House crams healthcare bill down the countries throat.

[jpinpb]

[quote=Arraya]We do not need health care reform, we need health insurance reform. 30-40% of all private health insurance premiums goes to overhead, admin costs, and profits for the insurance compani.[/quote]

I totally agree. Insurance companies play a major role in this and they suck up a lot of money. Devising a way around them would be ideal.

[abell]

The Senate is coming up with its own bill, which will probably be different from the House bill. If the Senate passes a healthcare bill, then senators and house representatives have to come up with a bill that compromises the two, and once all that has taken place, then a bill is sent to the president’s desk to be signed. I have read that the Senate will have a harder time passing a healthcare bill than the House did. I also read that high deductable health plans will probably be phased out with the House legislation as it is currently written, which is going to make health more unaffordable for people that are relatively healthy.

[abell]

The Senate is coming up with its own bill, which will probably be different from the House bill. If the Senate passes a healthcare bill, then senators and house representatives have to come up with a bill that compromises the two, and once all that has taken place, then a bill is sent to the president’s desk to be signed. I have read that the Senate will have a harder time passing a healthcare bill than the House did. I also read that high deductable health plans will probably be phased out with the House legislation as it is currently written, which is going to make health more unaffordable for people that are relatively healthy.

[abell]

The Senate is coming up with its own bill, which will probably be different from the House bill. If the Senate passes a healthcare bill, then senators and house representatives have to come up with a bill that compromises the two, and once all that has taken place, then a bill is sent to the president’s desk to be signed. I have read that the Senate will have a harder time passing a healthcare bill than the House did. I also read that high deductable health plans will probably be phased out with the House legislation as it is currently written, which is going to make health more unaffordable for people that are relatively healthy.

[abell]

The Senate is coming up with its own bill, which will probably be different from the House bill. If the Senate passes a healthcare bill, then senators and house representatives have to come up with a bill that compromises the two, and once all that has taken place, then a bill is sent to the president’s desk to be signed. I have read that the Senate will have a harder time passing a healthcare bill than the House did. I also read that high deductable health plans will probably be phased out with the House legislation as it is currently written, which is going to make health more unaffordable for people that are relatively healthy.

[abell]

The Senate is coming up with its own bill, which will probably be different from the House bill. If the Senate passes a healthcare bill, then senators and house representatives have to come up with a bill that compromises the two, and once all that has taken place, then a bill is sent to the president’s desk to be signed. I have read that the Senate will have a harder time passing a healthcare bill than the House did. I also read that high deductable health plans will probably be phased out with the House legislation as it is currently written, which is going to make health more unaffordable for people that are relatively healthy.

[sd_matt]

[quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.[/quote]

Don’t you think it would be prudent to allow more time to the public to read all 2000 pages?

On Iraq. We did indeed go to war too fast. So since they did it, it is now OK for your guys to do the same? Again how can you separate the Dems from the Reps?

[sd_matt]

[quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.[/quote]

Don’t you think it would be prudent to allow more time to the public to read all 2000 pages?

On Iraq. We did indeed go to war too fast. So since they did it, it is now OK for your guys to do the same? Again how can you separate the Dems from the Reps?

[sd_matt]

[quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.[/quote]

Don’t you think it would be prudent to allow more time to the public to read all 2000 pages?

On Iraq. We did indeed go to war too fast. So since they did it, it is now OK for your guys to do the same? Again how can you separate the Dems from the Reps?

[sd_matt]

[quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.[/quote]

Don’t you think it would be prudent to allow more time to the public to read all 2000 pages?

On Iraq. We did indeed go to war too fast. So since they did it, it is now OK for your guys to do the same? Again how can you separate the Dems from the Reps?

[sd_matt]

[quote=briansd1][quote=sd_matt]

I too love the idea of everyone being covered for cheap.

Do you think the people currently in Congress are anywhere within a light year of being able to actually accomplish this?

Personally I think our first order of business should be to fire a lot of Congress and then move onto health care.

Obama said he could pull all kinds of $$ from Medicare by cleaning up waste, fraud and abuse. I sincerely hope he can. In fact wouldn’t it be better that he actually demonstrate this before moving onto reforming one sixth of our economy. That’s a pretty big chunk of change to possibly gamble away.

Doesn’t the current process bother you at least a little with it’s lack of transparency?[/quote]

I think that the way to cut health care cost is to cover everybody.

Right now, the insured are subsidizing the uninsured.

Over time, as the whole population gets access to primary care, people will be healthier and the costs will come down.

I don’t see any lack of transparency. The bill has been debated in Congress and the representatives voted. Most bills are passed much more quickly.

We went to war in Iraq with hardly any debate at all. It has cost $1 trillion so far.

Providing health care to all our citizens would do much greater good. The cost will be $1 trillion over a decade. But if we can hold down the growth of health costs, then the savings will be much greater.

A decade from now, the success or failure of health care reform will be judged upon whether health costs have increased or decreased as a proportion of GDP.[/quote]

Don’t you think it would be prudent to allow more time to the public to read all 2000 pages?

On Iraq. We did indeed go to war too fast. So since they did it, it is now OK for your guys to do the same? Again how can you separate the Dems from the Reps?

[sd_matt]

Arraya

What do you think would be the effects of allowing interstate competition and getting rid of the anti trust exemptions?

[sd_matt]

Arraya

What do you think would be the effects of allowing interstate competition and getting rid of the anti trust exemptions?

[sd_matt]

Arraya

What do you think would be the effects of allowing interstate competition and getting rid of the anti trust exemptions?

[sd_matt]

Arraya

What do you think would be the effects of allowing interstate competition and getting rid of the anti trust exemptions?

[Author]

Posts