What Do Republicans Want? - A Real Question, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 12:11 PM by Miraj
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The truth is regarding illegals.. Next to nothing can be done. Unless they begin tossing out illegals at the front door and denying them emergency treatment (Which I believe would be human righs violation)

The only way it won't get directly put on the tax payer is for the govt. to say that they won't pay for it. Which means the hospital has to pay for it. Which means that they will raise prices to make up for their losses, which means that either way the collective pays for it.


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 12:24 PM by Ahabstar
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Ohio is ready for UHC. They passed a 2% "franchise tax" on all Ohio hospitals so that the state receives 2% of what each hospital takes in. A way to both capitalize on the federal government and to cover lost tax revenues from lost jobs.

So think of it this way, if you in your state, pay your federal taxes (like purchase gasoline) and this plan passes. Every time I visit a hospital here in Ohio, the State of Ohio will make 2% of what the federal government pays out to the hospital. Of which you contributed a small part.

I am sure other states have done similar things as Ohio is not very inventive.


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 12:42 PM by OrganizedChaos
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The statement, from the same article, that worries me though is:


"Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to access the exchange that is set up," Gibbs said. Verification requirements are "something we'd work out with Congress," he said.


Lack of enforcement has always been the issue with Illegal Immigration IMHO. I believe not stating specifically HOW this will be enforced is a major legal loophole that WILL be abused.

This one area of debate only strengthens my belief that this bill is not ready yet.



reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 01:05 PM by FritosBBQTwist
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You know entering America illegal is...illegal?

Just because something says doesn't mean it is.

One example will more than likely be this health care. Going off our past and current leaders, I can say whatever the law says does not mean to much when it comes down to what actually happens.

Is it "FACT" that it will be "illegal" for them to get it? Probably...but lets see how well that works.

Oh, and it doesn't matter if someone is a republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, or smack dab in the middle. This is a plan that is being pushed through with very much dissent from people all over.


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 02:11 PM by OrganizedChaos
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The enforcement I was alluding to was eligibility determination. I agree that they can't address Immigration Law enforcement in this bill. How about specifying clear Eligibility rules? Will E-Verify be used, or will they use the "Substantial Presence" test?


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 03:16 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by Aaron_Justin
Where do you think the money to institute this healthcare reform will come from?


We are wasting over a trillion dollars every year in the current health care system. That's HALF of what it costs. I think it will come from there.

Here are the biggest culprits: Source


Let's assume that the reform is the right step and is great, would you consider now to be a bad time to spend money on anything of that magnitude considering our current financial situation as a country?


Not spend money, reform the whole thing so that the wasted money gets spent on real health care.


Would it be a bad thing to take the healthcare bill off the fast track and really disect each part by qualified professionals in the field of medicine?


I've been reading the term "fast track" for a few days now. Is this the new catch phrase? And to answer your question, I don't know. It depends. If it means that it will actually get done, then yes. If it means it will get put on the back burner, then no.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 04:06 PM by David9176
reply to post by Phlynx




What makes our land special, so that no one else can have it?


Good point. Here is my answer:

Most any country...the majority of people will share a certain amount of ideals and beliefs. The people in this country...the majority...believe in American workers and people...I do. But the thing is...if I lived in any other country..as long as the ones in power weren't flat out evil...I'd be proud of it as well and want the best for it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that...although dividing ourselves by race and religion is NOT right. Unfortunateley...that is a divider and I believe a cause for almost every single war that I've read about. Yes, the main premise behind it may be money...but it is always justified BY BELIEFS.

When was the last time the US was fighting a war against another "predominitely white" country since WW2?


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 04:20 PM by Aaron_Justin
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Wouldn't it be possible to fix the wasteful spending in the healthcare system without reforming it completely? Then maybe take those funds and subsidize insurance for people that cannot afford it.

If thats how half is getting covered, then where is the other half coming from? I do not want to pay anymore than I already do in taxes.

There are other troubling areas I have found by reading the bill, though I have not finished it yet, here are a few.

1) Page 8:

Title IV -- Amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Subtitle A :
Part 1 :
Sec. 401 : Tax on individuals without acceptable healthcare coverage

~ What is the definition of "acceptable health care coverage" also, why
should a person be penalized if they do not want health care insurance. From what I read, acceptable healthcare will be determined by a commissioner.

Page 16:

Title I -- Protections and standards for qualified health benefits plans

Subtitle A :
Sec. 102 : Protecting the choice to keep current covereage
(a) :
1 : Limitation on new enrollment.
(A) : In general --- Except as provided in this paragraph, the
individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does
not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective
date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

~ This contradicts what is being said about not impeding private insurance providers.

Also, it seems like whoever this commissioner is, he/she will have a large amount of power. This person will be the deciding factor on many elements of healthcare.

My source for the information in this post: docs.house.gov...



[edit on 12-9-2009 by Aaron_Justin]

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^