Useful Links

FIRE'd@51 · 03-21-2010, 08:39 PM

The disappointing thing to me is that, IMO, this bill isn't really health care reform. Other than being expensive, I'm not sure what it is. I had hoped the Dems, with the Presidency and large Congressional majorities would come up with a better bill. I can only wonder how many more people will lose their insurance, go bankrupt, or even die waiting for the guts of this bill to go into effect in 2014. Sadly, we have just witnessed our leaders get all wrapped up in winning the political game at the expense of substance. It wasn't because of the Republican opposition. Their votes weren't needed. The only thing bipartisan about this bill was the opposition to it.

samclem · 03-21-2010, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good

So you heard it here.

If the market doesn't crash tomorrow (and given the rhetoric, it should be a doozy) it means the Republicans are wrong and everyone should support health care reform. And remember, markets are never wrong.

No, VP Biden said the government is going to reign in those insurance companies! And the president has had lots of comments about their obscene profits (less than 5%) and outrageous rate increases. But the mystery is: The trade group for these insurance companies spent millions in support of this legislation--I wonder what they knew that we don't. And, mysteriously, the stock prices for insurers are going up. Gee, somebody isn't too worried about the government being effective in reigning them in.
Rising medical costs aren't due to the small amount of profit made by insurance companies. Costs go up when consumers don't directly pay for the goods they consume, which causes demand to go through the roof and this drives prices up. When we add millions more people to the pool of customers, and subsidize care so everyone pays for everyone else, that's a recipe for higher medical costs.

youbet · 03-21-2010, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good

So you heard it here.

If the market doesn't crash tomorrow (and given the rhetoric, it should be a doozy) it means the Republicans are wrong and everyone should support health care reform. And remember, markets are never wrong.

But if you wanted health care reform, why would you support this bill?

clifp · 03-21-2010, 09:13 PM

I am not going to get mad just even.

To start with I think I'll cancel my existing health insurance (I really don't use it.) in 2013. If I'm get sick I'll going ahead and renew in 2014 when they ban denying insurance for pre-existing conditions. The fine for not having insurance is much less than buying insurance today I suspect will only get worse.

I think with some income shifting, I should be able to get my AGI down below 400% of the poverty level so I can qualify for subsidizes. After all Congress is worried about unemployed people like myself not being able afford insurance, so I don't want to disappoint them.

ERD50 · 03-21-2010, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

But if you wanted health care reform, why would you support this bill?

I cringe every time I hear "health care reform" associated with this bill. I'm all for reform, bring it on! I am against this bill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

I am not going to get mad just even.

Yep. This has now officially stopped being about what is the right thing to do for the country. Congress made their decision. It is now the time to figure out how we adapt, as individuals, to this apparent new reality.

The conflict for me is that doing so is probably going to feel like crapping on my kids. Oh well, that was Congress doing it, not me.

I should probably turn off the TV, radio, Internet and not pick up the paper. I know how I'll respond, just as I did when Congress broke their arms patting themselves on the back for the "Cash for Clunkers" bill. Hey - we offered $1B of your money to other people, and they took it!

-ERD50

eridanus · 03-21-2010, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet

But if you wanted health care reform, why would you support this bill?

Is non-rescission not reform? What about exclusions for pre-existing conditions?

Westernskies · 03-21-2010, 09:52 PM

I bet Hugo Chavez is celebrating tonight.

Steve O · 03-21-2010, 09:56 PM

Im glad I sold some stock last week...

The rest is in solid blue chips with good dividends and it's all tax advantaged...

Im not sure how much longer that will last though, they are gonna need a lot of taxes...

If any of you actually believe this will reduce the deficit Id like some of that Koolaid

Im hoping the PPT and the Fed have have the manipulation machine tuned up and ready to run...

As far as the actual reform goes I guess this means I can drop my expensive individual insurance and give less $$$ to the IRS instead

If I get really sick I can buy insurance after the fact...

I cannot see how this is gonna work

My state of Illinois has no income taxes on IRA withdrawls and my passport is good to go...

ERD50 · 03-21-2010, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus

Is non-rescission not reform? What about exclusions for pre-existing conditions?

And when do those take effect?

If I sprinkle some sugar on your mud-pie, can I ask - why don't you like your mud pie, you don't like sugar?

-ERD50

eridanus · 03-21-2010, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50

And when do those take effect?

