Are there enough doctors and nurses for this bill to be effective?

All we need, I think, are some checks in place to be certain that
insurance companies aren't jacking up the prices artificially simply
because they can - i.e. not caring if persons A, B and C can afford any
insurance as long as persons D and E can. And by this I don't mean
"knock them down to charging at a level where they make no money";
there's a difference between making a profit, and raising prices to
barely what the higher end of the market will bear.

In regards to wath Castor wrote ...

the DOT and NTSB do not fine you if you decide not to drive.

The FAA does not fine you if you choose to travel by plane.

The FCC does not fine you if you listen to your own music instead of the radio.

DARPA does not fine you if you pass up the Internet.

There is no fine if you don't wish to join the military.

There is no fine if you select a non-USDA meal.

It will be illegal and you will be fined if you do not maintain
healthcare under this bill. Also. If everyone is required to get
healthcare, who wins? The people? Nope! Insurance companies! And now
they can charge whatever they want because you are REQUIRED to get it,
instead of being able to say, "hey, I don't like your price so I'm just
gonna wait until you lower or go elsewhere." Too bad! Now you're forced
to buy it. Well, forced unless you join a labor union or are a senator
/ congressperson.

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

Are there enough doctors and nurses for this bill to be effective?

One could very well ask a similar question: were there enough lifeboats aboard the Titanic?

No? Bloody well should have been.

Likewise, there should be enough doctors and nurses to make sure that everyone can receive the healthcare they need. Other countries manage this. I don't know why people think America can't.

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

It
will be illegal and you will be fined if you do not maintain
healthcare under this bill. Also. If everyone is required to get
healthcare, who wins? The people? Nope! Insurance companies! And now
they can charge whatever they want because you are REQUIRED to get it,
instead of being able to say, "hey, I don't like your price so I'm just
gonna wait until you lower or go elsewhere." Too bad! Now you're forced
to buy it. Well, forced unless you join a labor union or are a senator
/ congressperson.

That sounds rather alarmist of you. Scratch that, it sounds like alarmism of Fox News calibre. Would you mind providing us with the source from which you got this information?

Everyone assumes that the insurance companies are responsible for the high prices. But the real costs are literred all across the board, the bigger ones being that hospitals do everything they can to make money so that they can afford to stay in business, and across the country hundreds upon hundreds of hospital facilities are closed down as they cannot afford to stay open.

Tis a shame that hospitals, an institution I grew up in the UK as believing were a public service and not a business, are closing down due to an inability to pay up.

But what causes that, I wonder? Well, ignoring all the business ethics which are obvious and apparent, there's the malpractice lawsuits. I haven't read the entire bill, but if there is even ONE law in there which tries to cut down on the number of lawsuits, then the thing did more than a good enough job in my opinion. Close the window of people having access to the term "malpractice" and the legal costs of defending their business goes down radically.

Less costs for the hospitals means they wont have to charge $300 for a 5 minute exam, or double those charges if it happens to be in the middle of the night (hospitals being about the only business I know of that double costs simply for being the middle of the night, they don't pay the doctors more, but charge the customers more... oh sorry. Patients.)

If this cut down then the insurance companies wouldn't have such high bills to pay out every time someone makes a claim. You do realize, right, that insurance companies are paying out more money than you are giving them, right? And if more claims than money come in, they are forced to avoid some payouts to stay in business. They are, after all answering to share holders and need to make a profit.

Do you notice the pattern here?

The hard part here is that healthcare is a NECCESSITY, but the costs of it rival the loans you take out for a car. The average human can not afford this, and yet they MUST pay. Did you know the average billed cost of a birthing procedure is above $10,000? Now remember every single one of us was born, and the high majority in hospitals. That's half a year of salery right there.

Fact of the matter is that it does need readjustment, and I say this without even making note of the alarming fact that doctors treat symptoms more often than curing disease in this country.

Now, I again note I've not read the bill. But the fact it was required is something you can not argue. What it contains, that's a matter for debate.

PS: In no place in my arguement did I advocate government run healthcare. Please take that into consideration when replying.

[quote:7b642ac813=" B Vulpix"]It
will be illegal and you will be fined if you do not maintain
healthcare under this bill. Also. If everyone is required to get
healthcare, who wins? The people? Nope! Insurance companies! And now
they can charge whatever they want because you are REQUIRED to get it,
instead of being able to say, "hey, I don't like your price so I'm just
gonna wait until you lower or go elsewhere." Too bad! Now you're forced
to buy it. Well, forced unless you join a labor union or are a senator
/ congressperson.

That sounds rather alarmist of you. Scratch that, it sounds like alarmism of Fox News calibre. Would you mind providing us with the source from which you got this information?

