Health care repeal clears House; now,...

Health care repeal clears House; now, the hard part

There are 172 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Jan 19, 2011, titled Health care repeal clears House; now, the hard part. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

After taking a largely symbolic stand Wednesday, Republicans today will begin a new phase of their effort to overturn the sweeping 2010 health care law, pursuing a variety of strategies: court tests, funding cutoffs and piecemeal changes.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
Never Waste A Crisis

Novato, CA

#166 Jan 21, 2011
amy donald wrote:
<quoted text>
What happens here is that everyone pays their national insurance straight out of their wages but some choose to 'go private' so if they've got private medical insurance or cash they can get faster (and in theory) better treatment. Some NHS hospitals have got private wards - so basically they are getting exactly the same treatment but probably quicker (with nicer food and cushions!) They still have to pay their National Insurance though - you cant opt out.
The natl insurance fees must be a sliding scale, right? Based on your earnings, number of dependents? Do you notice fees increasing as unemployment increases?

What % of the population pay nothing? How do you handle the undocumented worker or citizen whoneeds care?

Did I read Cameron may attempt to privatize more health care? What's the feeling about that?
amy donald

Manchester, UK

#167 Jan 21, 2011
Never Waste A Crisis wrote:
<quoted text>
The natl insurance fees must be a sliding scale, right? Based on your earnings, number of dependents? Do you notice fees increasing as unemployment increases?
What % of the population pay nothing? How do you handle the undocumented worker or citizen whoneeds care?
Did I read Cameron may attempt to privatize more health care? What's the feeling about that?
They are based on a percentage of what you earn. You pay some and your employer pays some. I think your employer pays a bit more than you do. Its not effected by dependents. If you are self-employed you pay less. Sorry I don't know about increases (I know that sounds ridiculous) but it just comes off with the tax and you don't even think about it. For instance I work part time and last month I earned £1423. I paid £285 tax and £104 national insurance.
National insurance payments arn't solely for health care - other things are paid with it, pension etc. I don't know what percentage of the population pay nothing - quite a few I expect. If you're not working you get free health care. No questions asked. I think Cameron wants to get rid of beaurocracy and let hospitals handle their own budget. We always get this - When the tories are in they want to privatise, when labour gets in they want to nationise, same old same old. Actually you've made me think, it's surprising how much of the running of your own country you don't know when someone from outside asks a question. We all just do as we're told I suppose. Depressing.
Never Waste A Crisis

Novato, CA

#168 Jan 21, 2011
amy donald wrote:
<quoted text>
They are based on a percentage of what you earn. You pay some and your employer pays some. I think your employer pays a bit more than you do. Its not effected by dependents. If you are self-employed you pay less. Sorry I don't know about increases (I know that sounds ridiculous) but it just comes off with the tax and you don't even think about it. For instance I work part time and last month I earned £1423. I paid £285 tax and £104 national insurance.
National insurance payments arn't solely for health care - other things are paid with it, pension etc. I don't know what percentage of the population pay nothing - quite a few I expect. If you're not working you get free health care. No questions asked. I think Cameron wants to get rid of beaurocracy and let hospitals handle their own budget. We always get this - When the tories are in they want to privatise, when labour gets in they want to nationise, same old same old. Actually you've made me think, it's surprising how much of the running of your own country you don't know when someone from outside asks a question. We all just do as we're told I suppose. Depressing.
Interesting. Sounds as though both our countries are trying to keep afloat while providing entitlements.

Our national pension system (Social Security)is taken out via payroll taxes as well and it's a ticking time bomb ..... As of last August, the system has begun to pay out more than it is collecting in. It is unsustainable. Obama has recommended raising the retirement age, currently 67, to 69 by 2075. It's a brilliant strategy if you think about it. Now when one retires early one doesn't receive 100% of the benefit. Since the system is broke think how much money the government will save by either not paying 100% benefit or fewer pensioners - those who've died off.

Of course this doesn't even account for all the other pension plans that the state and local municipalities are paying out. Police and Firemen don't pay into the social security fund. They have separate pension plans - guaranteeing 100% of their salary after 20 years. I know two policemen who have retired at 45, are currently drawing their pension ($120,000/year) and gone to work for a different city, drawing another salary ($100,000) and are contributing to another pension. Not bad,$220,000 to drive a police car.

