What ObamaCare might mean for you

[Magox]

Could have just said that you will never believe in this administration no matter what happens. Nothing wrong with that either.

That's not true, If the Stimulus Bill would of saved us from reaching 8% unemployment, or if their calculations on alotting the correct amount of funds for the Cash for Clunkers would of been close (off by 200%), or Credit Card reform would of not caused credit card companies to make up for lost revenue on individuals with good credit, or if the home remodification plan would have had better than a 50% success rate.

 

Maybe if they would of gotten a few of these things "right", then I would have more confidence.

 

But hey, why let the facts distort the truth right?

[pBills]

That's not true, If the Stimulus Bill would of saved us from reaching 8% unemployment, or if their calculations on alotting the correct amount of funds for the Cash for Clunkers would of been close (off by 200%), or Credit Card reform would of not caused credit card companies to make up for lost revenue on individuals with good credit, or if the home remodification plan would have had better than a 50% success rate.

 

Maybe if they would of gotten a few of these things "right", then I would have more confidence.

 

But hey, why let the facts distort the truth right?

 

 

I am not, nor will I ever claim that I know everything... so forgive me if I ask questions in return.

 

So many people are surprised on how popular and great Cash for Clunkers was.. you dislike it because they underestimated the popularity = having the correct amount of funds available?

 

Stimulus... Hasn't that also helped out people with extension of unemployment, subsidizing health care for those who lost their jobs using COBRA? I know that the stimulus has helped out states through infrastructure projects, school constuction and education. I think they are are some other places where the stimulus has touched and done some good. Do you agree?

 

With that being said, yes unemployment rate increasing into the 9%+ range indeed sucks. Hopefully, that will come down soon. Personally I think a lot of businesses now that they "trimmed the fat" will continue to run lean as long as they can not wanting to hire new people.

[Magox]

I am not, nor will I ever claim that I know everything... so forgive me if I ask questions in return.

 

So many people are surprised on how popular and great Cash for Clunkers was.. you dislike it because they underestimated the popularity = having the correct amount of funds available?

 

Stimulus... Hasn't that also helped out people with extension of unemployment, subsidizing health care for those who lost their jobs using COBRA? I know that the stimulus has helped out states through infrastructure projects, school constuction and education. I think they are are some other places where the stimulus has touched and done some good. Do you agree?

 

With that being said, yes unemployment rate increasing into the 9%+ range indeed sucks. Hopefully, that will come down soon. Personally I think a lot of businesses now that they "trimmed the fat" will continue to run lean as long as they can not wanting to hire new people.

PBills, I have stated on this message board, on many occasions that I support the Cash for Clunkers program, I thought all in all, it is a good idea. My point is that they miscalculated the amount of money that they would need, by 200%. If they miscalculate by such a wide margin on a signficantly less complex project as Cash for Clunkers, imagine how far off they will be in Health Care reform.

 

Stimulus, hardly. Not enough money went into infrastructure projects, less than 10%, and not even half of that money is to be used this year. But that's another issue that we can debate later, the point is that the administrations projects were that the economy would most likely avert an 8% unemployment rate. Well, we know that wasn't the case. Has it helped, ya sure, some, but you do realize that one day we will have to pay the piper. People seem to believe that 787 Billion dollars is a drop in the bucket, and if it helps "some", then it was worth it. That's bull sh--! That money has to be payed back and it all adds to the deficit, and it doesn't just mean higher taxes, but it has a residual effect on the value of the dollar, which means that it has a direct effect on just about everything you buy. It doesn't stop there, if the deficit continues to climb, than that erodes the confidence in other foreign countries to invest here in the U.S or buy our debt, which we greatly depend on.

 

My point is that there have been gross miscalculations from this administration, and up to now, I don't have confidence that their calculations on Health Care Reform will resemble anything that they envision it to be.

[pBills]

PBills, I have stated on this message board, on many occasions that I support the Cash for Clunkers program, I thought all in all, it is a good idea. My point is that they miscalculated the amount of money that they would need, by 200%. If they miscalculate by such a wide margin on a signficantly less complex project as Cash for Clunkers, imagine how far off they will be in Health Care reform.

 

Stimulus, hardly. Not enough money went into infrastructure projects, less than 10%, and not even half of that money is to be used this year. But that's another issue that we can debate later, the point is that the administrations projects were that the economy would most likely avert an 8% unemployment rate. Well, we know that wasn't the case. Has it helped, ya sure, some, but you do realize that one day we will have to pay the piper. People seem to believe that 787 Billion dollars is a drop in the bucket, and if it helps "some", then it was worth it. That's bull sh--! That money has to be payed back and it all adds to the deficit, and it doesn't just mean higher taxes, but it has a residual effect on the value of the dollar, which means that it has a direct effect on just about everything you buy. It doesn't stop there, if the deficit continues to climb, than that erodes the confidence in other foreign countries to invest here in the U.S or buy our debt, which we greatly depend on.

