The no-vote vote is coming

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 23, 2010, 3:00 pm

I work to pay taxes....why not take advantage of it when the useless fucks who refuse to work get to stay home and take advantage of those of us who bust our asses?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 23, 2010, 3:08 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I work to pay taxes....why not take advantage of it when the useless fucks who refuse to work get to stay home and take advantage of those of us who bust our asses?

Just refuse to work and let the government take care you if you really think it's so awesome. I mean, that's the way it works, right?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 23, 2010, 3:22 pm

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » March 23, 2010, 3:50 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I am going to cancel my health care. As it stands now, I will be able to not carry and pay any health care at all and save $2000 a year. If I get sick with something that will incur major medical bills, then I sign up for insurance that cannot be denied me.

I wonder how long until everyone realizes this and no one is signed up for health care until they need it?
Unless you are someone like me who has ~$1000 in prescriptions a month that you'd have to pay for out of pocket, or my mom who would have like $3k.

But yeah if I didn't go to the doctor often and didn't have prescriptions I'd probably do the same.

Q: Does the plan require employers to offer coverage to their workers? And what about individuals? Does everybody have to have insurance? Can Congress do that under the Constitution?

A: Employers aren't required to offer coverage, but companies with more than 50 workers could be hit with hefty fines if just one of their employees gets government-subsidized coverage. (The plan provides tax credits to help smaller companies get and keep coverage for their employees.)

Individuals would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer or a government program or by buying it themselves. Those who refuse would get fined by the IRS.

Many legal experts say Congress does have the power under the Constitution to require coverage. But that issue is likely to be settled in court.
This gets me. I can see people doing this and getting fired.. Like, you get a crappy raise for the year so you drop coverage and get government health care. haha.

What the hell are you taking? Mine is about 150 a month with my allergy pills and the Lyrica since they are not covered completely.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 23, 2010, 4:02 pm

This is a BIG fucking deal.

Also, get your "Big fucking deal" t-shirts here.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 23, 2010, 4:05 pm

Tyek wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I am going to cancel my health care. As it stands now, I will be able to not carry and pay any health care at all and save $2000 a year. If I get sick with something that will incur major medical bills, then I sign up for insurance that cannot be denied me.

I wonder how long until everyone realizes this and no one is signed up for health care until they need it?
Unless you are someone like me who has ~$1000 in prescriptions a month that you'd have to pay for out of pocket, or my mom who would have like $3k.

But yeah if I didn't go to the doctor often and didn't have prescriptions I'd probably do the same.

Q: Does the plan require employers to offer coverage to their workers? And what about individuals? Does everybody have to have insurance? Can Congress do that under the Constitution?

A: Employers aren't required to offer coverage, but companies with more than 50 workers could be hit with hefty fines if just one of their employees gets government-subsidized coverage. (The plan provides tax credits to help smaller companies get and keep coverage for their employees.)

Individuals would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer or a government program or by buying it themselves. Those who refuse would get fined by the IRS.

Many legal experts say Congress does have the power under the Constitution to require coverage. But that issue is likely to be settled in court.
This gets me. I can see people doing this and getting fired.. Like, you get a crappy raise for the year so you drop coverage and get government health care. haha.

What the hell are you taking? Mine is about 150 a month with my allergy pills and the Lyrica since they are not covered completely.

The medicines I have for psoriasis. I have a ointment that is about 100 a month and a spray that is about 800 a month. My mom has rheumatoid arthritis so she takes a ton of nasty stuff like enbrel, etc.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 23, 2010, 4:12 pm

Rep. Kennedy left a note on his father's grave: "Dad, the unfinished business is done." (Photo: John Dicker)

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 23, 2010, 4:25 pm

I have not seen much on how the new plan will affect prescriptions, assuming one already is insured through private/corporate health care (Aetna, Blue Cross, etc). Does anyone have that information? Leave out gibberish, if possible.

What can middle-class corporate America expect as an increase in monthly insurance fees? Obviously, this one will vary wildly (i.e. between Merrill Lynch, Bank of Unamerica and IBM, my monthlies went from ~120/mo to ~140/mo to 0/mo.).

HMO/PPO stay the same, essentially? HMOs fucking blow, so hopefully those with crappy plans have the option for a better PPO? Curious.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 23, 2010, 4:46 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:This gets me. I can see people doing this and getting fired.. Like, you get a crappy raise for the year so you drop coverage and get government health care. haha.