Needless to say both systems need some major overhauls. Americans are waking up to these unfunded shenanigans. The government needs to straighten this out and raising taxes is NOT the answer.
Moderation is the answer

Tucson, AZ

#169 Jan 22, 2011
Moderation is a Moron wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as things were looking up, Obama's annual job approval average puts him near the postwar bottom
As if the poll showing improved approval of Congress under partial Republican leadership wasn't discouraging enough, now comes a new survey showing President Obama's second-year job approval near the bottom of presidents elected in the last six decades or so.
Heading into the president's crucial 2011 State of the Union address next Tuesday evening, Gallup finds that Obama's second-year job approval averaged only 46.7%.
That really looks pathetic when compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush's second-year average job approval of 71.3%. Or to the next highest second-year postwar job approval of 66.8% held by -- oh, look!-- another president named Bush. Of course, both of them were Republicans.
(Excerpt)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/20...
I don't need a report of the Fox news polls I allready told you they are Bull Crap.
Moderation is the answer

Tucson, AZ

#170 Jan 22, 2011
Mid Atlantic wrote:
<quoted text>
Under Obama Care you would not have 2 Knee replacements. 68 % of replacements don't take, and the risk of infection is high
Most knee replacements are done because of over weight. They would put you on a strict diet to loose weight
Hey stupid you know nothing about knee replacements. Most knee replacements are done to replace arthritic knees and have nothing to do with weight. In my Family of Seven Three have had knee replacements because of arthritis. So either get educated before you blab or shut up!!!!!!
Moderation is the answer

Tucson, AZ

#171 Jan 22, 2011
LeDumbo wrote:
<quoted text>And thanks for making this personal, saying I think I am better than everyone else. I hope you are on the waiting list for the brain transplant as well.
THe only time right wing wacko's pay attention is when it is personal, and I have never known a right winger who could think of anybody but themselves!!!!!!!!!!
amy donald

Manchester, UK

#172 Jan 22, 2011
Never Waste A Crisis wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Sounds as though both our countries are trying to keep afloat while providing entitlements.
Our national pension system (Social Security)is taken out via payroll taxes as well and it's a ticking time bomb ..... As of last August, the system has begun to pay out more than it is collecting in. It is unsustainable. Obama has recommended raising the retirement age, currently 67, to 69 by 2075. It's a brilliant strategy if you think about it. Now when one retires early one doesn't receive 100% of the benefit. Since the system is broke think how much money the government will save by either not paying 100% benefit or fewer pensioners - those who've died off.
Of course this doesn't even account for all the other pension plans that the state and local municipalities are paying out. Police and Firemen don't pay into the social security fund. They have separate pension plans - guaranteeing 100% of their salary after 20 years. I know two policemen who have retired at 45, are currently drawing their pension ($120,000/year) and gone to work for a different city, drawing another salary ($100,000) and are contributing to another pension. Not bad,$220,000 to drive a police car.
Needless to say both systems need some major overhauls. Americans are waking up to these unfunded shenanigans. The government needs to straighten this out and raising taxes is NOT the answer.
Same thing here regarding pensions - retirement age going up. State pensions have always been paid for through national insurance contributions along with health care taken straight from wages, and those that wanted to or could afford to could go for a private scheme. Now we're told there is not enough in the pot and everyone is being advised to get a private pension plan. But who can afford it? The cost of living takes all your wages. For instance petrol is now over £6.00 a gallon!! I don't know how that equates in dollars.
Moderation is the answer

Tucson, AZ

#173 Jan 22, 2011
IrishMN wrote:
<quoted text>
What you wrote applies to every single business in the USA.
But there is one point you left out: Competition is the great equalizer when it comes to free market economies.
Competition is the greatest price control on the face of Our Mother, the Earth. Bring back competition and you solve one of the biggest issues with health care costs.
If competition is the answer for cost reduction, how come we don't have the lowest costing system and the best care, we have the highest costing system and fall way down on health care. we die younger our children die at a higher rate etc etc than in any nationalized system.This fee for service system with everybody having a seperate shot at a profit where you visit six or seven businesses for care with each making a profit, If you were in a nationalized system you would visit one company for care with one profit. They are all modeled after the Mayo Clinic where doctors work for the clinic they do not own businesses, and with only one business there is only one administration cost and one profit. The Right wing needs to wake up!!!!!!!!!!
Moderation is the answer

