2. Cost controls seem ridiculous and almost haphazard. The main control seems to be the mandate. Boy, that's a winner. Throw us (uninsured) to the wolves we've intentionally avoided all these years, just to fund this watered-down plan.
Also, the excise tax seems like the "you can't have these benefits unless you can pay extra" tax. Basically, only the rich can have these plans. So now people who prioritize healthcare high in their budget seem to get hosed on the back end with a tax.
Would you rather we tax the people who purchase affordable plans, rather than people who buy excessive plans?
In any case, the tax could be a good thing in that it pushes many plans which exceed the threshold to lower their prices in order to stay out of the penalty box.
In any case, the amount of people who are scraping by who purchase single policy health insurance plans that are 8500 annually and 23000 or so for family at this juncture, isn't what I would consider a high amount.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is based on the countless articles Ghal and mckmas post. I facepalm everytime I read one, but it seems the consensus in this thread is that these are good measures. I disagree. I think direct competition with a cheap option is the best and simply smartest way of going about this. That would mean passing a more solid public option. That would require Congress having confidence in their own abilities to pass something that's not loaded down with pork and excess.
This would require having the votes for such measures. How can you get it, when by the very act of voting on a bill, you are assuring yourselves of losing at least 40% of the senate simply due to the fact that you have a (D) by your name. Hence, compromise.
3. Jobs won't recover that quickly. When they do, wages won't increase by much, if any. When people start getting back on their feet, an insurance mandate will kick in reducing their after-bill income. This is fine for people currently getting coverage from their employer (which I assume 90% of the people in this thread, that agree with the bill, have right now). Your costs won't change at all per year, and should (conceivably) go down. For me, this will add thousands in bills, even if I don't get sick. That or I can choose to get fined. But the point being, after taking care of this now, income is reduced. This is gonna be an albatross around the Dems' necks for a while, especially once it turns out the insurers didn't keep their word and found other ways to drive up costs to maintain their bottom lines.
Thousands in bills? Hyperbole much. You know, if it's that much of a hassle to buy health insurance you could get a government subsidy under the bill.
As for these new costs - what would they be?
I don't see any real way to add a new cost to purchasing health care on the front end that couldn't be classified as a "premium."
I don't think I'm being pessimistic either. The TARP was the same issue. A lot of common sense measures (like restrictions on bonuses and payments) were passed up because the market could control itself. There's already talk of an antitrust exemption that'll allow these insurers to keep their monopolies? It all just reads like bad (sloppy) policy, and the Dems are trying to ram it through on the belief that if it fails, Obama fails. Well, fine. So what if he fails? I'm not paying for his legacy. I'm not subsidizing his memoirs. I want laws that work for me, period. Screw the Democratic party if they lose control. What good is a party that can't get shit done anyway? Passing watered-down (heavily compromised) bills that still don't get opposition report is the definition of idiocy. Until I'm working in Congress, and need to protect my job, I'll continue to stand by principle, because these shmucks are supposed to be serving us, not lobbyists. PEACE.
Fair enough. I don't care about Obama's legacy. He's not who I would have elected, and he's not who I wanted to win the primary. However, I respect his approaches and think he has a better pulse on the problems of this country over the opposition. Sure, many of his bills are compromised and there are problems and exemptions riddled in many of them. However, in the present climate it's impossible to get anything done that isn't compromised so long as the Republicans continue to filibuster any thing which even has a trifling problem or fault that they see, and even if something seems acceptable, they'll still raise the spectre of a filibuster anyway.
Ultimately, I prefer a guy who recognizes that the problems that face our country, and is trying to fashion some sort of solution to them, rather than a group of people who seem to exist solely to ignore the problems we as a country are facing now.
I respect your cutthroat all or nothing approach, and that you are coming out directly, rather than couching it in, "What's best for America" speech. Still, I don't see it leading to much besides heartbreak and misery, because whoever is going to replace Obama is probably going to be much worse, if you are sticking with your guns and going green party.
Branduil said:
hurr durr so clever and original.
Funny Branduil, why didn't you post in this thread, rather than sending me this as a PM.
(Edited this post because I wasn't satisfied with my previous closing remarks.)