 

My point is that there have been gross miscalculations from this administration, and up to now, I don't have confidence that their calculations on Health Care Reform will resemble anything that they envision it to be.

 

 

 

True that the stimulus was to avert an 8% unemployment rate... I think the problem was/is that a lot of companies that most likely weren't in trouble streamlined down to a leaner staff. They see if works with companies that are trying to stay afloat, and figure why not try it. Of course, that can be a smart move for many companies, but it will also add to the unemployment rate. I am sure most people did not expect that.

 

I agree completely with you, anyone who thinks the 787 billion is a mere drop in a bucket - they are crazy. I am giving the President a long leash since he is trying one way or another (agree with or not) to get this country turned in the right direction. Let's face it, there is a lot wrong with this country right now.

[Kelly the Dog]

Stimulus, hardly. Not enough money went into infrastructure projects, less than 10%, and not even half of that money is to be used this year. But that's another issue that we can debate later, the point is that the administrations projects were that the economy would most likely avert an 8% unemployment rate. Well, we know that wasn't the case.

I think this is entirely misleading. The administration based their projections on the available data they had, and everyone else had at the time. They thought the economy was such and such, but indeed it was far worse than they assumed (some economists predicted it was worse and were more correct in their evaluations). But the stimulus plan not only would have been exactly the same had they known unemployment at the time was going to be closer to 10% than 8% -- BUT -- chances are the stimulus plan would have been bigger if they thought unemployment was as bad as it actually was.

 

Furthermore, the stimulus plan's effect on unemployment had zero to do with the 10% versus the 8%. That 2% was a misreading of figures or an unknown about the severity of the problem. There wasn't at all 2% larger unemployment because the stimulus plan didn't stimulate quick enough, there wasn't any time for that whatsoever. The 8-10 was a miscalculation on how things were AT THE TIME not how things were going to be a month or so from when the stimulus plan was put into effect.

 

It's easy to argue whether or not the stimulus plan is working or not, and that's a legitimate argument. But unemployment didn't go up 2% from 8% to 10% because of the inability of the plan or actions/inaction by the government, that 2% was just because they didn't know how bad things were when they made the 8% prediction.

[Magox]

I think this is entirely misleading. The administration based their projections on the available data they had, and everyone else had at the time. They thought the economy was such and such, but indeed it was far worse than they assumed (some economists predicted it was worse and were more correct in their evaluations). But the stimulus plan not only would have been exactly the same had they known unemployment at the time was going to be closer to 10% than 8% -- BUT -- chances are the stimulus plan would have been bigger if they thought unemployment was as bad as it actually was.

 

Furthermore, the stimulus plan's effect on unemployment had zero to do with the 10% versus the 8%. That 2% was a misreading of figures or an unknown about the severity of the problem. There wasn't at all 2% larger unemployment because the stimulus plan didn't stimulate quick enough, there wasn't any time for that whatsoever. The 8-10 was a miscalculation on how things were AT THE TIME not how things were going to be a month or so from when the stimulus plan was put into effect.

 

It's easy to argue whether or not the stimulus plan is working or not, and that's a legitimate argument. But unemployment didn't go up 2% from 8% to 10% because of the inability of the plan or actions/inaction by the government, that 2% was just because they didn't know how bad things were when they made the 8% prediction.

I'm not talking about what might have, or what should of or what could have, I'm talking about what is. And that was what the administration said, which is the Stimulus Bill would avert an 8% unemployment rate.

 

You can make all the excuses you want Dog, and you can blame it on misinformation, but the fact is that everything I mentioned is fact, not opinion.

 

My whole point is that they have grossly miscalculated the majority of their programs, Credit Card legislation, Cash for Clunkers, Stimulus, Home Foreclosure relief etc. That is my point.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Only if they suck at their jobs. And if they are simply doing a poor to average job, which all indications lead me to believe, I would want them to become more efficient and proficient and be given the tools and incentives to do so, wouldn't you?

 

So, you put all these people out of work, and now they're broke. Guess what they're going to use for healthcare? Feedback loop! Awesome!

[John Adams]

One thing would be more Doctors wanting to practice Primary Care with the knowledge that they will be paid a bit better.

 

Spending even more on healthcare? You are an Obamanite.

[Adam]

Spending even more on healthcare? You are an Obamanite.

Just the reason to move it out of the private sector- healthcare should be about improving our standard of living- NOT about making a profit. You can't have it in the private sector and tell them not to try to increase the bottom line- that would be irresponsible regulation.

