Health Care

[LeighaMason 19]

I wish illegal immigrants could buy health care, then they would be paying into a system they are using.

Lets say you are going through an intersection, someone runs the light and hits you. Its an illegal immigrant. Now do you want him to have insurance or not?

They are here, they have been here, they will be here no matter what you say or do. (By the way, most Republicans I know employ them in one way or another) They use our health care facilities, so why wouldn't we let the contribute to the fund to pay for them.

That is why your argument is flawed you want to count the cost of immigrants on the system but you would have to also include their premiums which you have already admitted are higher than costs.

[loserbob 11]

Do those hard working "American's" include the 20 million or so illegal aliens that are here? Because this bill does. Here's an interesting article on the "real" cost of this bill.. fantasy in, fantasy out....

Its funny, your 25, Im assuming no family,wife, kids. If thats the case youll see when your in the workfield for a while and have to support a family. It becomes alot more important. When I was 25 I didnt care what went on in the world, especially healthcare. I was young and healthy and invincible! Now I have a family, am 38 and healthcare is very important to me. Just let me say, Im self employed, my wife has great insurance through her job. We pay about 170.00 a month for top of the line insurance. The reason Im telling you this is because even though Im insured this is still a big issue for me. Id be curious to see what your opinion is in 10 years. The young and old seem to me to be the ones most against healthcare reform. Being 25, your going to have a hard time finding a good job(in this economy)which pays healthcare and descent money. A college education doesnt guarantee that anymore. Today the average child lives with parents until age 28, 10 years ago it was around 24(I believe). I hope you have no problems finding a good job but like I said I would be curious about your opinion in 5-10 years when you have a little more experience in the workfield and hopefully a healthy family.

[loserbob 11]

All liberals see is what the people are going to "receive". But fail to consider: "at what expense."

Its funny Patty, you always lean on this statement but how do you know its going to be so bad? Because it was a dem who came up with the healthcare plan. Because Beck almost cried about it on the radio yesterday. God forbid you believe anything Obama says, The experts probably know better than Beck, Hannity. You always talk about how libs want handouts, I work for a guy(at his moms house yesterday) who always talks about Obama(not in good way, not mean either,assuming rep.) He had a huge, beautiful house he built himself(this is where I worked). Yesterday he was cleaning it out to sale, he moved into his mothers little house with her(hes 62 and not married). He told me it was unbelievable,2 Decembersw ago he was an airline pilot makeing $120,000 a year, He was laid off that Dec. Yesterday he was takeing his mother to a church in their town because the food pantry was giveing out food!!! Not being mean but "handouts" arent only for libs!!!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

This was once upon a time a capitalistic society were a person or group of people was encouraged to make money. And I highly doubt the 30 minute flight was a scheduled flight.

It WAS a scheduled flight to Ohio, Rep. Kuchinich's home state, where Pres. Obama spoke about healthcare reform. It was a scheduled town hall meeting.

[pattygreen 5]

There are tax breaks for small business owners and more choice for them in choosing healthcare plans.

And why would a doctor accept new patients that he/she couldn't care for? And what sweeping changes will affect a thriving practice and what are these higher overhead costs?

And business owners don't determine the premiums of healthcare, the greedy insurance companies do. It there had been a public option, they wouldn't be able to raise premiums. Hmmm.

Business owners might find it more profitable for them to pay the fines rather than offer insurance for their employess. Then what? The employees get on the gov. run plan cause it's the cheapest one out there. This is what the government is banking on, because they want everyone to get on it. It's a stepping stone to their eventual socialized program of government run insurance ONLY. No options. Why do you think the people are so opposed to it. They dangle in front of us these wonderful reforms that will kick in within the first 6 months of signing the bill (notice, right before the November elections) to get the people thinking "oh, this isn't soooo bad." IT'S ALL IN THEIR PLAN TO EVENTUALLY RUN THE hi INDUSTRY COMPLETELY!!!!

[pattygreen 5]

everything does cost; like the 5 million a pop to take senators for joy rides on air force 1. How many people would that have insured?

.......amen!!!........

[pattygreen 5]

Thanks Cleo's you spared me the effort.

I notice that ariscus has still not answered the questions. I asked them because I'm trying to figure out why anyone but people who gain from the insurance company's profits, would support them in this debate.

We don't support the insurance companies. We support Free Enterprise. We support the right to open a business and make it grow. I understand that some get big. These need to be regulated, not put out of business. And if you think that the government hasn't just taken a giant step closer to government run insurance for all, you don't get it.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Business owners might find it more profitable for them to pay the fines rather than offer insurance for their employess. Then what? The employees get on the gov. run plan cause it's the cheapest one out there. What government run plan is this? Please be specific as to what it is and how the government runs it? BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC OPTION!!!This is what the government is banking on, because they want everyone to get on it.Get on what? Again, specifics? It's a stepping stone to their eventual socialized program of government run insurance ONLY. No options. Why do you think the people are so opposed to it. They dangle in front of us these wonderful reforms that will kick in within the first 6 months of signing the bill (notice, right before the November elections) to get the people thinking "oh, this isn't soooo bad." IT'S ALL IN THEIR PLAN TO EVENTUALLY RUN THE hi INDUSTRY COMPLETELY!!!!

The postings by you extremists on the right (those who stand for and advocate for the insurance industry) are all over the place with your criticisms. It shows a real panic and desperation. Because the lies are getting more exaggerated.

First it's about the cost of healthcare, then it's about government take over or about a ride on Air Force One, etc..

Zero credibility. Just zero. Nothing you say is true, yet alone making any sense.

[pattygreen 5]

The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

I notice that noone is looking at the true cost of HC reform coming our way. Let's take one bit of deceitfulness at a time and look at it.

Edited March 23, 2010 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

gimmick #2 some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

[pattygreen 5]

#3 the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation

[pattygreen 5]

#4

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

[pattygreen 5]

#5 it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

[pattygreen 5]

#6 the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

[pattygreen 5]

all these 'gimmicks' quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years.