Just my own speculative brain.  But I'm, personally not in a state of alarm. Just really really skeptical.

But anyway. I agree with Craig. That plus high R&D price of medicine.

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

[quote:b0f0dc7076=" B Vulpix"]It
will be illegal and you will be fined if you do not maintain
healthcare under this bill. Also. If everyone is required to get
healthcare, who wins? The people? Nope! Insurance companies! And now
they can charge whatever they want because you are REQUIRED to get it,
instead of being able to say, "hey, I don't like your price so I'm just
gonna wait until you lower or go elsewhere." Too bad! Now you're forced
to buy it. Well, forced unless you join a labor union or are a senator
/ congressperson.

That sounds rather alarmist of you. Scratch that, it sounds like alarmism of Fox News calibre. Would you mind providing us with the source from which you got this information?

Just my own speculative brain.  But I'm, personally not in a state of alarm. Just really really skeptical.

In other words, you pulled it out of your ass.

When you have evidence that this is the case, then I'll take your claims seriously. Until then, what you are doing, claiming as a fact that people who don't get insurance will be fined when you have no evidence to support this, is no better than lying.

Show some intellectual integrity.

Moreover, I don't think you have a firm grasp of what scepticism is.

I pretty much largely agree with Craig on this manner, but I do have to say something to Eon. Did you not read the part of the bill that says if you do not get insurance by 2014, you will be fined for not doing so?

It seems to me you're trying to defer a point to make your argument, and thus pulling stuff out of your ass. Moreover, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what intellectual integrity is.

Anyway, negative comments aside, my raging libertarian hates the idea of a federal mandate but I don't deny that health care is needed. Mind you, this is someone who will immediately qualify for medicare by 2014 since I'm well below the poverty line. That doesn't mean I can't point out things I see wrong with this bill. Another thing I'm concerned with is that the Democrats seem to think just applying some ducktape on Healthcare will be good enough. Costs are like they are a for a reason, and forcing everyone to be on insurance isn't going to be bringing costs down at all. All that happens is A. Everyone must be insured unless you are REALLY poor, and B. Insurance companies have to be much more accountable now.

I have nothing against regulating insurance companies, seeing as the service they provide is an essential necessity, but simply regulating one aspect of the whole problem does not fix everything. Its a decent bill, and I would like it much more without the federal mandate. And this is just a bit of skepticism on my behalf, but I don't quite believe that costs are going to be as advertised, but that's just my dose of political paranoia.

I pretty much largely agree with Craig on this manner, but I do have to say something to Eon. Did you not read the part of the bill that says if you do not get insurance by 2014, you will be fined for not doing so?

It seems to me you're trying to defer a point to make your argument, and thus pulling stuff out of your ass. Moreover, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what intellectual integrity is.

I believe I asked for DB Vulpix to provide evidence of her claims about the fines. Since neither of the two news links provided in this topic seem to be functioning, I've not been able to peruse them. As such, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for evidence. However, DB Vulpix, when asked, failed to provide any and, instead, claimed that the fines she was talking about were her own personal speculation and not, in fact, written into the law.

Now, I've since looked up the act on Wikipedia, since I wouldn't know where else to start looking for this sort of information. I've specifically looked for what you have claimed about the bill, and the closest thing I've found to what you are claiming is this:

"Impose in 2014 an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1 percent of income,
whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by
2016. This is an individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085.
exemptions to fine in cases of financial hardship or religious beliefs."

Unfortunately, the language used on that page is vague and it doesn't seem to specify what the penalty is for, but would I be right in assuming that this is what you were referring to? If that is the case, then I will gladly stand corrected and I trust you will withdraw your comments about my understanding of
intellectual integrity. But I'm still at a loss as to why DB Vulpix wasn't able to to provide me with evidence when I asked for it. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I notice, Hukos, that you didn't exactly rush to provide me with any evidence either. All I needed was a source I could look up, preferably in the form of a link to a relevant webpage.

I didn't make this topic for the top smarmy smart asses of the world to debate back and forth with stone cold facts.
This is supposed to be a casual discussion. Never did I state otherwise. If someone lacks the facts don't cut them down or call them names, Eon.  My intellectual integrity isn't something for you to define.

Is wikipedia even a valid source?

If not then that makes you as much of a liar as me.

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

I didn't make this topic for the top smarmy smart asses of the world to debate back and forth with stone cold facts.
This is supposed to be a casual discussion.

Super Marble Garden

This forum is for debating. You know, arguing.

Maybe this thread would've been more suitable for MFC instead?

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

I didn't make this topic for the top smarmy smart asses of the world to debate back and forth with stone cold facts.

