Obamacare

[Gamoto]

So today we find out that a key component of the healthcare reform bill's expenses ballooned by 30% or $111 billion. Here is the detailed explanation from Barry's staff.

"Administration officials say the explanation lies in budget technicalities and that there are no significant changes in the program." - aka just trust us

Here we come Greece!!!

[mspeasl]

Originally Posted by Gamoto

So today we find out that a key component of the healthcare reform bill's expenses ballooned by 30% or $111 billion. Here is the detailed explanation from Barry's staff.

"Administration officials say the explanation lies in budget technicalities and that there are no significant changes in the program." - aka just trust us

Here we come Greece!!!

Not "here we come Greece", its more like get out the Greece and bend over.....!!

[txz4]

Originally Posted by mspeasl

Not "here we come Greece", its more like get out the Greece and bend over.....!!

^LOL

[ideliver]

In our Governments infinite wisdom, we are guaranteeing an $80 per month birth control pill...currently those with no coverage can pay $9/mo

So guaranteed coverage only benefits the drug companies.

[1997gtx]

While I'm not defending the "hidden" increase, it does make sense. When the cost projections were done, it assumed X number of people who would qualify for exchanges. With unemployment still so high, it would make sense it would now cost Y.

[1997gtx]

Originally Posted by ideliver

In our Governments infinite wisdom, we are guaranteeing an $80 per month birth control pill...currently those with no coverage can pay $9/mo

So guaranteed coverage only benefits the drug companies.

And women. But that's a silly side effect.

And where are you getting your cost estimates from?

[ideliver]

Originally Posted by 1997gtx

And women. But that's a silly side effect.

And where are you getting your cost estimates from?

this is what i do....take care of women...i guess $9/mo is too expensive...so instead we'll all pay $80/mo for the same benefit...it works for me

the problem is there are no cost controls...

[txz4]

this is nuts (no pun intended) that contraception has become such a huge issue out of nowhere. I remember when i heard George Stephonaplois (sp?) interviewing the candidates asking about birth control, it seemed out of left field and entirely irrelevant. If there was any doubt before about how close a ties the main stream media and the current administration have, it should be erased by now.

the thinking public all know its not an issue of cost but an issue of education. If you had sex once a day every day you would be looking at less than $175 a year in condoms at most. Not to mention, im sure they are free from planned parenthood.... 50 cents a pop is easily affordable last time i checked...

[ideliver]

[quote=txz4;1149993950 cents a pop is easily affordable last time i checked...[/QUOTE]

i'm pretty sure that I pay waaaaaayyyy more that .50....

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by txz4

this is nuts (no pun intended) that contraception has become such a huge issue out of nowhere. I remember when i heard George Stephonaplois (sp?) interviewing the candidates asking about birth control, it seemed out of left field and entirely irrelevant. If there was any doubt before about how close a ties the main stream media and the current administration have, it should be erased by now.

Republicans started the controversy when they accused the president of waging a war on religion for requiring church affiliated employers to provide contraception to female employees which may conflict with their beliefs. The president later amended the ruling allowing an exception for church affiliated employers, but requiring that insurance providers make it available. The issue should have been settled there but the attacks from the right continued with some of the GOP candidates weighing in including Rick Santorum who said he was against contraception altogether.

When a leading presidential candidate makes a statement that has possible implications for half the population of the U.S. the the national media has an obligation to cover it, and to their credit they did.

Then Rush Limbaugh fanned the flame by making disparaging comments about a young female student who testified about the importance of insurance providers continuing to provide access to contraception to women for health reasons.

By the way Fox News has the largest viewership of any single national news organization which places it squarely in the center of the mainstream media. Rush Limbaugh has the largest national radio audience by far of any radio program, period, so he must be considered mainstream too. If you want to blame the mainstream media for everything you now have to include the very ones who have been telling you not to trust the mainstream media, because the mainstream media is now them.

Originally Posted by txz4

thinking public all know its not an issue of cost but an issue of education. If you had sex once a day every day you would be looking at less than $175 a year in condoms at most. Not to mention, im sure they are free from planned parenthood.... 50 cents a pop is easily affordable last time i checked...

