Repeal Healthcare bill?
 

"Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said that repealing the new healthcare reform law — or looking to defund it — were not good options" ...... Repealing healthcare reform isn't the most politically popular move, either. Only 31 percent of registered voters that they favor repealing the legislation......http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/124749-gregg-repeal-isnt-best-approach-to-health-reform

Well I didn't read the article, but my ongoing comment is

"This is NOT a HealthCARE bill, it is a Heatlh Coverage or Heatlh Insurance Bill"

IF, as it was totted, it was Health Care Reform it would have had something in it to control the astronomical rise in Health care costs.
It does little to nothing, except by spreading the cost.

An interesting artile I read discusses one reason there has been such a rise in costs.
Back when I was little(I'm almost 58), no one had insurance, you paid out of pocket. As more and more people got insurance costs have risen, so more people got insurance so costs rose, ...
There are other reasons, yes, but this is one cause.

And I still want an explanation of a recent procedure the wife had done, billed 8400, paid under 2k, Insurance and co-pay.
WHY THE DIFFERENCE ??
WHERE DID THE DIFFERENCE GO ??
Did the hospital write it off as unrecoverable or something ?

Funny too, for a struggling health care industry, I see a lot of hospitals building or adding on.


But it's just standard gov procedure, fix the symptom, not the problem.


PS I have said the same about skyrocketing college costs, each time the gov adds a scholarship, grant or ?? the colleges raise their price, so the gov adds more scholarships, grants etc so the colleges raise their price so the ....

This hasn't been helped by the ongoing push of parents, via one mechanism or another, to fund their childs college. When I was yong, parents helped some, but only mnor amounts. Maybe living expenses.
Today they feel that everyone has to have a degree, we have to remember that there are a lot of good jobs for non degree'd folks.

Mechanics, construction, etc.


Both issue's went to a breaking point, but I don't see a solution coming for either.

We won't "Have To Repeal It."

Since we can't afford to implement it in the first place.

yeah when exactly did word come down that you had to pay for your kids college.damn kids these days are lazy enough as it is.then let em party 24/7 in college.

kknudson, YOU GOT IT!!!!
:musicband:dj::dancefool:thumbup:

I can't really add anything to what you said.

Health Insurance reform.... Outlaw health insurance.
College reform.... cut off "free money"

These institutions would then have to price their products so people could afford them, or they would have to close their doors.

I remember looking at a truck back when GMAC was in trouble... you could get a base model work 1500 work truck for 7k... why did the price fall so quickly? because without the option of offering a loan at the dealership most people can't afford to pay more then 7k. but at 7k people could scrape up that kind of money.

You got it, SirNik......

Yup, and my kids even want to be fed on a regular basis; kids today!

When I was 3 and a half, I had five paper routes and then I had to go to work in a coal mine.

Get off my lawn!

Does anyone believe that the GOP is ready to take over either house of Congress? They've got the obstruction game down pat, but they have no idea how to govern. No idea.

...and walk eight miles to school, barefoot, uphill both ways, in a blizzard?

But it would be so much fun to watch them try. If politicians can't be competent, the should at least be entertaining. :D

just leave the part where college students, up to age 26 get to stay on their parents health insurance.. please please. I really need it

Ok start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hvaeHllwtw

Everyone from TN has to vote for this guy, maybe he can actually take office before the hospital figures out that he's missing.

They're no worse at governing than the Dems.
Of course since both easily rate a double digit NEGATIVE on a 10 point scale ! :P

Remember don't blame the Dems, don't blame the Repubs.

BLAME THE POLITICIANS !

Don't blame them, just sit back and watch the show; it's free entertainment (maybe not free, but if we have to pay for it we might as well enjoy the freak show).

True, but the problem is the jokes on US.

Recent history does not support you on that.

I Used to Be Disgusted, Now I Try to Be Amused. ;)

Anyone against the Health plan had better not be cashing social security checks. Thats all I am saying on that!

Now, what's wrong with a little geezer welfare?

That's the dirty little secret that certain politicos don't want to raise. Obamacare and bailouts are bad, but don't you dare touch Medicare benefits or Social Security entitlements.

I will make you a deal, If I get a refund of the money that has been stolen from me since I was 16 years old in the name of SS and never have to have any other moneys stolen from me in the name of for my own good then I will never cash a SS check(which has to be stolen from someone else)

At some point someone (from one of the parties) is going to have to fix this mess by raising the eligibility age significantly, and probably also by means testing. Whoever finally does it is going to take a big political hit from the polygrip and viagra crowd, but it will have to happen eventually.

