the health bill ?

"President Barack Obama faces a fight over the health-care overhaul from states that sued today because the legislation’s expansion of Medicaid imposes a fiscal strain on their cash-strapped budgets.

Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 14 states that filed suit after the president signed the bill over the constitutionality of the burden imposed by the legislation. The health-care overhaul will make as many as 15 million more Americans eligible for Medicaid nationwide starting in 2014 and will cost the states billions to administer."

"Besides the added Medicaid costs, the states are also challenging the right of the federal government to impose a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whose state filed a separate lawsuit today challenging the law, called the health legislation an “unconstitutional overreach” of the federal government’s authority. "


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ajwSWE6H1kHM


To all of those who feel that those of us who oppose this bill are selfish, non christian, non caring people who want people to suffer....THAT is basically the consensus I get from those who posted in celebration.....THIS is ONE of the reasons it was opposed, and always remember it was done in the dark of backrooms !

"the health legislation an “unconstitutional overreach” of the federal government’s authority. "

Of course it was and so have many of their deeds since they took power. The Constitution means nothing to them.

Bucco, I know. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to teenagers and young adults with views based on Idealism. They want it all and they want it now without paying for it. They rely on the federal government to fix what they think is wrong and what they don't like. And sometimes, they'll go to any extreme to get their way. They want everything to be perfect and believe it will be if they just want it badly enough. I'm sorry. Life just doesn't work that way. You have to work hard and then, yes, sadly, sometimes bad things happen to good hard-working people. Sometimes you have to rely on others for help and you may have to work to find help. But it is available. But you can't force someone to help you. I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way for very long. It will destroy the foundation of this nation that established free and independent states.

My mantra is going to be: Sorry all you Robin Hood fans. Forced charity, taking from someone else to give to another, isn't charity and it isn't righteous.

Originally Posted by Bucco

the health bill ?

"President Barack Obama faces a fight over the health-care overhaul from states that sued today because the legislation’s expansion of Medicaid imposes a fiscal strain on their cash-strapped budgets.

Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 14 states that filed suit after the president signed the bill over the constitutionality of the burden imposed by the legislation. The health-care overhaul will make as many as 15 million more Americans eligible for Medicaid nationwide starting in 2014 and will cost the states billions to administer."

"Besides the added Medicaid costs, the states are also challenging the right of the federal government to impose a mandate requiring individuals to buy health insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whose state filed a separate lawsuit today challenging the law, called the health legislation an “unconstitutional overreach” of the federal government’s authority. "


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ajwSWE6H1kHM


To all of those who feel that those of us who oppose this bill are selfish, non christian, non caring people who want people to suffer....THAT is basically the consensus I get from those who posted in celebration.....THIS is ONE of the reasons it was opposed, and always remember it was done in the dark of backrooms !

I'm disappointed you haven't responded to the reasons I gave for why the process was "cleaner" than any previous landmark legislative effort. I'm not calling you any names, I'm asking you to respond to the issues.

And I'd like your response to today's hot one: the states challenge to the law written around the contention the federal government cannot require citizens to purchase health insurance. If you re-read the statements you cited above, it is the only SPECIFIC objection to the new law. (The nebulous references to future state budget problems are just that - nebulous.)

Here's a simple quiz:

Do you agree this new law is unnecessary because people are already protected, they can receive the health care they need in any hospital emergency room?

Do you agree one of the nation's greatest problems is the millions who don't contribute; either by their refusal to work, or how they take advantage of government programs?

Most of the TOTV posters who are unhappy with the new law totally agree with and continually cite these two points in attacking the new law.

The question then is, Who pays for the millions of uninsured emergency room visits and those who won't contribute? Answer: The insured.

You are so sure health care premiums will skyrocket and you will lose what you have. You are so sure the new law will bankrupt our nation. It is far more likely the financial participation of millions more citizens will finally stabilize health care costs. There is absolute proof of what has happened in recent years to health care costs in this nation, compared to all other developed nations. We must reverse this trend. The states cannot or will not do it.
Additionally, you and I and all the politicized special interests were not around yet when states adopted the rather common sense idea that everyone who drives a vehicle should be insured. Mandatory auto insurance is not a perfect analogy to health care, but imagine where we would be without it.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

I'm disappointed you haven't responded to the reasons I gave for why the process was "cleaner" than any previous landmark legislative effort. I'm not calling you any names, I'm asking you to respond to the issues.