By "thinking public" I assume you mean those who think like you which thankfully is not the majority. The contraception issue is about more than cost and education. The issue is also about access. Republicans seem intent on limiting women's access to contraception and legal abortion. This issue is a complete loser for Republicans who are alienating all women, not just Democrats. There now are more women voters in the U.S. than men and they hate what they are hearing and seeing from Republicans.

[txz4]

your right BKS i cant believe they are blocking access to contraception!! they actually removed all the condoms from the local grocery stores!!


NOT

so let me get this straight here. Catholics especially became upset about not wanting to supply something they thought was against their religion. So Obama says, "thats fair, you shouldn't have to supply something you dont agree with as part of your insurance plan" then decides that the insurance MUST provide it as part of the groups insurance plans and quote "that should have been the end of the conversation". you kidding me?

I think its stupid that that they arent providing contraception as part of their health plan, but then again im not going to tell anyone what product they must or must not buy. Santorum says he doesnt support it, though he has also said HE WILL NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL OR BLOCK ITS USE!!!

IF you cant get the context of my meaning of main stream media, let me spell it out. The liberal media seems to be in bed with the white house.

so again i say. this is nuts. Not one candidate has EVER said they would block access to birth control.

Why dont you adress this for me BK, everytime i post it no liberal will EVER touch it.

Because of Obama care and its mandate on firms that employ 50 full time employees or more. MANY people will lose their jobs. Ask me how i know.... Apparently im not the only business, I spoke to my business accountant and apparently a huge chunk of the service industry will have the same fate. And since you liberals have no idea how business works, let me spell it out WE CANT AFFORD IT!!!!! so guess what, either:

A: we fire the people we need, to get under the 50 employees.
B: we fire as many full time employees we need to, and further hire part time staff.
c: we close.
Unintended consequence: under every single one of these scenarios, the employee will have to pay for their own healthcare by law or go to jail, or pay the tax to opt out.

This is really gonna help, im soo happy he came up with this healthcare bill that's REALLY gonna help the poor.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by txz4

your right BKS i cant believe they are blocking access to contraception!! they actually removed all the condoms from the local grocery stores!!

Republican's aren't interested in controlling men and our bodies. They only want to control women's bodies so don't worry, your condoms are fine.

Originally Posted by txz4

I think its stupid that that they arent providing contraception as part of their health plan, but then again im not going to tell anyone what product they must or must not buy. Santorum says he doesnt support it, though he has also said HE WILL NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL OR BLOCK ITS USE!!!

We can agree it's stupid not to provide contraception to women as part of their health plan. That would be absurd.

The administration's ruling doesn't require any individual to purchase any products. It requires insurers to make contraception available to the women in the plan, giving them access to it if they need it. I think that's reasonable.

Originally Posted by txz4

IF you cant get the context of my meaning of main stream media, let me spell it out. The liberal media seems to be in bed with the white house.

Your meaning was very clear but I felt it was important to point out some important facts which you either omitted, overlooked or were unaware of. Right wing media is main stream media, big time and they are totally in bed with conservative politicians. In fact they don't even try to hide it. Fox news parent Newscorp gave $1 million to the GOP in the last election. If ABC or NBC donated that kind of money to the Dems you'd be ready to grab your guns and storm the White House.

Originally Posted by txz4

Why dont you adress this for me BK, everytime i post it no liberal will EVER touch it.

Because of Obama care and its mandate on firms that employ 50 full time employees or more. MANY people will lose their jobs. Ask me how i know.... Apparently im not the only business, I spoke to my business accountant and apparently a huge chunk of the service industry will have the same fate. And since you liberals have no idea how business works, let me spell it out WE CANT AFFORD IT!!!!! so guess what, either:

A: we fire the people we need, to get under the 50 employees.
B: we fire as many full time employees we need to, and further hire part time staff.
c: we close.
Unintended consequence: under every single one of these scenarios, the employee will have to pay for their own healthcare by law or go to jail, or pay the tax to opt out.

This is really gonna help, im soo happy he came up with this healthcare bill that's REALLY gonna help the poor.