[Kelly the Dog]

So, you put all these people out of work, and now they're broke. Guess what they're going to use for healthcare? Feedback loop! Awesome!

Only the ones that suck at their jobs should be out of work, don't (or at least shouldn't) the people that suck at their jobs where you work eventually lose them? The ones that don't suck should get better at their jobs. Not that hard to understand and not that unreasonable. For a second there I thought you were coming to your senses but apparently not.

[Magox]

Just the reason to move it out of the private sector- healthcare should be about improving our standard of living- NOT about making a profit. You can't have it in the private sector and tell them not to try to increase the bottom line- that would be irresponsible regulation.

Good Point!

 

We should also eliminate the private sector in all hospitals and medical practices, all doctors should work for a standard set salary and should be employed by the government, that goes for all pharmaceutical companies, the idea of these companies making a profit off of the sick is down right repugnant. Because that would be purely about improving our standard of living - NOT about making a profit.

 

While we're at it, the idea of a bank charging me what I consider to be outrageous interest rates is loathsome and the government should step in permanently and give me and many other "deserving" people affordable housing.

 

I also think these credit card companies are all greedy, nevermind that they are losing billions of dollar and that the government is clamping down on them with more stringent regulations, they shouldn't be charging me these unfair interest rates and fees, the government should step in and take over this as well.

 

Oil, oh Oil. Don't get me started about Oil. These evil, manipulative oil companies are ripping us off, and it is time that they stop making record profits. The government should take over the oil industry and give everyone affordable energy.

 

Thanks for that Adam, you really enlightened me with your post, gave me a new fresh perspective on what should be done to better this country.

[ThereIsNoDog]

Just the reason to move it out of the private sector- healthcare should be about improving our standard of living- NOT about making a profit. You can't have it in the private sector and tell them not to try to increase the bottom line- that would be irresponsible regulation.

Fine. Where's the free !@#$ing food then? You want to "improve our standard of living," make sure EVERYONE can eat first. On the scale of things, eating should be MILES ahead of having free health care, donchathink?

[pBills]

Spending even more on healthcare? You are an Obamanite.

 

 

 

Did I say spending more? What I said was more about leveling the reimbursement levels for doctors so that more doctors MAY want to get into primary care as opposed to specialized medicine.

[GG]

Did I say spending more? What I said was more about leveling the reimbursement levels for doctors so that more doctors MAY want to get into primary care as opposed to specialized medicine.

 

Why don't you ask a doctor if they can make a decent living and repay their medical school loans if they only provide primary care at Medicare rates.

[John Adams]

Did I say spending more? What I said was more about leveling the reimbursement levels for doctors so that more doctors MAY want to get into primary care as opposed to specialized medicine.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you saying by "leveling" that you want to push down specialist's rates and use the difference to pay primary docs more?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Why don't you ask a doctor if they can make a decent living and repay their medical school loans if they only provide primary care at Medicare rates.

 

 

Tell them to take a number and get in line with the rest of them (graduating students). Hey, it doesn't phase me one bit if my doctor is working on me and worried about making the payment on the Porsche.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Only the ones that suck at their jobs should be out of work, don't (or at least shouldn't) the people that suck at their jobs where you work eventually lose them? The ones that don't suck should get better at their jobs. Not that hard to understand and not that unreasonable. For a second there I thought you were coming to your senses but apparently not.

 

Still doesn't answer the question. Where will all these people who find themselves out of jobs get health insuance from? C'mon, Kelly, it ain't rocket surgery.

[pBills]

Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you saying by "leveling" that you want to push down specialist's rates and use the difference to pay primary docs more?

 

 

From what I understand that is part of the plan. That will, in their eyes, prompt more doctors to become a primary care physician.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

From what I understand that is part of the plan. That will, in their eyes, prompt more doctors to become a primary care physician.

 

 

Ah, nothing like the Federal government stepping in to control wages. Land of the free, indeed!

[Kelly the Dog]

Still doesn't answer the question. Where will all these people who find themselves out of jobs get health insuance from? C'mon, Kelly, it ain't rocket surgery.

I don't even know why I am answering you because it's a ridiculous argument, but fine, I'll play along...

 

There are going to be more jobs because 35-40 million more people will be into the system.

Hopefully over time, those in administration will be more efficient because of numerous small changes in how they do their business. If they lose their jobs because they suck (which I am not saying will happen, it just should happen because anyone who sucks at their job should lose it and find a different one where they don't suck so much, like, for example, maybe they could become your boss), they will be able to get insurance various ways, mostly through subsidies from the government like unemployment insurance is now.