Sans a public option there is no governement health care option in the exchange. Obviously a clause to preserve employer based insurance. I understand the reasoning to prevent mass dumping by employers and the disruption it would cause but insurance being job locked is bad for everyone. Are they still planning to open the exchanges to larger companies gradually?

Employer based supplemental insurance is cumpulsurary unless you are covered by a relative's plan (with proof) everywhere I've worked. No option to drop coverage otherwise, just the level of insurance. Standard deal between insurance companies and employers here.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 23, 2010, 4:52 pm

Currently, you can decline coverage from the employer. In fact, many companies automatically have you listed without insurance until you make your elections by a specified date. I do not believe you currently need proof to opt-out.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 23, 2010, 4:58 pm

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 23, 2010, 5:02 pm

I work at a hospital and I recently dropped my insurance and hopped onto my wife's plan. The hospital now pays me an additional 90$ a month as an incentive to stay off of thier plan. Of course, it costs my wife an additional fee to add me to hers, but overall we're coming out about 40$ ahead and I have better health care coverage.

My wife takes synthroid daily because she had her thyroid removed due to cancer at the age of 10. Other than that, we do not have any other perscriptions. She doesn't even have to take birth control anymore since my vesectomy. I have a fellow employee that is in her early 40's and has rheumatoid arthritis and her medications keep her locked into her job. If she switches insurance providers, that falls undder "pre exisiting conditions". She cannot afford her medications otherwise. I believe her out of pocket with copays are around 300-350 a month, which is crazy to me. That's a fucking car payment!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 23, 2010, 5:05 pm

orrection....you HAD better coverage through hers until her plan gets dropped down per their stated plans with this bill. Part of the CBO's declaration of deficit reduction is their intention for better plans to be reduced with the theory that those places will use that money to pay their employees with the savings.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 23, 2010, 5:09 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:orrection....you HAD better coverage through hers until her plan gets dropped down per their stated plans with this bill. Part of the CBO's declaration of deficit reduction is their intention for better plans to be reduced with the theory that those places will use that money to pay their employees with the savings.

Let me check...

Nope! Still have a better plan!

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 23, 2010, 5:11 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:orrection....you HAD better coverage through hers until her plan gets dropped down per their stated plans with this bill. Part of the CBO's declaration of deficit reduction is their intention for better plans to be reduced with the theory that those places will use that money to pay their employees with the savings.

Produce proof or shut the fuck up.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 23, 2010, 5:21 pm

All I see around is speculation, as far as negative perception goes. Hell people like Limbob and Glen Beck are just guessing and getting the far-right steamed up, with no real proof behind the blatting.

Why anyone listens to nutjobs on the left or the right constantly baffles me. Then again, some people find reassurance in listening to those that they agree with--right on not!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 23, 2010, 5:52 pm

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 23, 2010, 6:08 pm

Canelek wrote:Why anyone listens to nutjobs on the left or the right constantly baffles me. Then again, some people find reassurance in listening to those that they agree with--right on not!

Comic relief

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 23, 2010, 6:10 pm

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 23, 2010, 6:15 pm

The New Deal, The Fair Deal, The New Frontier, The Great Society, The Big Fucking Deal...

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » March 23, 2010, 6:21 pm

God Bless Joe Biden.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » March 23, 2010, 6:24 pm

Forthe wrote:The New Deal, The Fair Deal, The New Frontier, The Great Society, The Big Fucking Deal...

Best play on this I've seen yet.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 23, 2010, 6:47 pm

Spang wrote:

What a horror show!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 23, 2010, 7:41 pm

Soreali · Post by **Soreali** » March 23, 2010, 7:55 pm

How many of these fuckin pictures can you pull up? jesus.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 23, 2010, 7:56 pm

Soreali wrote:How many of these fuckin pictures can you pull up? jesus.

I can keep going, is it too much?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 23, 2010, 7:57 pm

The poll that Spang recently posted is very useful, I think. It is, to my knowledge, the first post-passage poll. It also uses wording that strikes me as very neutral and fair.

Polls are imperfect and simply capture a snapshot of constantly shifting public opinion, but, caveats aside, the fact that the results are 49 for - 40 against - 11 undecided is pretty compelling evidence that Kilmoll is totally wrong.