I actually agree with you on one point. I think it's nuts that people's healthcare is tied to their employers. I was and still am for single payer. The president is on the right track with The Affordable Healthcare Act but it only goes half way. The single payer option solves both issues. You repubs couldn't bitch about the burden on "job creators" and we would have a healtcare system that really does cover everyone, including the poor.

But what do I know, I'm just a crazy liberal who knows nothing about how business works. Just like Bill Clinton who presided over the longest economic expansion in US history.

Personally I think your question would be better put to Mitt Romney since he is the one who really came up with "Obomney Care". I'm sure he'll have plenty of time to explain between now and November, since he will be your nominee.

[txz4]

First off, if a firm purchases insurance that specifically covers or does not cover something, then the product they buy for a reason has another product that the purchaser does not want added to it, that would in fact require the purchaser of the original plan to again pay for the new plan with the added product. So yes, they would be requiring a firm to purchase a product they dont want or agree with. As far as controlling men vs woman grow up. Its not even worth wasting the time over your b.s. rhetoric

I never added that Fox news was the biggest because its common knowledge. Everyone knows this and everyone knows Rush is the most listened to talk show on the radio. He even boast about it. I dont care at all who private firms donate to, it makes no difference, what does make a difference is a show, and not an op ed show like o'reily or john stewart, but a news show manipulating the facts. Ive seen it done many times on the other media outlets especially, ive even been at a situation being falsely reported by those firms, Fox does a better job when it comes to just news, again not Opinion shows.

....where do you think the money would come from to fund single payer? everything the government touches here turns to shit. I prefer the government stays out of every aspect of our lives. social and economic policy always ends up harming more than helping. I know people who moved from here to a single payer system and they personally have had to wait months for simple things like cat scans. Not saying in every case its slower or more utilitarian based, but in my personal experience it has been.

I dont agree with what Romney did either. It doesnt matter who is doing the wrongs, a wrong is a wrong.

If you want to get technical about economic expansion:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...tes/gdp-growth

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by txz4

First off, if a firm purchases insurance that specifically covers or does not cover something, then the product they buy for a reason has another product that the purchaser does not want added to it, that would in fact require the purchaser of the original plan to again pay for the new plan with the added product. So yes, they would be requiring a firm to purchase a product they dont want or agree with. As far as controlling men vs woman grow up. Its not even worth wasting the time over your b.s. rhetoric

You've got your facts wrong. The administration's ruling takes the Catholic institutions out of the equation by relieving them from either paying for coverage for contraceptives or providing any referral to their employees for the coverage. Instead, insurance companies would be required to pay for the contraceptives, and to arrange it. The insurers are fine with it because it is more expensive for them to pay for pregnancies than to pay for contraceptives.

Originally Posted by txz4

never added that Fox news was the biggest because its common knowledge. Everyone knows this and everyone knows Rush is the most listened to talk show on the radio. He even boast about it. I dont care at all who private firms donate to, it makes no difference, what does make a difference is a show, and not an op ed show like o'reily or john stewart, but a news show manipulating the facts. Ive seen it done many times on the other media outlets especially, ive even been at a situation being falsely reported by those firms, Fox does a better job when it comes to just news, again not Opinion shows.

Not surprising you have no facts to support your opinion. Face it you like Fox because they share your political bias which is reflected in how they report the news. Nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about it and cut the BS. Nobody is buying it.

Originally Posted by txz4

..where do you think the money would come from to fund single payer? everything the government touches here turns to shit. I prefer the government stays out of every aspect of our lives. social and economic policy always ends up harming more than helping. I know people who moved from here to a single payer system and they personally have had to wait months for simple things like cat scans. Not saying in every case its slower or more utilitarian based, but in my personal experience it has been.

Funny how right wingers only hate the government when a Democrat is in office. Not a peep out of you when Dubya was expanding government, running up the debt, starting wars and spending us over a cliff into the worst recession since the great depression. And you have the balls to try to blame Obama for the mess left by the last president which he's trying to clean up ... with absolutely no help from republicans.

