[QUOTE=scottw;775142]And you obviously haven't changed my opinion of you.

Any time you want to compare morals, pls. let me know.

[QUOTE=PaulS;775147]:rotf2::rotf2:

what does that mean? your argument for government run healthcare is "I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare." ?

first, you need to show me people who don't get healthcare, I think the dems tried in the primary and during the push for this debacle and each time the examples were shown to be either bogus or misrepresented.....what you want is Government Provided Healthcare because you believe for some unknown reason that Government can do a better job of providing it than the private sector...better check what's going on with the "doc fix" right now and see how happy those folks that are relying on the govt. for coverage and payments are feeling ....you can't possibly explain how this will work financially, each week another surprise in the legislation is exposed and the costs are going up and up along with the spending and accumulating debt from this congress and administration...you must believe in the toothfairy

with all of the other big democrat entitlements un-funded, bankrupt and about to be burdened as never before...how do you think this will work out???

"How do you slap a $940 billion pricetag on what’s actually a multitrillion-dollar bill? Well, as we’ve seen, the first thing you do is make sure not to start the program until almost halfway through CBO’s window of time for measuring how much it’ll cost. That cuts a trillion or two right off the top. But what if that still leaves you with budget deficits, thus crippling your sub-moronic talking point about how this massive new federal entitlement will save money over time?
Simple. You break the bill up and pass one of the expensive parts separately later. Here’s how a supposed $118 billion reduction in the deficit becomes another case of Obama bloat:
You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.
Under current law, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO’s estimate of November 4, 2009.)…
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government’s payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.
Still waiting to find out that if that memo urging Democrats not to talk about “doc fix” is real or not, but you can see why it’s good advice either way. Not only are they hiding another $208 billion in costs, but their dishonesty in passing doc fix separately will cost another $10 bil that could be avoided by passing everything together. Except, of course, that trying to pass everything together would send “fiscally conservative” Democrats fleeing for the hills — not because they care about a trillion-plus pricetag, but because they care that you might care. Or maybe they don’t even care about that, given the way the votes are falling today. Add Suzanne Kosmas to the roll of the shame.
More to come tonight, no doubt, in a very special edition of the Friday evening news dump.
Update: Oh look, some more hidden costs discovered by CBO. Who’s up for another $50 billion on the hook just to administer this thing?
In its March 11, 2010, cost estimate for H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate, CBO indicated that it has identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation. The authority to undertake such spending is not provided in H.R. 3590; it would require future action in appropriation bills. The attached table provides additional information about those authorizations.
Discretionary costs under PPACA would arise from the effects of the legislation on several federal agencies and on a number of new and existing programs subject to future appropriation. Those discretionary costs fall into three general categories…
Update: This is all contingent, of course, upon the Democrats actually passing doctor fix later. Oh, hey look — the AMA, which supports doc fix, just endorsed ObamaCare!"

[QUOTE=PaulS;775136]Are we now to abandon the idea that you can't legislate morality? And if legislating morality is now to be a domain of our Federal Government, whose morality will be the model? Will that change with changing administrations?

The founders understood that individual freedom rests on the notion that the bulk of governmental restriction is against the government not against the people.

My personal view of what Obama meant when he promised to fundamentally change this country is that he would change the constitutional view of what government is not allowed to do, to his (and the left's) view of what the government should do.

And if the government should prescribe so much as to even include how we care for our health and to decide what is moral, then individual freedom will be a phrase with no substance.

And, anyway, before Obama care, the uninsured, as Scott implied did get health care. Maybe not in your moral point of view. The "health care" bill was not about providing health care but about how to pay for it. And it will now, against what was promised, be more expensive and more restrictive. And, temporarilly, maybe why you being in the insurance industry are happy with it, insurance companies will make more money. In the long run, they may be driven out of business.

[QUOTE=scottw;775151]It means that I think every person should have access to quality healthcare. That is a personal value.

I tend not to read long posts or cut and pastes so I didn't read the rest of the post.

he hasn't clarified if he's in health insurance or selling car insurance

seems the side that has traditionally screamed "don't force you morals on me"..rosaries and ovaries and all that...are perfectly willing to not only force their morals on others, but force others into a system of healthcare against their will and force them to pay...huh? I suppose if you include yourself under the umbrella or marxism and all of it's tawdry branches...you ought be quite happy....sadly..that's not America and polls show that American's are not pleased with the morality being forced on them by this radical leftist president and his followers....quick quiz...DID OBAMA GOLF OR GO TO CHURCH THIS WEEKEND?

[QUOTE=PaulS;775169]GOOD...YOU PAY FOR IT THEN...:uhuh:

AND PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE "ACCESS" TO QUALITY HEALTHCARE AND SOME REASON TO THINK THAT THE NEW HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION IS GOING TO MAGICALLY PROVIDE THIS WHERE IT IS CURENTLY LACKING

would you prefer pictures to words?

[QUOTE=scottw;775171]I am and will continue to pay for it. It looks like you will be too. If you don't like it, you should move someplace you won't have to pay (Somalia?/:biglaugh:).

Why when I call for a Dr. appointment do they always ask how I'm going to pay. If I say I don't have insurance or can pay, do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment.

Sure, you seem to think your so smart, so draw me a picture.

[QUOTE=PaulS;775185]I know...it's crazy for someone providing a service to ask you how you are going to pay for that service after it has been rendered...go figure?!?

[QUOTE=PaulS;775185]Paul, they always ask me how I'm going to pay as well. But, do you think that someone without insurance is going to call a doctor to make an appointment? You know better than that. They go to a walk in clinic or ER. Even better, they get an ambulance ride to the hospital ER for a sore throat of nagging cough.

"do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment. "


and to expand on that..the answer is YES...we are considered "uninsured" by our doctors and the hospital because I carry a catastrophic policy for my family of 5 which costs $ 300 per month...at the kids pediatrician, dentist and hospital we've never been denied an appointment, had payment demanded prior to or immediately following services and my wife has had some costly expenses recently, we were able to get the services and negotiate prices and get time to pay anything that we could not pay for immediately....of course, most have been conditioned to think that healthcare services are an entitlement and that they should have to do little more than pull a card out of their wallet or purse and someone else will take care of all of the annoying paperwork and payment for whatever treatment they seek...like most entitlements...you just show up and get what you want...unfortunately for entitlements, the line gets really long....

[QUOTE=fishbones;775187]Right.
so if the means were there for LEGAL residents of the US to have access to a primary care physician etc. wouldn't it be better than this clogging up the ER's for sore throats etc...

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;775196]
What exactly do you mean by legal? I'm only asking because there seems to be different definitions being tossed around out there.

[QUOTE=fishbones;775187]Agree 100%. But isn't some of the savings going to be that those people will now go to a Dr. (like you and I) instead of going to the ER. The reason many companies pay for preventive at 100% is b/c the long term savings of nipping something in the bud outways the added cost. There usually is an increase in the 1st year but the savings in the future outweigh those costs.

Wow, just plain wow.