I also want to point out that Republicans are already pussying out. Most are admitting that they have no real chance to do anything about the reconciliation bill. Tom Coburn explicitly came out AGAINST full repeal. Jim DeMint, of course, is keeping the faith, arguing that support for full repeal should be a litmus test for any 2010 Republican congressional candidate. This sets us up for a dream scenario: Jim DeMint supporting a primary challenge against the too-liberal Tom Coburn. Pity Coburn's not up for reelection.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 23, 2010, 9:31 pm

Lets get this shameful bill tied up in red tape forever.

Washington (CNN) -- The Senate launched debate Tuesday on a House-passed bill to make changes in the hours-old health care reform law, with Republicans promising to use every parliamentary tool available to undermine or defeat the measure.

The "fixes" bill was necessary to get reluctant House Democrats to approve the Senate's version of the health care reform bill. By approving the Senate version of the bill Sunday night, the House sent it to President Obama, who signed it into law Tuesday.

However, House Democrats agreed to support the health care bill only if the fixes measure accompanied it to make changes to the Senate version. Now, the Senate must approve the fixes bill so Obama also can sign it.

Democrats say they're concerned that Republicans may be able to change the delicately balanced package. Any changes would force the bill back to the House for another vote.

Republicans are expected to propose numerous amendments to the fixes bill in an effort to hold up progress and force Democrats to vote against provisions they might usually support.

"There will probably be amendments that sound nice, that given any other circumstance you'd like to vote for," said Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa.

One such amendment was offered Tuesday afternoon by Oklahoma GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed that drugs for erectile dysfunction, like Viagra and Cialis, be prohibited to sex offenders.

Sen. John McCain, who promised Monday that there would be no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year, introduced an amendment striking the so-called "sweetheart deals" promised several Democrats in return for their votes.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said Tuesday he didn't think the Senate would change the bill, but if so, the House would be prepared to vote on the revised bill and send it to Obama.

After a White House meeting Monday night with Senate Democratic leaders and Obama, a senior Democratic source said they believe some issues may be ruled out of order in the complicated legislative process. The source would not specify the potential problems identified at the meeting.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, said one or two potential problems were identified, but he said they were minor. Baucus also said House Democratic leaders were aware the chamber may have to vote on the health care fixes bill a second time.

In an ironic twist, many of the provisions of the fixes bill were backed by Republicans during debate on the Senate health care bill. For example, the fixes bill would eliminate a provision for the federal government to pay Medicaid cost increases for the state of Nebraska that was negotiated by Democratic Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson in exchange for his support.

Republicans cited the Nelson trade-off as an example of what they called unethical deal-making by Democrats to get the health care bill passed in December.

Since then, Senate Democrats lost their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the chamber when Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts seat long held by Democrat Ted Kennedy, who died last year.

Without the supermajority of 60 seats, Democrats cannot pass the health care bill again in the Senate because Republicans have enough seats to filibuster it. Therefore, Democrats are trying pass the fixes bill through reconciliation, which allows bills affecting the budget to pass by a simple majority of 51 votes.

Republicans are expected to object to aspects of the legislation that they say violate strict reconciliation rules that govern this process.

Once Republicans raise a point of order, it would be up to the Senate parliamentarian to rule on whether it is legitimate. Democrats will have difficulty defeating a point of order, because that will require 60 votes.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky fired an initial salvo Tuesday, forcing the Senate's presiding officer to concede that it was likely the chamber would for the first time take up a reconciliation bill that didn't come from a Senate committee.

Republicans followed up by using a Senate rule to shut down committee meetings scheduled for Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused the party of "throwing a temper tantrum."

"The 'Party of No' wouldn't even agree to let Senate committees meet today," he said. "Ironically, as they make false claims about transparency regarding health reform, they're shutting down a committee hearing today on transparency in government.

"The bottom line is that as millions of Americans are learning about the immediate benefits of health reform, Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum and grinding important Senate business to a halt."

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 23, 2010, 9:58 pm

Winnow it's no longer a bill, it is law. Republicans can only hold up the fixes such as removal of special deals and things both parties like (such as more stringent medicaid\mediacare fraud enforcement).

Are Republicans going to stand up there and try to block the fixes and protect the special deals?

Republicans need to brush it off and move on, this is a trap.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 23, 2010, 10:13 pm

Tyek:

You mean like the Senators who passed this bill and will still have the best health care in the country on our dime? If this system is so great, then lets see them utilize it.