Tucson, AZ

#174 Jan 22, 2011
amy beehive wrote:
<quoted text>If the system is so beloved in canada why does anyone with money come to the US for treatment?
The woman with breast cancer might have kept her breast in the US.
Why did Natasha Richardson have to be transfered to 3 hospitals for treatment for a head injury that she died from because of the amount of time it took? Why are women with complicated pregnancies sent to the US to give birth? Oh, right, I just made this up because I'm a right wing wacko!
THats right!!!!!!!!!!
amy donald

Manchester, UK

#175 Jan 22, 2011
Never Waste A Crisis wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Sounds as though both our countries are trying to keep afloat while providing entitlements.
Our national pension system (Social Security)is taken out via payroll taxes as well and it's a ticking time bomb ..... As of last August, the system has begun to pay out more than it is collecting in. It is unsustainable. Obama has recommended raising the retirement age, currently 67, to 69 by 2075. It's a brilliant strategy if you think about it. Now when one retires early one doesn't receive 100% of the benefit. Since the system is broke think how much money the government will save by either not paying 100% benefit or fewer pensioners - those who've died off.
Of course this doesn't even account for all the other pension plans that the state and local municipalities are paying out. Police and Firemen don't pay into the social security fund. They have separate pension plans - guaranteeing 100% of their salary after 20 years. I know two policemen who have retired at 45, are currently drawing their pension ($120,000/year) and gone to work for a different city, drawing another salary ($100,000) and are contributing to another pension. Not bad,$220,000 to drive a police car.
Needless to say both systems need some major overhauls. Americans are waking up to these unfunded shenanigans. The government needs to straighten this out and raising taxes is NOT the answer.
By the way, how do my wage stoppages compare to yours? Higher, lower, about the same?

“I am always right.”

Since: Oct 09

Former MN Taxpayer

#176 Jan 22, 2011
Moderation is the answer wrote:
<quoted text> I don't need a report of the Fox news polls I allready told you they are Bull Crap.
Every upper level Democrat operative and stratagist in Washington will disagree with your stupid comment.

The Gallup Poll is one of the oldest and most respected around. Tell us all again how you call this one Bull Crap.

“I am always right.”

Since: Oct 09

Former MN Taxpayer

#177 Jan 22, 2011
Moderation is the answer wrote:
<quoted text>If competition is the answer for cost reduction, how come we don't have the lowest costing system and the best care, we have the highest costing system and fall way down on health care. we die younger our children die at a higher rate etc etc than in any nationalized system.This fee for service system with everybody having a seperate shot at a profit where you visit six or seven businesses for care with each making a profit, If you were in a nationalized system you would visit one company for care with one profit. They are all modeled after the Mayo Clinic where doctors work for the clinic they do not own businesses, and with only one business there is only one administration cost and one profit. The Right wing needs to wake up!!!!!!!!!!
Great question!

We do not have competition in health care. We have government saying what will be covered, what you can charge for services, and how much profit you can make.

I have said this before. If I had ten gazillion dollars and wanted to start the IrishMN Insurance Company to provide health care for poor people with no profit for myself, I would be prevented by government and their bed partner (the insurance industry) from opening my company.

No matter how much good I could do for the poor, I could never open that company.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Steny Hoyer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama signs order for federal worker pay raises... (Dec '13) Jul '16 Scotch Irish Virgin 44
News Elijah Cummings, Steny Hoyer among Marylanders ... Jul '16 noobieR 1
News House passes narrow Zika measure designed to re... May '16 Go Blue Forever 10
News House Floor Becomes Battleground for Social Issues May '16 Three Days 9R 1
News Hoyer blasts GOP for 'empty words' on opioid cr... May '16 Jesus Latter Day ... 22
News Paul Ryan is not running for president -- or pa... Apr '16 Three Days 1
News White House Isn't Backing Down On Deportation R... (Jan '16) Jan '16 wild child 1
More from around the web