Then why the **** did you make it?  So we could hypothesize about made-up crap?  So we could be overly-hyperbolic until someone finally declared democracy dead and buried for no good reason?  So we could all sound like the Tea Party morons, screaming back and forth about things we THINK are in the bill (DEATH PANELS!  MANDATORY ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE!  MARXIST NAZI MUGGLE TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE!) but actually aren't?

I just made this topic so people could share their opinions. Despite the fact that Eon didn't have to resort to saying what he said. He did ask for a source. So I decided to actually look and put them on the table. 

I didn't want to alienate people who may not have all the facts but still felt strongly on the issue.  You can argue as much as you like but must we resort to name calling? 

 I thought the point of this forum was to keep topics like this out of the MFC.  And talking about the health care bill here made sense at the time.

I mean really Castor that was pretty unnecessary.   Nobody was screaming anything until you showed up. If everyone needs to provide sources with their replies then I need to see a source for all the wild screaming accusations you just did there. Otherwise you lack Intellectual Integrity. Link to the bill is in my last post.

<strong class="quote-title" B Vulpix wrote:

---

I mean really Castor that was pretty unnecessary.   Nobody was screaming anything until you showed up. If everyone needs to provide sources with their replies then I need to see a source for all the wild screaming accusations you just did there. Otherwise you lack Intellectual Integrity. Link to the bill is in my last post.

Sorry for blowing up.  You in particular aren't the target of my rant.  The reason I did so at your post was because of the sentence "I didn't make this topic for the top
smarmy smart asses of the world to debate back and forth with stone cold
facts."

Quite frankly, kneejerk opinions with little regard for the facts are exactly why the discourse at large in this country has fallen so far in recent years.  I get enough of that stuff from the 24-hour news stations (all of them).  In fact, thanks to 24-hour news, people seem to care more about the perception of something rather than the actual facts themselves, and that infuriates me which led to my previous rant.  So it wasn't directed at you, just at something that has been annoying me around the world for some time now.

As for the bill itself, it is rather confusing (then again, EVERYTHING is confusing if written in legalese).  Thankfully, Reuters put up one of the better write-ups about what goes into effect and when that I found helpful.

As for my opinion of the bill, I think it's needed but it really should have gone all the way to a public option.  I know, people complain about how 'bad socialized health care is in other countries', but we already have some of those problems under our current system (most obviously, having to wait weeks to even see a specialist so they can set up a procedure that you'll have to wait for as well), and the fact that they can make us wait for weeks to be seen and then still charge us exorbitant amounts of money means that our system is somewhat broken.  It is a system that punishes people for trying to prevent problems down the road, that overcharges for preventative care and then, if someone gets really sick from something they couldn't afford to prevent, passes along the emergency room costs to the other patients and makes costs even more out-of-reach for the uninsured.

It's a vicious cycle that keeps people sick and insurance companies rolling in dough and it needs to be nipped in the bud.

Well, my comment at Eon was directed at his/her response at DB, I felt it was out of place, but I hold no hard feelings towards you Eon.

About Caster, I suppose his response, out of fairness, I have to agree with. This is meant as a forum for arguing and you're going to have to expect those kind of things. I just felt rather peeved at Eon's comment to DB.

Anyway, as I've said before I'm probably the most libertarian person on this forum, and the idea of a public mandate disgusts me, and the lack of a public option is well... lacking, and I don't this bill tackles all the issues. Still, I suppose its better than nothing, even though insurance companies aren't 100% of the problem, they still contribute majorly to the issues surrounding health care, and stricter regulation is needed on them, in my opinion.

Decent bill, could be much better, let's hope GOOD amendments are made in the future to fix health care, and not the crap republicans are suggesting...

How can this possibly be an issue? The video game characters love the bill!

I'm curious. What....exactly are the Republicans suggesting?

Practically everything that's in the current bill.

Mandated healthcare was THEIR idea.

I.....I don't remember this being a Republican idea...at all...

Of course you don't

It's funny how people are so quick to defend the Republicans and are so quick to bash the Democrats.

Hmmm Interesting...

Oh it's not so funny when you consider pointing out party bashing is totally pointless. Are you trying to say that you don't bash Republicans? Everyone does this so trying to single out certain instances is a waste of time. Anyway, I'm interested in your explanation for the republicans' staunch opposition to the mandate and the democrats' staunch support of it regardless of whose idea it was years ago. Oh, and John McCain is not conservative. He's a republican  but to me that isn't what matters. He misrepresents his base quite badly I might add.

All in all opposition to government health care was a Republican idea long before a mandate came up in the left wing of the party. The whole idea of the government forcing people to get health care is not a conservative idea, it violates the core belief in less government. Shoot, long before McCain there was President Reagan and his views about government run health care. Listen to that video and tell me what you think.

Are you a Reaganist DB?

No. I'm just saying this debate has been going on for a pretty long time.