What do you think healthcare "reform" will accomplish?

Medical Student., wrote:

I for one wish you the worst.

That is spoken like a bitter little republican. When republicans lose they cheer against someone else. Why?

I hated the Bush "war at all costs" agenda. However, I hoped it would work;

Even if you disagrre, don't you hope it works?

I'm not reading it and all I know about it RIGHT NOW is that my taxes just went up about $50,000 per year. And I'm not a big fan of paying for stuff for other people. Sorry all you Democrats. Get your own job. It irritates me that in 12 hours, I just lost close to $50,000 to pay for things that others can (should) pay for themselves.

ftyhvbfdse wrote:

Medical Student., wrote:

I for one wish you the worst.

That is spoken like a bitter little republican. When republicans lose they cheer against someone else. Why?

I hated the Bush "war at all costs" agenda. However, I hoped it would work;

Even if you disagrre, don't you hope it works?

1) I am rightfully bitter, but I am not a Republican.

2) No, I don't hope it works.

I don't disagree and you did not answer my question.

Do you want it to work?

ftyhvbfdse wrote:

I don't disagree and you did not answer my question.

Do you want it to work?

The term "work" is much too ambiguous. Every cause has some effect, and therefore any policy can always be said to "work" according to someone's idea of what that means. The question is not whether it will "work," but what it will "work" to accomplish. I think the ultimate goal of the this bill is to concentrate control of medicine into the hands of self-serving polticians and interst groups. I absolutely do NOT want that to work.

There's a lot of contradictions in your view of things here. 1. The bill will drive out private enterprise and sink the dollar: A cheap dollar is good for both US manufacturing and exports. Wouldn't this result in growth in private enterprise in the long run or perhaps a return to equilibrium?2. The deficits will increase: They will likely increase whether we have reform or not. Are you saying these studies point to an increase in the rate of debt accumulation? 3. Everyone knows government to be inefficient and inferior to private industry, yet there is a pervasive feeling that gov't health care will drive out private enterprise. Likewise, free market capitalism is the best way to allocate resources yet in this instance insurance companies would be helpless to compete against inferior gov't competition. It's not clear to me how these two points of view can be valid. 4. Medicare has been in existence for 45yrs: Why have none of your conclusions occurred during that time interval? What makes this new legislation so apocalyptic? 5. Your post is full of dread and despair yet you end with a wish of good luck. Are you a reluctant optimist, a cynic, or just confused?

tenndude wrote:

The bill will drive private enterprise out of business. The government will eventually own all health care. The deficit will continue to increase, this has been proven by independent studies. This means that our dollar will continue to decline. Our nation is pretty much done. Good luck everybody.

What are the odds the Senate takes up this vote before year end? Slim to none.

either way, agree or disagree, this all may be empirically tested and we will see. But this much I know. Regardless of the outcome, the numbers and so forth, Republicans will insist that it was a failure and ended our country somehow.

No, they should be forced to pay their own way when able. Simple as that. Today people gamble that they will stay healthy and spend that money on other things. When they have a medical emergency they have nothing left, so *I* pay for them. SO your statement that they do not depend on me for theirs is false. Anyone that doesn't pay either through insurance or through savings sooner or later is dependant on my dollars.

Gee, a society where "f**k everyone else, I'm in it for me only" isn't the mantra doesn't sound that bad to me.

The words of a miopic spoiled child.

I live in france, and let me tell you, it would take a hell of a lot more than some health care reform and a public option to turn the usa into france. have you ever even been here?

Gonna give me free insurance that the government and rich people have to pay for. SWEET!

The curretn bill is so timid and business friendly that I can't comprehend how these socialism scare tactics can work. We should have single payer. This isn't "Government run healthcare", it is government provided insurance and I can't think of a single objection to it that isn't already true with private healthcare. I am not expecting miracles, I am expecting it to be cheaper and cover everyone.

The whole idea that a single payer system would cost us more because it "raises taxes" is stupid. Sure it raises taxes, but not by as much as we and our employers are paying in premiums.

You conservatives muct think that the rest of the Western world (you know, our ALLIES like Britain, Canada, France, Germany, etc.) all live in miserable gulags where they are oppressed and sad all the time.

