So with the New Health Care Reform passed through the House. Who is for or against it?? Why or why not?

I am not in favor. My opinion (whether it's right or wrong) is why should we pay for the people who are too lazy to get a job just so they can have health insurance? Now it's different if they are disabled and unable to work. But these people who won't get off their butts to get a job shouldn't get subsidized health care that we, tax payers, are paying for!

Edited November 8, 200916 yr by TN_girl21

The bill drops the ball in controlling costs.The American people want health care that's more affordable. This bill doesn't do that.

For those for whom healthcare is unaffordable, there will be subsidies.

It was said that it would be required for every person to have health insurance, otherwise you're going to be fined. That's kind of taking away the whole purpose of us being an independent country.

There are many mandates in life. Mortgage insurance before you buy a house, car insurance before you can drive, immunizations before you can enter school. It's part of living in a civilized society. This idea of "freedoms" being taken away is just baloney. Hooey!!

And who said this was an independent country? We are a country of laws and rules and regulations. And that's as it should be.

All liberals see is what the people are going to "receive". But fail to consider: "at what expense."

The bill reduces the deficit by 138 million over the first 10 years and 1.2 trillion over the following 10. There are no taxes on anyone unless you make more then 200k per year.

For a doctor with a thriving private practice, the sweeping changes means higher overhead costs and an influx of new patients he may not be able to care for.

For small business owners, the health insurance overhaul means higher premiums for people on their payroll.

For insurance providers, the bill fails to address cost containment, which they say will lead to billions in health care taxes.

There are tax breaks for small business owners and more choice for them in choosing healthcare plans.

And why would a doctor accept new patients that he/she couldn't care for? And what sweeping changes will affect a thriving practice and what are these higher overhead costs?

And business owners don't determine the premiums of healthcare, the greedy insurance companies do. It there had been a public option, they wouldn't be able to raise premiums. Hmmm.

All liberals see is what the people are going to "receive". But fail to consider: "at what expense."

Everything has a cost. But it would cost MORE to do nothing about healthcare, which is 1/6 of our economy. We all benefit from people who have insurance because that makes us collectively a healthier nation. Less time missed from work. Good for the employer. More demand for healthcare will increase jobs in the healthcare industry. More jobs means more people are paying taxes, which helps reduce the deficit. It all has a domino effect and it will be good.

Everything does cost; like the 5 million a pop to take senators for joy rides on air force 1. How many people would that have insured?

Everything does cost; like the 5 million a pop to take senators for joy rides on air force 1. How many people would that have insured?

All presidents use Air Force One. It is budgeted for. That is not money that otherwise would be used for something else.

And if the president takes senators aboard a flight he is already taking, it doesn't add to the cost.

How many people could the insurance companies insure (that they kicked off) with the money they used to lobby against healthcare reform?

Thanks Cleo's you spared me the effort.

I notice that ariscus has still not answered the questions. I asked them because I'm trying to figure out why anyone but people who gain from the insurance company's profits, would support them in this debate.

Thanks Cleo's you spared me the effort.

I notice that ariscus has still not answered the questions. I asked them because I'm trying to figure out why anyone but people who gain from the insurance company's profits, would support them in this debate.

This was once upon a time a capitalistic society were a person or group of people was encouraged to make money. And I highly doubt the 30 minute flight was a scheduled flight.

Still no real answers, airscus? Just silly sarcasm, eh?

Or are you trying to say that this new health care bill is the end of capitalism? Nothing would surprise me. The way some of you think is truly mind boggling.

Still no real answers, airscus? Just silly sarcasm, eh?

Or are you trying to say that this new health care bill is the end of capitalism? Nothing would surprise me. The way some of you think is truly mind boggling.

What you people really wanted, a single payer system, would have been a huge hit to capitalism. Getting mad at insurance companies and calling them evil over 3% profit margins is just hacking away at capitalism. The slow take over and emergence of the nanny state that liberals want, is definitely killing capitalism.

Utter complete bull$shite.

Greed is what is running them into the ground. And trying to ruin this country too.

Most progressives aren't interested in a "nanny" state.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand what they do want. I'm sure you don't have time in your mental thought processes to give anything but your own opinions any mental time.

This peeing contest is silly. You aren't open to considering an alternative way of solving America's problems and we had 8 years of the way you want things to roll. Those 8 years are proof positive that what you champion doesn't work. So let's give up the silliness, shall we?

Edited March 23, 201016 yr by BJean

P.S. What I want for Americans is a good universal health care plan that doesn't exclude hard-working, law abiding citizens from having access to the best health care in the world. You know, the thing that so many Americans can't get from the system we have now.

Yes! Government run health care, that's right! The demon government in charge of a system that will not discriminate or disenfranchise anyone, just the thing that our country promises. It is the very least we can provide for our people and it actually amounts to the most important thing that we should provide.

P.S. What I want for Americans is a good universal health care plan that doesn't exclude hard-working, law abiding citizens from having access to the best health care in the world. You know, the thing that so many Americans can't get from the system we have now.

Yes! Government run health care, that's right! The demon government in charge of a system that will not discriminate or disenfranchise anyone, just the thing that our country promises. It is the very least we can provide for our people and it actually amounts to the most important thing that we should provide.

Do those hard working "American's" include the 20 million or so illegal aliens that are here? Because this bill does. Here's an interesting article on the "real" cost of this bill.. fantasy in, fantasy out....

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

I wish illegal immigrants could buy health care, then they would be paying into a system they are using.

Lets say you are going through an intersection, someone runs the light and hits you. Its an illegal immigrant. Now do you want him to have insurance or not?

They are here, they have been here, they will be here no matter what you say or do. (By the way, most Republicans I know employ them in one way or another) They use our health care facilities, so why wouldn't we let the contribute to the fund to pay for them.

That is why your argument is flawed you want to count the cost of immigrants on the system but you would have to also include their premiums which you have already admitted are higher than costs.