I've decided how I am going to vote.

[doc_ricketts]

Originally Posted by TNC

While I don't like some of the aspects of Obamacare, there are indeed many good and valuable elements of the bill. I would dare say that any such healthcare bill from any venue of congress and the political minions involved would have some manner of negative side effects. The principle of everyone having insurance and having some stake in it...by that I mean everyone except the most destitute...is basically a good one and one obviously supported at one time by Romney. As long as Obamacare will have some flexibility that will allow reasonable tweaking over time to make it more effective and streamlined, I think it will be a workable component. It is ridiculously long and complicated, and some of that crap needs to pared down. Maybe the biggest problem with Obamacare was the rather "scorched earth" method of passing it that was involved. Damn stupid politicians could take an issue that clearly most everyone could agree on, and through their chest thumping, partisan, ego-driven personalities, they could give a cure for cancer a total black eye...and that's both sides of the fence. This is a hurdle that Obamacare is going to have to deal with for a long time. Occasionally perception is everything.

I'm not sure that totally removing the private sector from the insurance element of health coverage is the solution. While the current setup is hardly ideal, who's left to administer over the logistics of this system?...the federal government? I don't hate the federal government. I'm just not that impressed with their track record in trying to run and/or oversee complicated programs that are and probably should be private sector to a large degree. And yes, maybe the complication we experience now is a major part of the problem. As an example, federal taxation should be simple and based on a very logical approach. How has the government performed in that arena?

The health care industry needed some regulation in the same way Wall Street did. The new legislation will not overcontrol or kill private insurance coverage but remove some the major problems, such as denying coverage to people who should be insured. The oversight and controls are analogous to the control now existing over the banking industry and Wall Street. Something had to happen in both sectors and health care costs would have driven the country into bankruptcy faster than anything (just check the projected costs for the next 20 years). The health care industry would have committed suicide in the same way the banking industry 'almost' did.

[duct tape]

Originally Posted by doc_ricketts

The health care industry needed some regulation in the same way Wall Street did. The new legislation will not overcontrol or kill private insurance coverage but remove some the major problems, such as denying coverage to people who should be insured. The oversight and controls are analogous to the control now existing over the banking industry and Wall Street. Something had to happen in both sectors and health care costs would have driven the country into bankruptcy faster than anything (just check the projected costs for the next 20 years). The health care industry would have committed suicide in the same way the banking industry 'almost' did.

I have my Glock loaded and my razor sharpened, just waiting for B.O. to talk me off the ledge with the same $300+ billion offer he gave CitiBank, AIG, Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs and plenty of other players in 2008.

I see a few issues with your comments and earlier ones in this thread.

The health care industry like it or not will ultimately become run by the federal govt, at the very least with de facto control of pricing schedules. The same gov't which also is in charge of the post office which today announced a $15.9B loss for the last fiscal year and has previously mentioned they couldn't possibly continue Saturday mail delivery. There are countless other examples. As a medical professional and business owner I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about this.

Nothing has really changed in the banking industry. Collateralized debt obligations, subprime mortgages, even reverse mortgages are still available and these banks and others continue to be involved in leveraged private equity deals with these securities. One could only hope for similar laissez faire rules for the health industry.

All of us will not share equally in covering the 38 million newly insured Americans. Yes all of us, both you and me will pay a little more via taxes and FICA reimbursement and salary level rules changes. But physicians also see this January 2, 2013 a 25% reduction in Medicare reimbursement. This on top of 12% last year and approx 10% the year before. Most third party insurance companies will mirror these changes once pre-existing contracts expire.

[doc_ricketts]

Originally Posted by duct tape

I have my Glock loaded and my razor sharpened, just waiting for B.O. to talk me off the ledge with the same $300+ billion offer he gave CitiBank, AIG, Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs and plenty of other players in 2008.

Make sure you have a good pot of Tea to comfort you while you wait.

[atokad]

Originally Posted by HellSickle

In another CSM thread someone pointed out whining from the Papa Johns owner that this will increase the cost of each pizza by $.15. Fine. All competitors will also have the cost increased by $.15. This is part of sharing the cost in a fair manner. I would think even the rich would think this is a bargain. In the long run it will reduce their healthcare expenses.

Think it all you want but even your local wealthy liberal supporter has "dirty" hands when it comes to this one.
Stryker layoffs blamed on Obamacare tax

http://www.mmm-online.com/stryker-la...rticle/247605/

Heiress to the Stryker fortunes and Fort Collins resident, Pat Stryker deeply embroiled in bankrupt Abound Solar which took huge stimulus $$ from the Government.

http://www.forbes.com/profile/pat-stryker/

Why is the media so biased against conservatives and always promoting all the news about the "evils" or conservative business owners and leave out all of the news about the liberal ones?

Look at CA and their OSHPD http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/ involvement and see what the costs are there. It costs a hospital in CA $2 million per bed to build a new hospital in large part because of OSHPD whereas all of the other states in the US it cost about $1 million per bed.

Has anyone talked about how much the insurance companies invest in the markets and how taking them down will affect the economy?

I do not want the government involved in our healthcare system to the degree that the ACA provides. This is just a BS plan that was forced through without anyone even reading it!!

Funny how people on here complain about coverage, access, and insurance companies (which are just making a profit like they are supposed to) yet they have 3,4 or 5 motorcycles? Where are the priorities??

Some people spend more time researching their bike and paying for upgrades than they do to taking care of their own bodies and when they could be shopping for providers and insurance companies.

Guess they have no interest in it and it's too easy to just let the government take care of them so they can get back to riding.

