where I think our system needs to be fixed..... the health insurance company should not be allowed to dictate who lives, dies, gets coverage, doesn't get coverage.....

~Haz~

[Kratos]

I'm not saying our current system is great..... Lord knows it needs some work but having "universale healthcare" just isn't a good idea. Healthcare is going to suffer greatly..... longer waits.... cheaper treatments..... just overall shittier care.

Now here is where the two sides collide..... The group with health coverage doesn't want to risk the coverage they have now and get shittier coverage. Those without coverage think a shitty coverage is better than no coverage.....

What needs to happen is
these insurance companies need to stop banking billions and billions of dollars. Imagine if health insurance was "non-profit"

~Haz~

exactly...either we have to demand less from our healthcare system in the form of services...or we have to pay more.

all the profits of the health insurance companies combined add up to 1 day out of the 365 days a year of premiums.

if health insurance companies are so damn inefficent, why does medicare contract with them to process claims?