I missed this earlier. This is actually included in the bill. Members of Congress will be required to get insurance through the same exchanges as everyone else. Charles Grassley introduced it as an amendment, hoping to force the Democrats to embarrass themselves by shooting it down. However, they didn't see any problem with it, and it was adopted by unanimous consent.

Also: Forthe is right. Aren't you Canadian? Shouldn't you theoretically know less about American congressional procedure than Winnow?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 23, 2010, 11:04 pm

Some unsolicited advice to Republicans in organizing the legal fight against this bill.

This is not gonna work right now. I honestly think it's fairly unlikely that this fight ever gets to the Supreme Court. Republican AG's are going to file suit in the jurisdictions where they think it's most likely that they'll get a favorable ruling. This is how it works:

You pick a district court to file in. The actual outcome in the district court will not be particularly important (for legal purposes-- I'm sure it'll make great PR), but building a record is important. Whoever loses appeals and the case goes to circuit court. Which circuit you go to depends on where you originally filed, and you probably intentionally picked a place with a more conservative makeup. Here, a three-judge panel is randomly assigned to hear your case. If you get two or more moderate-to-liberal judges, you lose. If you get two or more staunch conservative judges, you have a chance at winning. I say 'a chance' because honestly, the legal arguments here are really radical. It would be a big step for any judge, no matter how conservative, to endorse them. But, if you get two conservatives, winning is a possibility.

The next step is that the losing side will file a petition for rehearing before the en banc court. This means that the case will be reheard by the entire court (or most of it) instead of a panel. This is where you get into trouble. I do not believe that there is any circuit in the country that would strike down healthcare reform en banc. So if you lose, they're most likely not going to agree to rehear it (unless they want to make a statement, which is also bad news for you). If you win, there's a good chance they will rehear and then overturn it.

So the odds that you exit the circuit court stage with a win in hand are very low. At this point you petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you indeed have lost, I think you're fucked. I don't think that the Supreme Court has any desire to take this up. It's an exceedingly partisan and political. Even Justices who might agree with the arguments might not want to take it, because they know they will lose. I simply don't think that there are any more than four votes to overturn it, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clarence Thomas was the only one. If you've lost, the Supreme Court can just avoid dealing with it by declining to take the case. By doing so, they will get the inevitable result, and they won't have to involve themselves in politics.

So the only way to get to the Supreme Court is to win. If you win in circuit court, the Supreme Court will be forced to take it up-- they can't let the bill be unconstitutional in 5 states but OK everywhere else. But, most likely, the only way to do that is to get by an en banc court, and I don't think that can be done.

If you really want to get away with this, the only chance is to pursue an incrementalist legal strategy, where you win small victories first, and let time pass while you wait for the landscape to shift. The only way to win in the Supreme Court is to replace Kennedy with a staunch conservative. Republicans won't have that opportunity for at least 3 years, and possibly more. But there is no way to win until either Kennedy or a liberal is replaced by a Republican president. You need to delay. Unfortunately, you've got a bunch of glory-hound state attorneys general who want to use this situation to boost their political standing and pursue higher offices. Good luck reining those folks in.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 23, 2010, 11:05 pm

Sueven wrote:Also: Forthe is right. Aren't you Canadian? Shouldn't you theoretically know less about American congressional procedure than Winnow?

I enjoy politics (and an interest in healthcare) and dude your politics is all drama and hypocrisy and the short term political memory of Usadians always freaks me out. Take just today for example:
- Before the summer mandates were part of most of the serious conservative health care plans except Friedman's saving accounts. It was a personal responsibility. Now it is unconstitutional.
- Before HCR passed judicial activism was bad, judicial restraint was good. Today judicial activism is good, judicial restraint would be bad.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » March 24, 2010, 1:42 am

Sueven wrote:Tyek:

You mean like the Senators who passed this bill and will still have the best health care in the country on our dime? If this system is so great, then lets see them utilize it.
I missed this earlier. This is actually included in the bill. Members of Congress will be required to get insurance through the same exchanges as everyone else. Charles Grassley introduced it as an amendment, hoping to force the Democrats to embarrass themselves by shooting it down. However, they didn't see any problem with it, and it was adopted by unanimous consent.

Also: Forthe is right. Aren't you Canadian? Shouldn't you theoretically know less about American congressional procedure than Winnow?