You should call the police!

Talk to your elder relatives and the 50+ million senior citizens who contributed to SS their whole life and are now are reaping the benefits of that program. I'm pretty sure most will rebuke your claims of "stolen money".

Personally, I kinda like the fact that for the most part we don't have 10's of millions of elderly senior citizens starving to death living in the streets. Well worth the 6% contribution we all make.

Given the greed and selfishness I see amongst many, I'm not certain they'd open up their homes and support their elderly parents/relatives. That's what families did before SS, and still do in nations that have no social benefits. Tell me, ARE YOU WILLING TO THAT in lieu of paying SS?

'stolen" is probably the correct word. SS "contributions were taken w/o permission and against his will. What better way to describe it? And now you want people to feel bad for taking " government money"--just like the bailouts. No comparison at all. We all were forced to contribute to SS; not so the bailouts for the corps--they paid nothing into that fund.

Thank you. And thats my point. If you have a problem with a national healthcare plan, you need to ask WHY we need one at all?

Simple, most Americans cant afford healthcare coverage!

Then you ask why is that? Look at the surgeons, look at the hospitals that charge $20 for a gauss (sp?) pad. Or $60,000 for a "routine" appendix removal. Actual price there, friend just had it and had no insurance.

Than ask why do these things cost so much? Happens when insurance companies blindly pay and dont say "Hey Mr. Hospital! Thats too much, we are not paying!!!".

And then you ask who "owns" the hospital "industry".

Ah, interesting little circle there. Actually, not a circle, but a money making industry that pays itself! And its controlled by private companies!

Stop paying taxes to then. No, serious here. Its actually in the constitution, or bill of rights. A little section about not being forced to serve the need of the government. In short it says that Federal (not state) income tax, which was introduced in WWII (I think) to cover war expenses and was suppose to be ended, is illegal.

The Answer:
According to the History of the Income Tax in our almanac, the federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union's Civil War effort. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.



Read more: The Federal Income Tax — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/federal-income-tax.html#ixzz12rZWi99Q

Ah, thanks Billy. I thought it was to support a war.

Americans lost their right to be free of Governmental control the Moment they were given a Social Security number.

And you had to walk to that coal mine...uphill, 5 miles, no shoes in freezing rain (acid, if you please), both ways, two times a day!!! :eek: :rolleyes: :D

I remember that show!
The Walton's

Only problem with that is it takes to long to say good night.

As for the college thing..... "pizzas don't deliver themselves"

On the politics I agree with Craig ..used to get pissed now its just amusing!
Sad but amusing!!

I think to a large extent, the problem is the Health Care system does not compete. It is sort of like the military, cost isn't the primary objective. To much waste, extra procedures or exams to cover liability. Inventory not controlled.
Tom

Greed seems to be the ultimate power we must contend with. People are going to do things that get them the most value with the least amount of work. That seems true of both Goverment and the private sector. We have to walk a balanced line between fairness and protection of the economic forces that make the country so successful. Right now it seems its erring on the side of fairness, which appears to be hurting the economic forces.

The pendulum will swing back and forth, but it is clearly moving forward alot more than back. The progressives attempt to change things and the conservatives attempt to keep them the same. There is nothing exciting about keeping things the same, which is why it always seems to swing a little more to change.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country

Never ever ever ever give up

\

BUT_ the peoplethat are getting the SS benfits now are NOT GETTING BACK THE MONEY THEY PAID IN,
They are getting back the monet thawe are paying now. The whole theory behind SS was it was designed to help SECURE you golden years, Not fund them entirely.

OH an by the way it is 13.8% of your income. 6.4% taking from you 6.4% funded by your employer.

As a former employer the amount of revenue you can make me comes into play for your hourly wage. I and all the other employer must figure out what you as the employee are going to cost us before we can hire you.


Now before this goes to long absolutely I am will to de fund the whole SS administration if and only if it went back to to the original design.