And I'd like your response to today's hot one: the states challenge to the law written around the contention the federal government cannot require citizens to purchase health insurance. If you re-read the statements you cited above, it is the only SPECIFIC objection to the new law. (The nebulous references to future state budget problems are just that - nebulous.)

Here's a simple quiz:

Do you agree this new law is unnecessary because people are already protected, they can receive the health care they need in any hospital emergency room?

Do you agree one of the nation's greatest problems is the millions who don't contribute; either by their refusal to work, or how they take advantage of government programs?

Most of the TOTV posters who are unhappy with the new law totally agree with and continually cite these two points in attacking the new law.

The question then is, Who pays for the millions of uninsured emergency room visits and those who won't contribute? Answer: The insured.

You are so sure health care premiums will skyrocket and you will lose what you have. You are so sure the new law will bankrupt our nation. It is far more likely the financial participation of millions more citizens will finally stabilize health care costs. There is absolute proof of what has happened in recent years to health care costs in this nation, compared to all other developed nations. We must reverse this trend. The states cannot or will not do it.
Additionally, you and I and all the politicized special interests were not around yet when states adopted the rather common sense idea that everyone who drives a vehicle should be insured. Mandatory auto insurance is not a perfect analogy to health care, but imagine where we would be without it.

To your arguement concerning emergency room visits...

"The president and members of Congress claim that the uninsured must be held accountable for their care by imposing a substanial tax because they fail to take out coverage, despite only accounting for 2.7% of total health spending. However, a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in October 2008, says the uninsured are not responsible for crowded emergency rooms (emphasis mine):

The JAMA study also found that patients with public insurance, such as Medicaid and Medicare, are more likely to crowd into emergency rooms for minor complaints than are the uninsured. Only about 17 percent of E.R. visits in the United States in the last year studied were by uninsured patients, about the same as their share of the population.

That isn’t the only way people with subsidized insurance add more burdens to the system than people with no insurance at all. A 2007 study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine looked at charges and payments for 43,128 emergency department visits between 1996 and 2004. “What surprised us was that uninsured patients actually pay a higher proportion of their emergency department charges than Medicaid does,” reported co-author Reneé Hsia, a specialist in emergency medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. “In fact, 35 percent of charges for uninsured visits were paid in 2004, compared with 33 percent for Medicaid visits.”

So why are emergency rooms so crowded? The JAMA study blames a rising population, a falling number of emergency departments, and understaffing that prevents stabilized patients from being admitted to other parts of the hospital.

The authors of the study realized this defied what was believed to be fact:

Unsupported assumptions include the beliefs that uninsured patients are the main cause of emergency department overcrowding, that uninsured patients have less acute conditions than insured patients, and that uninsured patients use the ER mostly for convenience.

“We have a crisis in the emergency department and we have a crisis with the uninsured, but it is crucial that we do not assume that the latter is causing the former,” [Dr. Manya F.] Newton emphasized.

“If we attempt to solve emergency overcrowding by creating policies based on inaccurate assumptions, common knowledge, or what ‘everybody knows,’ we will waste limited resources, fail to address the root causes of the problem, and potentially increase the barriers to care faced by 47 million uninsured Americans,” Newton concluded.

This won’t put the rhetoric to rest, but it is a important piece of information that needs to be put out in the debate.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...cy-room-visits

"The uninsured, it’s said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That’s expensive and ineffective. Once they’re insured, they’ll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it’s untrue. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was “more convenient” to go to the emergency room or they couldn’t “get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed.” … Medicare’s introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn’t find gains.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/0...r-fallacy.html

Now, as to your comments concerning the " (The nebulous references to future state budget problems are just that - nebulous.)"

I invite you to read the CBO report always touted and the NEBULOUS references to SAVINGS in the future, and the NEBULOUS tax increases that need to take place in the future, dependent on many unknown or unrealized factors !

The truth of the matter is that within this bill is the beginning of a shift power to the executive branch of government, a direct violation of our Constitution in checks and balances. What harm can that bring, you ask? Oh, not much just one step into the grave of socialism or even fascism. Secondly this bill will severely limit the amount of care we seniors are going to be able to receive and there will be administrators who mete out our health care with a spoon.