Actually glad to see that. Sad that it was used as a means to embarrass them.

Sen. John McCain, who promised Monday that there would be no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year, introduced an amendment striking the so-called "sweetheart deals" promised several Democrats in return for their votes.

This is why I hate politicians of both parties right now. This may be the dumbest thing I have seen someone say in a long time. Thanks for your service this year McCain, since you are now useless for the rest of the year you might as well go home.

I did not see where Forthe thought I was Canadian. I have been to Calgary and that area a couple times when I was younger, and I do live near Ontario. It just happens to be Ontario, CALIFORNIA.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » March 24, 2010, 1:58 am

Haven't had time to keep up with the thread as much as I want.

What scares me so much more than how batshit absurd our bipartisan politics are... is how willfully ignorant people my age (low / mid 20s) are. I don't know nearly as much as many of you, but I care, and I'm political Jesus in my circles by comparison. They all think the reform is good, and get shifty as soon as I dissent. It's frightening to think how confident opinions are seen as uncool. How easily a person's vote / opinion is purchased. How apathy is incorrectly channeled. How difficult it is to restrain from strangling an idiot. I guess life is just too easy for some.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 24, 2010, 2:10 am

6-12 months from now, this will be a non-issue to most people. Bigger things will have come to talk about (good or bad), and people will have seen that the world didn't end in the days following HCR. Sure the republicans will still be trying to beat their drums, but I'm guessing that for the most part people aren't going to give as much of a fuck anymore.

Ya'll can piss and moan all you want here, but seriously the republicans are only making themselves look more and more foolish as each hour passes. Only a republican would yell 'baby killer' at the guy most famous for coming up with anti-abortion crap.. I mean, really?

Now that it's passed it'll be cake (and a lot less expensive) to convince people why it's good for them.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 24, 2010, 6:44 am

Sen. John McCain, who promised Monday that there would be no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year...

Country First!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 24, 2010, 7:05 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I work to pay taxes....why not take advantage of it when the useless fucks who refuse to work get to stay home and take advantage of those of us who bust our asses?

I think you're over-obsessed with the undeserving poor. Yeah they're everywhere, breeding more useless fucks and leeching off the rest of us. It annoys me as much as it does you especially as I'm related by marriage to a couple of prime specimins and have to make nice instead of spitting in their lazy white-trash faces.

BUT ANYWAY, forget them. They are not the concern here.

The concern here are the people who pay for healthcare and are then denied it.
The concern here is YOU when you get hit by a car and break your neck. Now your family can receive care even though you can no longer provide it yourself, or contribute the taxes that fund it.
The concern here is YOU when you contract cancer then get laid off and your new job's insurance won't cover your care, sending you and your family to the poorhouse.

The lazy scumbag scroungers will benefit AS A SIDE EFFECT of doing the right thing by so many other people. But they benefit from the polic and fire service, they use the roads and the power and they drink the water. Your armed services protect them as much as they do you. They are a problem that needs solving but that's only tangentially related to this. Don't deny benefits to many many DESERVING people just because a few feckless shitbags might get help as well.

Some of the posts on here have made me wish ill-fortune on the posters just to open their eyes to the injustices of your system. A serious shock to the system caused by the vagaries of fate can work wonders for the self-absorbed.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 24, 2010, 7:53 am

The lazy scumbag scroungers will benefit AS A SIDE EFFECT of doing the right thing by so many other people.

This will actually lower the cost to all of us who already pay for these services for non-working, non-insured persons. As that seems to be Killmoll & Funks' biggest beef with it they should actually welcome this law.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 24, 2010, 8:14 am

Tyek: Sorry, the Forthe/Canada thing was supposed to be separate; with me marveling that Forthe's knowledge of congressional procedure exceeds Winnow's despite the fact that Forthe doesn't live here.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 24, 2010, 10:20 am

Sen. John McCain, who promised Monday that there would be no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year...

So he promised to continue doing what he has been doing the last 14 months? This guy has lost it. He is so afraid of a guy that thinks people want to marry horses that he doesn't dare cooperate with the Dems on anything.

I hope he loses to the crazy horse whisperer dude just for the pure entertainment value of it. I'm betting he would have a complete public meltdown that would be imortalized on youtube after remixing it with dance music.

Imagine if this man was president.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » March 24, 2010, 10:35 am

Spang wrote:
Sen. John McCain, who promised Monday that there would be no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year...
Country First!