Last point how many people die before reaching 62,5 years and never see a dime of the SS that was taken from them????? I can think of a few. Most of them with the same last name as me:(. So If pay into a system for the next 30 years till I am allowed to retire and fall over dead the next day can my estate get a refund on the money that big brother STOLE in the name of MY golden years?? HELL NO! People need to look back at the depression generation to take a few lessons on how to live. If you don't have the cash for it you cant afford it. The only person you should depend on to take care of you is you not some over-payed A!@#HOLE in a suit in DC promising to give you $250 stimulus check because you did not get a COLA this year(But you can bet your behind they got there COLA)\\

OK rant over:rolleyes:

Then you could always go to medical school and fix your self could you not?

Where would anyone get the notion that the Social Security, particularly FICA withholdings are akin to a personal IRA or other retirement account?

If you're looking for an analogy, FICA withholdings are much more like insurance premiums. Which does raise the issue of a "means" based distribution system if the "insurance" being purchased is to prevent poverty when one retires.

Because the dems have sold SS to the people over the years as if it were a retirement pension.

Frankly it is a form of pension, funded by through a government insurance policy. but I don't believe any poltical party has said that what you put in is what you get, which would be more like an annuity vehicle such as an IRA account. The history of Social Security, both legislatively and legally, has been quite the opposite, since benefits can easily exceed contributions depending on one's longevity and likewise, survivor benefits can also exceed participant contributions. It's never been touted as a "savings" account.

Is there some particular Democrat that has made a contrary assertion?

While I am sorry to hear about your relatives' misfortune, they are the ones who make SS work. The whole system depends on having some percentage of people pay in more than they get back. It is socialism, pure and simple. It is also, IMHO, among the greatest achievements of any government in history. It is highly efficient, with much lower administrative costs than any private system could ever match. It has kept countless Americans out of poverty. To me, SS is untouchable. Anyone who favors any sort of privatization will not get my vote.

Oh how we wish we could get back all the premiums we paid for medical, dental, vision, homeowners, auto or even those policies we buy on refridgerators and computers when we don't ever file a claim . . . sorry chumps, that's not how insurance works. Risk is spread out over a large base . . . however, unlike other insurance, Social Security is one of the few policies that eventually pays out regardless of whether you actually need the protection from poverty.

Question: How did it achieve that? Did they consider all the costs or did they simply consider the office costs and not figure out all the congressional time expended on it, making the rules, etc, etc? Do they have to pursue fraud as diligently as say a private system or do they just raise taxes to cover it? As a private enterprise, I have to have money saved up for a "rainy day". Does SS? IIRC, there were 20+ workers to 1 retiree. Have they got a way to cope now that there is about 3+ working people to 1 retiree?

It has given them a fish but not taught them how to fish. I guess that is a great achievement. :rolleyes: Shouldn't Americans keep THEMSELVES out of poverty? It does keep the govt out of poverty since it is a slush fund they can tap from so that is an achievement. :rolleyes:

Dunno.IMHO, there is a simple answer to those comments - Without social security, we have poverty. With it, we have less poverty. For cheap. What's not to like?

Thank you for the thoughts.

BUT when it was enacted there were 28(?) people working for every one person drawing. Now the ratio is closer to 4.5 to one. When the Baby boomer star to retire in droves 2011(at age 65) there will an even lower number. The system as designed does not work. My answer is let the people who are young enough let them opt out of the system(myself included) That way we would be responsible for our own retirement.

But you said????

Inaccurate. Without SS, we MIGHT have more poverty. With it, we MIGHT have less poverty. I can bench press 5000# and I can prove it. I just needs some "help". Morphine does NOT take away the cause for pain. It numbs the pain. That is exactly what SS does. It masks the poverty. It doesn't take it away.

There you go again. Unsubstantiated. You don't even know how it came about to be that efficient.

Remember what happened with Madoff? When the pool of young suckers dried up, the old suckers bit the big one. Same with SS. If they let the youngsters like you off, what happens when the old ones of Ponzi Scheme claim money? Who pays into it? It is a Ponzi Scheme, is it not?

Aklim, your "ponzi scheme" analogy fails in one respect, investors in Social Security aren't private sector or voluntary.

What has being in the private sector or not got to do with anything? Do crooks only reside in the private sector and there are no crooks in govt? Really?

Yes, you are right that we are pressganged into the thing while Madoff's victims went willingly.

Edit: OTOH, Both groups were led into the respective programs with promises of great things in the future.

Well, that's what it is. After paying 3 times more than any other country for healthcare, some folks simply have no more money to put away for retirement, so they rely on SS. Some folks can't afford healthcare insurance or an additional retirement plan. But those are just the lazy members of society, according to Republicans.