What the infamous Health Care bill IS and ISN'T
-
So you admit you know nothing about it? :laugh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't know what the bill does until you read all 2,700 pages of it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
I'm forced to conclude you've read all 2,700 pages :laugh: :rolleyes:
Steve
-
I know that it forces everyone to buy insurance and raises taxes.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Yes, the bill falls a long way short of socialised health care. Forcing people to buy insurance plainly cannot cause taxes to rise. Given how you struggle to understand a basic paragraph here, I have no doubt if you've read 2700 pages of a bill, you understood perhaps 27 words of it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Yes, the bill falls a long way short of socialised health care. Forcing people to buy insurance plainly cannot cause taxes to rise. Given how you struggle to understand a basic paragraph here, I have no doubt if you've read 2700 pages of a bill, you understood perhaps 27 words of it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
No, CSS is technically right. It forces MOST people to buy insurance, and it raises taxes on the wealthy (And on tanning salons). Of course, I said all of this in the original post on this thread, so I dunno what he's arguing about.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, they claim that it will... If you look at the details, it's actually cutting costs and adding taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so maybe it'll work.
So if the dems claim it, you believe it? If the reps claim it, it is mindless rhetoric? I'm supposed to believe this is a neutral evaluation?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ok, since this is the big topic lately... A semi-quick summary, particularly to those of you non-USians who may have gotten the wrong impression from all of the mindless rhetoric. (Paraphrased from: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html[^]) * It is NOT government-run insurance. It adds more regulation to private insurers, but the so-called "public option" is NOT included. * Most people will NOT see a tax increase. The extra money not provided by medicare/medicaid changes will come from applying the medicare tax to investment income (Currently it only applies to normal income) for people making in excess of $200k/year ($250k for families), and starting in 2018, the high-end insurance plans will gain a significant tax... They're also adding a 10% tax on tanning salons, which seems kind of odd. * Premiums are supposed to be reduced... They're adding "exchanges" where small businesses and individuals can more easily purchase insurance... I guess it'll increase competition among insurers, by easing comparison. Note that these will be managed by each state, not centralized federally. This is the free market at work, folks. * Subsidies will be provided to people/families below 400% of the poverty level who do not have access to an employer's health plan and are not already eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. * Illegal immigrants will NOT be included in any of this. They won't even be allowed to buy insurance in the exchanges. * Insurance companies get more regulation... First and foremost, they won't be able to deny people for existing conditions. * Starting in 2014, everyone who doesn't have health insurance (With some exceptions for low-income families) will be subject to an annual fine. * This won't be putting us further into debt. It will actually REDUCE the deficit by ~$140 billion over the next decade.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Illegal immigrants will NOT be included in any of this. They won't even be allowed to buy insurance in the exchanges.
I don't believe that is correct. They won't be eligible for subsidies, but they can still buy insurance.
Not unless CBS is completely wrong... From the article linked in the original post: "Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
So if the dems claim it
It's the non-partisan CBO that says that HCR will reduce the deficit.
CBO is constrained to calculate costs within Congressional guidelines, whether Congress is dem or rep controlled. From the CBO Chief's blog[^] He says that if you count medicaid/medicare income now as 'reducing the deficit', you still have to spend it again, later. So it reduces the current deficit by making our children pay it. While it does calculate as reduced deficit in the CBO projections, it is still added national debt. We can spend like this forever! Never call it a deficit, but still add it to the debt. In fact, we have been doing this for years. The government owes the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security accounts well over 100 TRILLION dollars in collected funds that have been spent, and in shortfalls in payments obligated to be paid to recipients, according to the Social Security and Medicare Trustees. Over 89 Trillion is owed to Madicare, and this is adding an additional half trillion over projected increases. Sounds pretty deficit neutral to me. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Not unless CBS is completely wrong... From the article linked in the original post: "Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ok, normally it's not taxpayer funded... It's currently borrowing money from the government because e-mail is killing it... The point is that there isn't some line item in the federal budget that says "We're spending $X of taxpayer money a year on the postal service."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
What have the reps claimed that I've called "mindless rhetoric?" I'm looking at what the bill does, and giving my own estimation of whether it seems plausible. I don't care which party says what.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)From you original post:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
who may have gotten the wrong impression from all of the mindless rhetoric.