Are they reforms or not?

youbet · 03-21-2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve O

My state of Illinois has no income taxes on IRA withdrawls.......

Tonight it doesn't. But ya better check the newspapers in the morning!

ERD50 · 03-21-2010, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50

And when do those take effect?

If I sprinkle some sugar on your mud-pie, can I ask - why don't you like your mud pie, you don't like sugar?

-ERD50

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus

Are they reforms or not?

Based on your (non)answer, it sounds like mud pie, maybe with some sprinkles.

Hey, what happened to transparency? When do those take effect?

-ERD50

youbet · 03-21-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus

Is non-rescission not reform? What about exclusions for pre-existing conditions?

You're answering my question with a question. That's silly. Why not answer me, then I'll answer you.

clifp · 03-21-2010, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus

What about exclusions for pre-existing conditions?

To be honest I am not sure I like preventing insurance companies from exclude people who have pre-exisiting condition.

Now obviously in some case it is just bad luck or bad genes that you have a particular disease and it seems unfair that not only do you get hit with a bad disease but you and your family financially crippled. But shouldn't their be some consequences for the obese person who has diabetes or high cholesterol , the smoker, the gay man who engages in unprotected sex and gets HIV or another STD etc?

We allow insurance to exclude people from collecting life insurance, who race cars, mountain climb, fly airplanes, hang glide, or rock climb. Drivers who habitually drive too fast or drive drunk lose their insurance.

I know it sounds cold, but even the provision about preventing insurance companies from excluding kids with pre-existing kids, which evidently is very popular is troubling me a bit. As our understanding of genetics advances we will increasingly be able to predict potential problem with parents having kids. If parents are told that the odds are pretty high that if you have a kid, he will have a chronic disease, should society be forced to bear the entire consequences of their poor choice?

I don't think there is easy answers to the question, but I think we need to continually reinforce that actions have consequences if we are to control health care cost. One of my biggest philosophical problems with HCR is moved in the wrong direction on this front.

eridanus · 03-21-2010, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50

Based on your (non)answer, it sounds like mud pie, maybe with some sprinkles.

Based on your (non)answer to my questions, it sounds like you agree. They are indeed reforms.

eridanus · 03-21-2010, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

I know it sounds cold, but even the provision about preventing insurance companies from excluding kids with pre-existing kids, which evidently is very popular is troubling me a bit. As our understanding of genetics advances we will increasingly be able to predict potential problem with parents having kids. If parents are told that the odds are pretty high that if you have a kid, he will have a chronic disease, should society be forced to bear the entire consequences of their poor choice?

Abortions are not funded under the health care bill.

ERD50 · 03-21-2010, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus

Based on your (non)answer to my questions, it sounds like you agree. They are indeed reforms.

Provide a page reference, and maybe I'll take a look and give an opinion. In the mean time, care to answer the question - when do they take effect? You seem to be afraid of that one.

-ERD50

eridanus · 03-21-2010, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50

In the mean time, care to answer the question - when do they take effect? You seem to be afraid of that one.

I didn't ask or state anything about when they take effect. You did.

I just stated that they're reforms.

eridanus · 03-21-2010, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

To be honest I am not sure I like preventing insurance companies from exclude people who have pre-exisiting condition.

Now obviously in some case it is just bad luck or bad genes that you have a particular disease and it seems unfair that not only do you get hit with a bad disease but you and your family financially crippled. But shouldn't their be some consequences for the obese person who has diabetes or high cholesterol , the smoker, the gay man who engages in unprotected sex and gets HIV or another STD etc?

Yeah, you're right. Actions do have consequences. Perhaps those people should pay more for health insurance but I don't think denying them all health care is the answer. At least, it's not the type of society in which I want to live.

Other countries have universal health care. They spend less than we do. What is their secret? (They're less obese, for one, so maybe a "fat tax" is part of the solution.)

Edit: Don't smokers have lower lifetime health costs than non-smokers? They die earlier.

Steve O · 03-21-2010, 10:55 PM

So when do these tax increases take effect

I was planning on deffering some income and buying a house with cash this year...

Wyoming, Texas and Tennessee are on the list...

Is Illinois a non recourse state

I mean why shouldn't I just quit paying the mortgage that will soon be under water and pack up and leave

Why pay $4500.00 in taxes on a house that's assessed at 200 K that I might get $120 K for and I owe 121 K

I could care less about my credit because I don't have any other debt and I don't need anymore...

These are things Im gonna have to find out soon...