If Medicare is to be reduced by $500 billion that simply means paying less to providers. That simply means the providers will have to adjust in some manner...that would be either less access, less care, reduced care, etc.

Adding 32,000,000 uninsured to the existing medical system's capabilty (or not) to serve today. Just how will that be possible without restricting access...more patients = longer waits = shorter appointment times. Just imagine here in our bubble, TV, if starting Monday morning there were 10,000 new patients looking for some sort of medical provision.

Can someone, anyone explain if they are going to increase the number of people allowed benefits under Medicaid, which is paid for state by state...not the federal government....a system today that is on the brink of insolvency with it's current benefactors only....where is that money to come from?

You remember those bad guys called the insurers? The other ones in the pharmacy businesses? They get 32,000,000 new customers. I don't think they are too concerned about the increased coverages they will have to provide.

I don't care what your party or what your belief.....one cannot continue to increase spending without increasing revenues to support the spending. It is just that simple. Unfortunately far too many do not understand the simple concept of balancing a checkbook. You CANNOT spend more without getting more money. Yes some part of the spending can be on credit, but that too will max out. A simple concept NONE of the smiling dunces in Washington understand or care about.

The only certainty in the new bill is that you WILL be paying more, much more than you think, in the future just to keep the level of coverage you have today.

I need to be shown how this bill will be funded. To date that HAS NOT been addressed.

btk

By One Thin Dime.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un505mz35dY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Massive tax increases are coming... to all of us.

Another lie told by Obama.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Here's a simple quiz:


The question then is, Who pays for the millions of uninsured emergency room visits and those who won't contribute? Answer: The insured.

Additionally, you and I and all the politicized special interests were not around yet when states adopted the rather common sense idea that everyone who drives a vehicle should be insured. Mandatory auto insurance is not a perfect analogy to health care, but imagine where we would be without it.

Owning and operating a motor vehicle is a statutory privilege extended quite legally by the state. Not every man woman and child owns a car therefore they do not need mandatory insurance. While you acknowledge it is not a perfect analogy.....you fall short of admitting that it is totally irrelevant as a comparison to national health insurance.

There are a litany of issues concerning Obamacare that have been vigorously debated in this forum. The one issue that no supporter of Obamacare seems to want to debate is the now $500,000,000,000 plus reduction (raid) on Medicare to balance the numbers. Those funds are apparently going to Medicaid to help offset costs. How is that good for those now covered by Medicare? It is absolutely a Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme that in the private sector would result in the indictment and prosecution of the perpetrators.

Those who are on Medicare paid into it, supported it and kept it solvent throughout a good part of their working lives. Now they face draconian cuts in service and medical care. Where is all that liberal empathy for those losing what they had an expectation to enjoy in their golden years?

Repairing the problems with Medicare did not require a new trillion dollar entiltement plan.

Originally Posted by cabo35

Owning and operating a motor vehicle is a statutory privilege extended quite legally by the state. Not every man woman and child owns a car therefore they do not need mandatory insurance. While you acknowledge it is not a perfect analogy.....you fall short of admitting that it is totally irrelevant as a comparison to national health insurance.

There are a litany of issues concerning Obamacare that have been vigorously debated in this forum. The one issue that no supporter of Obamacare seems to want to debate is the now $5,000,000,000 plus deduction (raid) on Medicare to balance the numbers. Those funds are apparently going to Medicaid to help offset costs. How is that good for those now covered by Medicare? It is absolutely a Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme that in the private sector would result in the indictment and prosecution of the perpetrators.

Those who are on Medicare paid into it, supported it and kept it solvent throughout a good part of their working lives. Now they face draconian cuts in service and medical care. Where is all that liberal empathy for those losing what they had an expectation to enjoy in their golden years?

Repairing the problems with Medicare did not require a new trillion dollar entiltement plan.

I am not a mathematician, but do you mean 500 billion?
500,000,000,000

$500 billion plus...and it looks like it's going to be a big plus.

Originally Posted by cabo35

$500 billion plus...and it looks like it's going to be a big plus.

That's what I figured. You had a typo. Amazing how the Dems throw around all these zero's. LOL

Donna, thanks for the pickup on the typo. I corrected it in the OP. What comes after a trillion?

Poverty and bankruptcy.