To answer your question, a single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out of pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

[ideliver]

you do realize that birth control pills can be $9/mo....

[xbook]

So what are the positions of these Catholic institutions on Viagra prescriptions for single men? And what are their positions on vasectomy surgery? Will they not be covering those as well as not covering women's birth control.

Also, as a hypothetical, if the Catholic Church had rules that said you can't pay someone more than $1 per day for work, would the US gov't be able to enforce minimum wage laws on them?

[txz4]

i think its hilarious bk that you contradict yourself with every answer. Ill say it again, Catholic church purchases insurance for employees WITHOUT CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE. Obama tells Catholic church they must pay for it. They say no. So he relents and says fine, if you dont pay for it, the insurance will pay for it AND PROVIDE IT AS PART OF YOUR PLAN. YOU WILL PAY THE SAME AMOUNT BUT IT WILL INCLUDE CONTRACEPTION. Its not about cost, you said it yourself, contraception is cheaper than pregnancies, that is of course assuming incorrectly that those who would take advantage of contraception coverage wouldn't already be buying it on their own. Its cheap, as sited many times.

On to the news thing, i literally said that i had seen the hypocrisy in the reporting in a situation i have been in. Just because i didn't tell what it was for whatever reason doesn't mean it isnt true. Im not trying to persuade you. I'm just laying out the facts. It factually happened to me and therefore i wrote it.

When the hell did i say i was a fan of the Bush policy? ever? You libs use arguments that have nothing to do with anything as proof for something else.

P.S. i love how you think the government has less administrative waste than a private company, that you know.... has to make a profit. When you put what your saying to its logical conclusion you are saying to raise tax on the wealthy and business to fund this. Thats fine that you think that, just come out and say it. a mandate "doesnt go far enough" because it requires people to take at least SOME responsibility for their own well being.

And finally if Obama was trying to "clean the mess caused by bush" he would have, you know.... tried to do anything that would lead me to believe this. Instead he ups regulation, pushes for higher taxes. Wants to raise cap gains. Since i get the feeling you arent exactly formally educated on economics and finance, let me spell out what these mean:

More regulation= Lower profits, cost passed on to consumer, lower growth rate or negative growth rate resulting in layoffs or wage freezes

Higher cap gains=cap gains is purposely lower to encourage investment by firms and private individuals specifically asking them to purchase a product (house) or an investment (share of a firm etc). The more things are purchased the higher the growth rate. The higher the growth rate, the more employed and higher wages pushed by factors of growth.

Think about it, almost every big medical break through in treatment comes out of the U.S. because of the use of our privatized system. Other countries are able to keep quality relatively high compared to what it should be because they count on our system to create the products that they need. There is a huge reason people invest in our stock markets at a MUCH higher rate than we invest in any other. You will stifle growth and innovation, the cost of everything will be forced to stay at a level it is currently AT BEST and new products and treatments will be released at a MUCH slower rate.

All of this is literally economics 101 stuff. Im not even going to get into what caused the recession with you, because lets be honest. Your not going to understand it and your going to argue about it anyhow because of your lack of understanding.

Its shocking to me you lib's think you can control everything the private sector does when you cant control yourselves to make a non hypocritical retort.

[1997gtx]

Originally Posted by txz4

i think its hilarious bk that you contradict yourself with every answer. Ill say it again, Catholic church purchases insurance for employees WITHOUT CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE. Obama tells Catholic church they must pay for it. They say no. So he relents and says fine, if you dont pay for it, the insurance will pay for it AND PROVIDE IT AS PART OF YOUR PLAN. YOU WILL PAY THE SAME AMOUNT BUT IT WILL INCLUDE CONTRACEPTION. Its not about cost, you said it yourself, contraception is cheaper than pregnancies, that is of course assuming incorrectly that those who would take advantage of contraception coverage wouldn't already be buying it on their own. Its cheap, as sited many times.

If the Catholic church decided that Children couldn't have "free" vaccines because vaccines are evil, would that be okay?

What if another business said they didn't want to cover drugs to help with cancer ... would that be okay?

