It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by oppaperclip
So you're fine with people being fined for not buying something mandated by the government?
hat if they decide to mandate amerikans buy GM, or make certain hair cuts mandatory like North Korea?
How about them lying and saying this will save us money. Really a trillion dollar program will save us money?
Some how socialism has become all the rage in Amerika and I somehow think it has to do with this Politically correct touchy feely bull crap.
Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
If you want to keep your current HC plan, you're allowed to.
4. Will this plan ration care through waiting lists?
What the Bill Says:
SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGH-RISK POOL PROGRAM (pp. 16–17) . . .
(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS— If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.
Evaluation of the Passage:
1. This section establishes a “temporary” “High-Risk Pool” program, which is to operate until the Health Exchanges are established. Meanwhile the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide who gets care and who goes on a waiting list.
2. This determination will be made on the basis of “aggregate” budget. The bill recognizes that there are only three ways to control the budget: reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists. The Secretary’s bureaucrats will control all three.
3. Proponents of the bill will claim that this particular program will be temporary. But this next passage shows that under this plan, waiting lists will become the norm....
Originally posted by de Thor
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
In no way do those examples compare to health care.
Obviously we have very very different views on the role of a government. I'm not OK with the government controlling most aspects of my life,
Programs like Social Security and Medicare typically are eliminated in these national default situations.
Is the goal to force the US into the same kinds of IMF austerity programs that have caused riots in so many other nations?
Certainly, the US, which has been at the lead in pushing for these measures elsewhere, would not be able to escape having its own medicine applied to it.
Inquiring minds want to know.
"In economics, austerity is when a national government reduces its spending in order to pay back creditors. Austerity is usually required when a government's fiscal deficit spending is felt to be unsustainable.
Development projects, welfare programs and other social spending are common areas of spending for cuts. In many countries, austerity measures have been associated with short-term standard of living declines until economic conditions improved once fiscal balance was achieved (such as in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, Canada under Jean Chrétien, and Spain under González).
Private banks, or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may require that a country pursues an 'austerity policy' if it wants to re-finance loans that are about to come due. The government may be asked to stop issuing subsidies or to otherwise reduce public spending. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as 'IMF conditionalities'.
Austerity programs are frequently controversial, as they impact the poorest segments of the population and often lead to a wider separation between the rich and poor. In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.
No , buying Health Care Insurance should be a Choice Americans freely make concerning their bodies . This Issue is as simple as that . Where is the Choice in this HCB ? There is None
Regardless of the bills content or lack thereof we simply cannot afford this bill.
We have been told and have seen with our own eyes that the country is either going broke or is already broke. Tacking on an extra $870 billion (probably more) onto an already unsustainable national debt could be the final nail in the coffin for this country. The price alone is enough to turn people against it.
Because it is " They " would are Dictating the terms of this HCB , and not " We" who in a Free Society, have a Right to have our say by Voting on it . Remove the process of hearing the Peoples voice , and Socialism takes it's Place .
It is against the constitution to mandate that anyone buy any good or service. They cant do it....period . . .
punishable by increasing fines and jail time......
Im sorry, but if i dont want to be on insurance, i WONT be, and you arent going to punish me for NOT being on it, by making me buy it for someone else.........period . . .
So ATS, right here, inform me why you are against (and why I should be as well) against this HC Bill. Please, educate me and perhaps others on the matter. I don't think I've seen one healthy conversation or debate on the matter without name calling (and yes, I've contributed to the name calling, I won't deny it)
Let’s just look at one, and perhaps, the biggest farce in the Reid instructions to the CBO. Assume no Doc-fix going forward. The Doc-fix is Congresses annual cancelation of the automatic reduction in fees doctors are to be paid for caring for Medicare patients. The so-called deficit reducing Senate healthcare bill required the CBO to assume that henceforth there would be no more waivers of the reductions in fees to doctors and hospitals. Such an assumption is pure legislative chicanery. In fact, a law designed to “control” Medicare costs was enacted during the Clinton Administration in 1997 that required Medicare to slash payments to doctors each year by whatever percentage the increase in medical costs out paces a pre-determined level established by formula. Every year the doctors protest, as they should, and every year, with the single exception of 2002, Congress has waived the reduction in payments. In fact, as we’ve reported previously, Congress cancelled the reductions scheduled to go into effect next week at the very time they were writing legislation, the financing of which, was predicated on enforcing those very same reductions. This was deceit of historical proportions. It would also be insane public policy.
Furthermore, during the next ten years, when an estimated seventy million baby boomers will enter the ranks of the Medicare eligible, the CBO was also required to assume that there would be a half-trillion-dollar reduction in Medicare costs. How is this cost savings going to be realized in the face of such increased demand for medical service? Increased efficiency and reductions in waste and fraud, we are told. If that is so why haven’t we eliminated such vast waste and fraud already? Then there’s the matter of the increased cost of providing care (think additional doctors, clinics, tests, etc.) for the estimated 30 million additional people who will be covered under the new healthcare plan.
That there are several SCOTUS rulings that stand as strong evidence suggesting this fiasco of legislation will be struck down as unconstitutional, if not repealed before, but that is just coming from an informed point of view.
You are incorrect. The rates will be so outrageous that we wont be able to.