So, you were, in fact, talking about the dems' mindless rhetoric, just before listing their talking points? :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Kind of like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq don't cost anything because they are not paid by budget line items?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
That's a bit of a silly comparison. The USPS has been operating with the same borrowing window since the 70s. It hasn't been receiving $X a year in funding, but rather its balance sheet has fluctuated over the years, and has unfortunately stayed negative. They're not losing $10 billion a year... That's their overall cash balance, not their annual budget deficit. It's not a profitable company, by any stretch, but borrowing money is not the same as taking government funding. A lot of companies have a lot more outstanding debt than the postal system. Let's see... Just glancing at Time Warner, for example, I'm seeing about $15 billion in long-term debt. IBM is running with over $25 billion, plus another $60 billion in other liabilities... Companies borrow money all the time. That said, now the USPS is getting to the point where it will probably NEED some government funding, because its business model is becoming obsolete, thanks to us geeks and our mighty Intarwebs :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I understand the 'intent', but since we can't check IDs at polling booths, what makes you think they will be allowed to check immigration status when attempting to buy from the pools?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
They should be checking IDs at polling booths... It's entirely possible, and I don't understand why they don't do it. As for the exchanges, since these will be government-run, what's to stop them from requiring a valid SSN or TID?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
From you original post:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
who may have gotten the wrong impression from all of the mindless rhetoric.
So, you were, in fact, talking about the dems' mindless rhetoric, just before listing their talking points? :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
The rhetoric is coming from all sides, not just the republicans. I'm not listing talking points... I listed what's actually IN the bill, not all of the things they wanted to get in there. From other discussions, I've seen that the non-USians here have gotten completely the wrong idea about it, thinking it's a lot closer to their government-provided health care, when in fact it's only an incremental change. I started this thread to correct that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
That's a bit of a silly comparison. The USPS has been operating with the same borrowing window since the 70s. It hasn't been receiving $X a year in funding, but rather its balance sheet has fluctuated over the years, and has unfortunately stayed negative. They're not losing $10 billion a year... That's their overall cash balance, not their annual budget deficit. It's not a profitable company, by any stretch, but borrowing money is not the same as taking government funding. A lot of companies have a lot more outstanding debt than the postal system. Let's see... Just glancing at Time Warner, for example, I'm seeing about $15 billion in long-term debt. IBM is running with over $25 billion, plus another $60 billion in other liabilities... Companies borrow money all the time. That said, now the USPS is getting to the point where it will probably NEED some government funding, because its business model is becoming obsolete, thanks to us geeks and our mighty Intarwebs :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's a bit of a silly comparison.
I'm glad you picked up on that. My point was that off budget does not make it non-existent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Companies borrow money all the time.
Not from the taxpayers. Well, they didn't use to. The cost of a 1st class stamp in 1975 was 10 cents. The cost of a 1st class stamp now is 44 cents. The average income in 1975 was around 38k. The average income in 2007 was around 48k The cost of stamps in now 440% of what it was. Average income is around 125% of what it was. After inflation, our incomes are about the same as 1975 so period adjusted rate is 25%, which makes the cost 350% of what it was, in roughly constant 1975 dollars. And they are losing money. You don't think this has anything to do with Congress placing mandates on them, do you?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
They should be checking IDs at polling booths... It's entirely possible, and I don't understand why they don't do it. As for the exchanges, since these will be government-run, what's to stop them from requiring a valid SSN or TID?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
They should be checking IDs at polling booths... It's entirely possible, and I don't understand why they don't do it.
Liberals claim doing it is racist. Conservatives claim not doing it lets generally liberal illegals vote.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As for the exchanges, since these will be government-run, what's to stop them from requiring a valid SSN or TID?
They are required NOT to check them at the polling booth, a singularly 'citizens only' activity. Why would they degrade people by requiring something harder, proof of legal status, at the insurance pool?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's a bit of a silly comparison.
I'm glad you picked up on that. My point was that off budget does not make it non-existent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Companies borrow money all the time.