I think if I tried that here at work they'd pretty much fire my ass and THAT is a big fucking deal to me.

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » March 24, 2010, 11:07 am

Spang wrote:
Sen. John McCain, who promised Monday that there would be no cooperation from Republicans for the rest of the year...
Country First!

I thought Republicans already said he wasn't part of their party anyway.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 24, 2010, 11:09 am

He's a maverick!

Post by **Sylvus** » March 24, 2010, 11:29 am

If you'll indulge me, I'll share an anecdote...

About a month ago, I woke up early and read an email that had just been sent to me and a few of my buddies, from one of our best friends who lives out-of-state. His 39 year-old brother had been having some issues with his kinesthetic sense and hand-eye coordination, visited a neurologist and, after numerous tests, was diagnosed with Stage IV lung cancer that had progressed into his brain. The guy has never smoked a cigarette in his life or worked in an environment where second-hand smoke was present; for all they know they said it could have been the exhaust from his lawnmower that caused it. Naturally, the family is quite shaken up, wondering if their son/brother is going to pull through and where that leaves his wife and two young daughters. The prognosis isn't good, 10% survival rate after 5 years for Stage IV Lung Cancer in general, but what can you do but remain optimistic?

The guy is a well-respected Ophthalmologist who graduated at the top of his class from the University of Michigan Medical School. He makes in the high six figures every year, and has savings somewhere in the seven figures. I know these things because, when talking to his brother a couple weeks back, one of the big concerns that they had (while being optimistic) was about money. He's a pretty religious guy and has lived a good life and isn't worried about dying. His biggest concern is what his death would do to his wife and daughters. But his next biggest concern after that is if he lives is how they would avoid bankruptcy, as he will be facing years of expensive treatments and medical policies are capped.

A doctor and surgeon, far wealthier than I (likely) will ever be, who is much more intimately familiar with the healthcare system than I (hopefully) will ever be, was worried that, in the 10% chance that he lives more than 5 more years, our broken healthcare would leave him destitute. That's fucked up.

I was pretty much in support of HCR before my conversation with his brother, and definitely all for it after. Sure, it's probably not going to fix everything, and it's probably going to need some tweaking. But any change (in this case) is better than the status quo; if this particular change is that bad, there will be pressure to change it again before too long. At least we've overcome the inertia of the old system, which is often the most difficult thing to do in politics. Hopefully it was a change for the better, and if not, hopefully they'll try to fix it again pretty quickly.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 24, 2010, 11:44 am

Sylvus wrote: But his next biggest concern after that is if he lives is how they would avoid bankruptcy, as he will be facing years of expensive treatments and medical policies are capped.

Caps are bad but rescission is the thing that would freak me out. Once his bills get big enough to land on someone's radar they'll start looking into his past trying to find everything and anything that will allow them to cancel his insurance. If that happens his savings will go fast. You need insurance for your insurance.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 24, 2010, 11:49 am

vn_Tanc wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I work to pay taxes....why not take advantage of it when the useless fucks who refuse to work get to stay home and take advantage of those of us who bust our asses?
I think you're over-obsessed with the undeserving poor. Yeah they're everywhere, breeding more useless fucks and leeching off the rest of us. It annoys me as much as it does you especially as I'm related by marriage to a couple of prime specimins and have to make nice instead of spitting in their lazy white-trash faces.

BUT ANYWAY, forget them. They are not the concern here.

The concern here are the people who pay for healthcare and are then denied it.
The concern here is YOU when you get hit by a car and break your neck. Now your family can receive care even though you can no longer provide it yourself, or contribute the taxes that fund it.
The concern here is YOU when you contract cancer then get laid off and your new job's insurance won't cover your care, sending you and your family to the poorhouse.

The lazy scumbag scroungers will benefit AS A SIDE EFFECT of doing the right thing by so many other people. But they benefit from the polic and fire service, they use the roads and the power and they drink the water. Your armed services protect them as much as they do you. They are a problem that needs solving but that's only tangentially related to this. Don't deny benefits to many many DESERVING people just because a few feckless shitbags might get help as well.

Some of the posts on here have made me wish ill-fortune on the posters just to open their eyes to the injustices of your system. A serious shock to the system caused by the vagaries of fate can work wonders for the self-absorbed.

I am going to reply simply to you and civilly, as you have made a reasonable post here.