Should you be covered for recreational injuries while riding Killpecker? Or snowboarding or any other high risk sport?

Ughh, could go on forever, and it will. Healthcare is complicated and I agree that some reform was certainly needed, but not a full on government takeover.. I wonder how many tens of thousands of new oversight government administrative positions will be created??

Please tell me where to apply because it is probably will be one of the most secure and best paying jobs I could get.

[_CJ]

Originally Posted by duct tape

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills.

The leading cause of death in third world countries is,.... wait for it,... death. From poor to no medical care. Which would you rather have?

pssst....the Untied States of America isn't a third world country, yet.

Other first world counties spend half as much per capita, most have higher life expectancies, and none of them have citizens going bankrupt from medical debt.

[barko1]

Since we have graphs:


I really do not cry about physician salaries although I sympathize with the paperwork and legal crap they have to deal with.

[_CJ]

[toddler]

Originally Posted by barko1

Since we have graphs:


I really do not cry about physician salaries although I sympathize with the paperwork and legal crap they have to deal with.

$tre$$ per $ is much higher than many other professions that super hard working intelligent people could make in alternative professions. While these numbers look good, the lost wages and stress of training yourself for many years with long hours and then being in a position to be asset positive in your 30's if you are lucky. What if you realize you don't like the profession? I wonder how many doctors would do it again? Hanging out with sick people all the time. No thanks.

But, I'm glad somebody likes doing it

[doc_ricketts]

Here is some real upside graphical data to balance all the negative stuff:

In case you are interested, the red line is the lap time for GOPers and the blue line is for DEMs.

[HellSickle]

Originally Posted by toddler

$tre$$ per $ is much higher than many other professions that super hard working intelligent people could make in alternative professions. While these numbers look good, the lost wages and stress of training yourself for many years with long hours and then being in a position to be asset positive in your 30's if you are lucky. What if you realize you don't like the profession? I wonder how many doctors would do it again? Hanging out with sick people all the time. No thanks.

But, I'm glad somebody likes doing it

My neighbor is an anesthesiologist. His patients don't complain (for very long anyway).

Orthopedics is the best. You generally are just dealing with broken & worn out bodies, rather than sick people.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I don't know how many times I've said it but everyone refuses to hear it

we did NOTHING to address the rising costs of health care

NOTHING

NOTHING

NOTHING

NOTHING

The further regulation only put a temporary bandaid at best. Costs will continue to rise and then where will we be?

[wzd1a]

Well, now that we know Obama care is the law of the land - I will be voting to support gov't inspections of each and every us residents (not just citizens) lifestyle:

If you are overweight you will lose weight and be forced to exercise and eat right (from the Gov't menu which needs to be developed);

I believe all your food and indeed anything you consume must be tracked - you are not respnsible enough to make your own choices.

You will need to gain gov't approval to undertake any activity - I can not be asked to insure you if your a risk taker (the gov't will determine which activities are too risky).

At this point, I will support any proposals to implement these types of gov't monitoring on all US residents. We will need to control HC costs and it starts with limiting your ability to make poor choices.

I'm all in.

[PrairieRider]

Originally Posted by wzd1a

Well, now that we know Obama care is the law of the land - I will be voting to support gov't inspections of each and every us residents (not just citizens) lifestyle:

If you are overweight you will lose weight and be forced to exercise and eat right (from the Gov't menu which needs to be developed);

I believe all your food and indeed anything you consume must be tracked - you are not respnsible enough to make your own choices.

You will need to gain gov't approval to undertake any activity - I can not be asked to insure you if your a risk taker (the gov't will determine which activities are too risky).

At this point, I will support any proposals to implement these types of gov't monitoring on all US residents. We will need to control HC costs and it starts with limiting your ability to make poor choices.

I'm all in.

Let's see...what are some different possibilities...incentives for good health and allow interstate competition between insurance companies for starters.

[wzd1a]

Originally Posted by PrairieRider

Let's see...what are some different possibilities...incentives for good health and allow interstate competition between insurance companies for starters.

Originally Posted by PrairieRider

+1 Couldn't happen to a nicer company. Nothing Hostess ever made could really be considered food. When I'm the food dictator, there would be no prepared foods on the shelf...tuna helper, canned soups, frozen pies, etc. That would cure an incredibly overwhelming number of health problems.

Hmmmm....

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by PrairieRider

Let's see...what are some different possibilities...incentives for good health and allow interstate competition between insurance companies for starters.

Incentives for good health...sounds like what our current system currently offers (and what pisses off people with poor health (also known as pre-existing conditions))

It also sounds like penalty for poor health...which is also what our current system currently offers.

It also sounds like the government could determine what exaclty good health is and how one should get there I.e. if you are eating "government approved foods" (and can show your receipts during audit) then you get an incentive, i.e a tax refund (of your own damn money).(See wzd1a post above)

It also sounds like the reward system you would give...say a 5 year old...for finishing their veggies.


Prairie, it does stand to reason that if our Gov't is now going to stick it's nose in our private health care decisions (by making them public decisions) and the tax payers are now going to be asked to insure others (in a codified, out in the open type of way) and the government is being asked to be wise stewards of how that tax money is spent then that same government, in an effort to show accontability, could ban large sodas, or french fires, or scones , or anything it decides is "unhealthy" for the populace that it now insures.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to believe there will be Bloomberg style food bans and size limitations imposed on every one of us. The gov't will deem certain foods "too unhealthy". Not long after that they will deem certain activites (motorcycle riding?) too unhealthy for the masses to be expected to insure.