Keith Stone wrote:No, they should be forced to pay their own way when able. Simple as that. Today people gamble that they will stay healthy and spend that money on other things. When they have a medical emergency they have nothing left, so *I* pay for them. SO your statement that they do not depend on me for theirs is false. Anyone that doesn't pay either through insurance or through savings sooner or later is dependant on my dollars.

I wear a medical bracelet that says I refuse medical care under any conditions. Why can I not opt out under penalty of fine or jailtime?

Dohbama wrote:

I think the second poster's nick is a tally of the number of j's he has smoked to be able to stomach his mental diarrhea.

Economists feel free to opine.

Thank you. The deficit will surely be reduced. This is based on the increased longevity leading to more tax dollars being taken in. It's simple really.

Brian, the rest of the world isn't eating highly processed, high fructose corn syrup laden food either. Let me guess, you're a former runner but now about 50 lbs overweight yourself? This isn't about the bill being "timid." This is about the trojan horse aspect of the bill that could ultimately force more people into the public option than it can handle without more subsidies, which it will forecefully obtain and will put it at an unfair advantage when it comes to COMPETITION and price transparency, which is what we so desperately need. Medicare is the ultimate proxy for where this "plan" could ultimately go, and, while it only exceeded original estimates by nine times in 1990, it's now some 35-40 times actuarial assumptions. And to think this bill is what, some 2000 pages long and you don't see a problem with that? Has anybody vetted the thing for real?

Have you seen your neighbors and their kids recently? I just took my kids to the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo yesterday (this is Colorado, where we tend to be "fitter" relative to the rest of the US). We brought apples and Lara bars as snacks. All of the other children and adults in the cafe where I grabbed a cup of coffee were eating cotton candy, ice cream drumsticks and french fries. ALL of them. This is mere days after the Halloween sugarfest, the three days of school that got cancelled because of "snow," and the after-Halloween school parties the following week. Open you fukking eyes. This is the future of our country. With structural unemployment that's not only going to linger near double digits for a mighty long time but also force more people to eat "cheaply," do you REALLY see the cost curve bending down? To compare us to Europe is so comical, it makes my stomach hurt.

This will be the straw that ultimately breaks the camel's back, but I've already prepared myself for our coming demise. Hope you have as well. Read this and open your eyes man.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/the-glide-path-option/

I have already been advised in writing that if this passes my Ins. company will get rid of my program and rates. We (my corporation)will be offered a different plan that will see an increase of some 90% or much more. My wife is retired. We can not afford what they are talking about. No way.

Fewer people will die, costs will not go down.

There is always the argument between a secure government option vs. free market but the problem is that right now we don't have either thing and the bill is not gonna change that.

They should liberalize the market(Free Choice act, remove anti-trust, national market instead of state..)AND put a public option on the market.

what a bunch of rambling here.

What exactly is your point? The bill is 2000 pages - SO WHAT? You think your going to write a bill that attempts to overhaul a legacy program and it's going to be the size of "Chicken Soup for the Soul"? Why don't you find out how large some of the other bills that have passed are?

So you went to the zoo and people were eating crap. So what. The Zoo sells crap. The Zoo wasn't selling Lara bars and apples. Blame the zoo.

I guess by your ramblings that since unemployement is high, because consumers aren't spending and because we aren't manufacturing anything in the USA anymore due to NAFTA, that individuals who don't currently have access to healthcare by their employer should just eat it - so that you don't have to worry about your pocket book. apparantly their problems don't affect you and your family, so why worry about it? just head to the zoo!

Yes, I'm sure this is the end of the world as we know it. Universal health care will destroy our country the same way it has destroyed Canada and Thailand. We will cease to exist in 10 years, and we will become a territory of France.

You basically make no argument to be against reforming a system that doesn't work, rips people off, and doesn't allow millions just to meet their basic health needs, but hey....it was a good day at the zoo, eh?

Ann Economist wrote:

Dohbama wrote:

I think the second poster's nick is a tally of the number of j's he has smoked to be able to stomach his mental diarrhea.

Economists feel free to opine.

Thank you. The deficit will surely be reduced. This is based on the increased longevity leading to more tax dollars being taken in. It's simple really.

Actually, increased longevity will increase costs. The elderly are the ones who use the most healthcare. Not to mention that the elderly no longer work, which means they no longer have income (unless you consider social security income -- which is an expense for the government as well.)