For the record, I am FOR getting health care in the country fixed...with the caveat that I would like to see real problems addressed. I am a firm believer in not fixing things by throwing money at the symptoms of anything and would be MUCH more supportive of going to the root cause of the issues. Lets be 100% honest.....health care for the majority of the US is not going to be fixed with this. There are parts of this bill I could agree with if it was packaged without major costs. Let me put forth my reasoning for that below in a few not so in depth reasons.

1) Shit rolls downhill. Insurers are not going to take cuts in their bottom line. It just will not happen. Costs will be passed on to the consumer.

2) Tax increases will HAVE to be put in place to pay for this. $950 billion does not just appear by shuffling funds around...

3) This is going to affect the larger companies who pay for health care. Caterpillar is looking at $100 million it will cost their company in the first year. That is a large chunk for a company to absorb...which is either going to mean layoffs or higher prices.

4) The CBO's claim for deficit reduction only uses the specific wording of THIS bill alone and does not take into account any changes and does not include the companion bills that were separated from this bill. I am not going to get into depth on this and if you want the real scoops, they can be found on CNN in the money section.

5) The people who will end up hit by this in the long run are middle class. The people making big money will be able to afford the taxes. The lower class is subsidized. The middle class will get hit with higher premiums and more taxes...which is just adding to the strain they already face.

If they want to socialize medicine I am all for it....but only if they take that money being spent from other programs. I mean I would like to have a garage full of Rolls Royces....but I do not have the money. If I want a Rolls, I sell the house. That is the way finances work unless you are the US government. Eliminate all US spending on foreign aid and then sure....we can afford this.

Edit to repeat this: Our health care is broken because our citizens live unhealthy lifestyles. You can give me blah blah blah stories about your brother's uncle's cousin who has cancer and I don't really care. Everyone knows someone who is truly sick and that is not going away. Cancer is NOT the #1 killer in this country....heart disease is. And you know why heart disease is? Because we have the worst lifestyle choices in this country in its history and it is getting worse every year. Extreme obesity and smoking and drugs...you name it. If you had a country eating healthier and being active, the hospitals and doctors offices would not be clogged with people.....insurers would not be spending insane amounts of money every year just for the fatasses to be in emergency rooms and following your standard economic principles, health care costs would astronomically lower.

If they truly wanted to FIX healthcare, you attack it at the root. Charge people for their lifestyle.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 24, 2010, 12:11 pm

I pretty much agree with kilmoll on this most recent post.

To preface my point; I've had to listen to my dad a lot about his views and such recently, and over the last few years he has gotten extremely liberal minded. He has his opinions, which are pretty in line with a lot of the more liberal people here, and he feels that the people of the world need to make sacrifice to make these things happen.

This is the problem I have, you are asking for a shit ton of sacrifice from everyone to get change that they don't necessarily agree with (aka a good portion of people absolutely don't agree). It's either arrogance or stupidity that leads many of you to feel like everyone should accept MAJOR changes in their lives and incur major costs in doing so to enable your beliefs to become a reality when they don't agree with them. I don't really care which of the two it is because the end product is still the same.

Edit: My post is kind of aimed at everything on the liberal agenda right now, not just health care, but I do feel it applies here.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 24, 2010, 12:12 pm

The cost of healthcare reform is less than 8 billion per month.
The benefit is 30 million more americans receiving health insurance.

The cost of the Iraq fiasco is over 12 billion per month.
The benfit is fatter profits for oil companies and contactors.

I think your outrage is... misplaced.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 24, 2010, 12:16 pm

miir wrote:The cost of healthcare reform is less than 8 billion per month.
The benefit is 30 million more americans receiving health insurance.

The cost of the Iraq fiasco is over 12 billion per month.
The benfit is fatter profits for oil companies and contactors.

I think your outrage is... misplaced.

Maybe he's mad because US soldiers get socialized health care?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 24, 2010, 12:24 pm

miir wrote:The cost of healthcare reform is less than 8 billion per month.
The benefit is 30 million more americans receiving health insurance.

The cost of the Iraq fiasco is over 12 billion per month.
The benfit is fatter profits for oil companies and contactors.

I think your outrage is... misplaced.

This is the typical liberal response I expected out of the house idiots.

The war and healthcare are completely independant of one another. If you even bothered to read my post I would cut ALL foreign aid and that would include fighting for anyone else.