Not from the taxpayers. Well, they didn't use to. The cost of a 1st class stamp in 1975 was 10 cents. The cost of a 1st class stamp now is 44 cents. The average income in 1975 was around 38k. The average income in 2007 was around 48k The cost of stamps in now 440% of what it was. Average income is around 125% of what it was. After inflation, our incomes are about the same as 1975 so period adjusted rate is 25%, which makes the cost 350% of what it was, in roughly constant 1975 dollars. And they are losing money. You don't think this has anything to do with Congress placing mandates on them, do you?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't think this has anything to do with Congress placing mandates on them, do you?
Oh, of course it does. Congress regulates the stamp price, requires them to deliver six days a week, requires them to keep certain office hours and shifts, and tells them how to run their pension plan. It's ridiculous and unsustainable. From a balance sheet standpoint, however, the only difference between the USPS and a private corporation is who's extending them a line of credit. Medicare and Medicaid are government programs, funded entirely by taxpayer money, and doing nothing (From a financial perspective) but draining the federal coffers. The USPS is a business that has income and expenditures, and if it was run better (And more independently) might generate a profit.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They should be checking IDs at polling booths... It's entirely possible, and I don't understand why they don't do it.
Liberals claim doing it is racist. Conservatives claim not doing it lets generally liberal illegals vote.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As for the exchanges, since these will be government-run, what's to stop them from requiring a valid SSN or TID?
They are required NOT to check them at the polling booth, a singularly 'citizens only' activity. Why would they degrade people by requiring something harder, proof of legal status, at the insurance pool?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Liberals claim doing it is racist. Conservatives claim not doing it lets generally liberal illegals vote.
Well, I usually lean toward the liberal side, but I have to side with the conservatives on that issue. Check IDs and keep it honest.
RichardM1 wrote:
They are required NOT to check them at the polling booth, a singularly 'citizens only' activity. Why would they degrade people by requiring something harder, proof of legal status, at the insurance pool?
Because while elections are a touchy political and civil rights subject, since that's our opportunity to stick it to our all-powerful overlords, health insurance is just about money. Since the right to vote is guaranteed by the constitution, it's hard to add any kind of restriction to it (Though come on, checking IDs should be a no-brainer). Health insurance has no such legal protections. Of course, I'm betting there'll be some kind of loophole... The illegals will probably be able to buy it directly from the insurers, instead of via the exchange, unless those insurers are demanding SSN/TIDs.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
They should be checking IDs at polling booths... It's entirely possible, and I don't understand why they don't do it.
Liberals claim doing it is racist. Conservatives claim not doing it lets generally liberal illegals vote.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As for the exchanges, since these will be government-run, what's to stop them from requiring a valid SSN or TID?
They are required NOT to check them at the polling booth, a singularly 'citizens only' activity. Why would they degrade people by requiring something harder, proof of legal status, at the insurance pool?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Liberals claim doing it is racist.
Where exactly? I've seen more people throwing fits over someone might ask them for their ID at the polling station, than anyone claiming it's racist. That said, the fits are generally followed by something insinuating only those other color people should be checked. Check everyone and I've got no issue with it, I'm also unaware of a liberal who does have an issue with it. That said, there is that whole 'secret ballot' bit where you're not supposed to be able to figure out who voted and how. Which does figure into this, but why bother with constitutional issues when you can blame those race baiting dems.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's a bit of a silly comparison.
I'm glad you picked up on that. My point was that off budget does not make it non-existent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Companies borrow money all the time.
Not from the taxpayers. Well, they didn't use to. The cost of a 1st class stamp in 1975 was 10 cents. The cost of a 1st class stamp now is 44 cents. The average income in 1975 was around 38k. The average income in 2007 was around 48k The cost of stamps in now 440% of what it was. Average income is around 125% of what it was. After inflation, our incomes are about the same as 1975 so period adjusted rate is 25%, which makes the cost 350% of what it was, in roughly constant 1975 dollars. And they are losing money. You don't think this has anything to do with Congress placing mandates on them, do you?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
What was gas back in 1975? For as much driving as they have to do I'd figure that'd be a major component on them more so than most businesses. Taking base line statistics which are generally irrelevant to the question at hand and assuming they actually mean anything is not terribly productive. It helps when you bother to check what may have increased their costs and/or decreased their profits. Things like volume of mail delivered daily, mileage covered by postal vehicles and price per mile traveled would actually be useful in making these comparisons.