[1997gtx]

Originally Posted by txz4

Higher cap gains=cap gains is purposely lower to encourage investment by firms and private individuals specifically asking them to purchase a product (house) or an investment (share of a firm etc). The more things are purchased the higher the growth rate. The higher the growth rate, the more employed and higher wages pushed by factors of growth.

Quick logic question for you. If you have $1 million and can invest it, rank the following options in order of which you'd prefer:

(1) Invest all of it, making 10% profit, but paying 15% of that profit to taxes.
(2) Invest all of it, making 10% profit, but paying 30% of that profit to taxes.
(3) Don't invest any of it, making 0% profit.

Logically, you'll pick option 1, 2, and then 3, no?

#2 is what "libs" want. And you think because you'll make less, people will stop investing? That makes no sense. You're still making money. Money you won't make if you don't invest.

You don't need an econ 101 class to know that if investments make money, people will keep investing.

[txz4]

your whole "logic" is flawed. Your under the assumption that there is guaranteed profit. Last time i checked, risk is WAY up for almost every firm and returns are at a low. It means that there is a lower return for a given risk, this is figured into every model. Look up the Gordon Growth model for some basics. Therefore the value of everything becomes less compared to any given risk and requires a higher return. Again this will guaranteed create less investment. If you think your idea of "fairness" is worth lowering gov revenues and lowering the opportunity for all workers than fine. Go for it, but at least admit it. If risk stays the same but returns are lower you wont invest the same way or even close, its a simple as that.

When did business or religious organization become required to provide anything health care related. If they didn't want to cover cancer treatment fine. If they didn't want to cover vaccines, again fine. If anyone has a problem with the benefits from a given business or institution they don't have to work there or support them, simple as that. Any company that wants to attract more qualified individuals they can offer better packages.

Again check your logic, and especially learn your economics and finance. you may actually start doing something that will actually help people instead of doing something that hurts people and thinking your helping.

[txz4]

quick logic question for you.

A)you go to a casino, are on the fence in gambling. You dont have much and you feel that the risk isnt worth the payoff.
B) its just as risky and you have the same money, but the returns are higher
C) you never walk in, too much risk for too little return to even consider.

What you libs may want is different than what you are doing, but guaranteed what you are doing is A and C. congratulations. According to libs the means always justify the ends.

[1997gtx]

Originally Posted by txz4

your whole "logic" is flawed. Your under the assumption that there is guaranteed profit. Last time i checked, risk is WAY up for almost every firm and returns are at a low. It means that there is a lower return for a given risk, this is figured into every model. Look up the Gordon Growth model for some basics. Therefore the value of everything becomes less compared to any given risk and requires a higher return. Again this will guaranteed create less investment. If you think your idea of "fairness" is worth lowering gov revenues and lowering the opportunity for all workers than fine. Go for it, but at least admit it. If risk stays the same but returns are lower you wont invest the same way or even close, its a simple as that.

When did business or religious organization become required to provide anything health care related. If they didn't want to cover cancer treatment fine. If they didn't want to cover vaccines, again fine. If anyone has a problem with the benefits from a given business or institution they don't have to work there or support them, simple as that. Any company that wants to attract more qualified individuals they can offer better packages.

Again check your logic, and especially learn your economics and finance. you may actually start doing something that will actually help people instead of doing something that hurts people and thinking your helping.

Why so angry? You associate anyone disagreeing with you as a "lib" and then you get all angry. You'll die early with that much unnecessary rage. I can only hope you can afford health insurance

And, for someone who seemingly has all the finance and econ answers and likes to tell people to "educate themselves," can you please tell me since when do people pay cap gains tax on investments that lose money? It's a simple logical argument. If you think someone will invest less because the money they may make might be a few percent less because of taxes (but only if they make money), you've never invested money. Personally, I think cap gains taxes should be higher in some areas, and lower in others.

In regards to insurance, there are a myriad of things all plans must cover. All plans have to cover preventive care at 100%. That includes mammograms, pap smears, etc. AND vaccines. Obama said birth control is preventive care and should thus be covered at 100% like everything else. Simple enough.

Perhaps YOU should educate yourself?