Health Care Debate - Waterloo, IA

Discuss the national Health Care debate in Waterloo, IA.

Do you support President Obama's health care policy?

Waterloo opposes
Oppose
 
10
Support
 
8

Vote now in Waterloo:

Comments
1 - 7 of 7 Comments Last updated -
Julie

Excelsior, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 8, 2010
 
Don't want to be controlled by government!
Patrick Mosser

Cedar Falls, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 12, 2010
 
Many people that needed health care and I think he can do it.
twhiting9275

Waukee, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 24, 2010
 
I work hard for my money, so why is it that I should be forced to fork over money for insurance that I don't need?

The fed. government has no right to demand that I spend 10% of my own income on insurance which is unnecessary for me to survive, but it just DID on Sunday.

To those that support this horrible bill:

If you think your employer is required (by law) to now provide you with care, think again. Neither big, nor small business is mandated to provide insurance to employees under this law.

If you think you're going to get "free" medical care, think again. In fact, take a look at this calculator ( http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator... ), and you'll probably be surprised. Oh, and if you DO qualify for 'free' medical care, don't plan on that actually covering everything, or being enacted any time soon. Just look at how horribly medicare is handled now, and how the government handles the Veterans that should be treated with respect, you'll see just how quickly and properly you'll be treated. You won't.

If you think that you win by the insurance companies being forced to 'accept' you with previous conditions, think again. Just because they have to accept you doesn't mean that they can't charge you a higher premium. In fact, one of the things this legislature does is establish the higher premium cap, which is much, much higher than what most were already charging.

Overweight? Higher premium
Smoke? Higher premium
Pre-existing condition? Higher premium

If you think this will actually reduce costs, think again. The broken down medical system still exists and the two tier payment option will still exist. As it is now:

Doctors have two payment tiers, one for those that HAVE insurance, one for those that do not. The ones that DO are charged much, much more than the ones that don't, because the ones that DO have the insurance to fall back on, and the hospital gets to double dip there.

As it will be:
Doctors have two payment tiers, one for those that have non government insurance, and one for those that do not. The ones that DO will be charged much more than the ones that do not, because they can milk the insurance for more, and don't have to deal with government regulated spending.

So, who does this bill benefit, really?

The people? No. The people just got saddled with $100s/month in insurance bills even if they DIDN'T need it.

Does it benefit the government? Absolutely not. Despite the lack of information provided to (or from) the CBO, this will end up costing the government billions, instead of making it billions.

Does it benefit the hospitals or doctors? No way. They now have to regulate spending for fed. insurance programs, so they lose a bit there.

Does this benefit the insurance companies? Absolutely!!! While it IS true that these companies must accept people with pre-existing conditions, these companies also get to charge much higher premiums , AND they received 33 million forced subscribers.

The big winner in all of this is the insurance companies. YAY, DC, thanks so much for thinking of each and every U.S. citizen.

This bill passing is just another prime example of government ignoring what it's citizens want.
veritas

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 24, 2010
 
twhiting9275 wrote:
I work hard for my money, so why is it that I should be forced to fork over money for insurance that I don't need?
The fed. government has no right to demand that I spend 10% of my own income on insurance which is unnecessary for me to survive, but it just DID on Sunday.
To those that support this horrible bill:
If you think your employer is required (by law) to now provide you with care, think again. Neither big, nor small business is mandated to provide insurance to employees under this law.
If you think you're going to get "free" medical care, think again. In fact, take a look at this calculator ( http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator... ), and you'll probably be surprised. Oh, and if you DO qualify for 'free' medical care, don't plan on that actually covering everything, or being enacted any time soon. Just look at how horribly medicare is handled now, and how the government handles the Veterans that should be treated with respect, you'll see just how quickly and properly you'll be treated. You won't.
If you think that you win by the insurance companies being forced to 'accept' you with previous conditions, think again. Just because they have to accept you doesn't mean that they can't charge you a higher premium. In fact, one of the things this legislature does is establish the higher premium cap, which is much, much higher than what most were already charging.
Overweight? Higher premium
Smoke? Higher premium
Pre-existing condition? Higher premium
If you think this will actually reduce costs, think again. The broken down medical system still exists and the two tier payment option will still exist. As it is now:
Doctors have two payment tiers, one for those that HAVE insurance, one for those that do not. The ones that DO are charged much, much more than the ones that don't, because the ones that DO have the insurance to fall back on, and the hospital gets to double dip there.
As it will be:
Doctors have two payment tiers, one for those that have non government insurance, and one for those that do not. The ones that DO will be charged much more than the ones that do not, because they can milk the insurance for more, and don't have to deal with government regulated spending.
So, who does this bill benefit, really?
The people? No. The people just got saddled with $100s/month in insurance bills even if they DIDN'T need it.
Does it benefit the government? Absolutely not. Despite the lack of information provided to (or from) the CBO, this will end up costing the government billions, instead of making it billions.
Does it benefit the hospitals or doctors? No way. They now have to regulate spending for fed. insurance programs, so they lose a bit there.
Does this benefit the insurance companies? Absolutely!!! While it IS true that these companies must accept people with pre-existing conditions, these companies also get to charge much higher premiums , AND they received 33 million forced subscribers.
The big winner in all of this is the insurance companies. YAY, DC, thanks so much for thinking of each and every U.S. citizen.
This bill passing is just another prime example of government ignoring what it's citizens want.
The King and his court are exempt from this unlawful law.Only his slaves need comply
Amerika

Bronx, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 24, 2010
 
veritas wrote:
<quoted text>The King and his court are exempt from this unlawful law.Only his slaves need comply
Yesterday, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that he would join a growing list of right-wing attorneys general who are suing to have health reform declared unconstitutional. According to Cuccinelli, the new law’s provisions that require individuals to carry health insurance violate the Constitution because “at no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.” The truth, however, is that the Second Militia Act of 1792, required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase a long list of military equipment:

[E]very citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

This Act became law only a few years after the Constitution was ratified, in President George Washington’s first term. Many of the Members of Congress who voted for the Act also were members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution. In other words, they probably knew a little bit more about the Constitution than Ken Cuccinelli.
ru kidding

Mattoon, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 4, 2010
 
Amerika wrote:
<quoted text>
Yesterday, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that he would join a growing list of right-wing attorneys general who are suing to have health reform declared unconstitutional. According to Cuccinelli, the new law’s provisions that require individuals to carry health insurance violate the Constitution because “at no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.” The truth, however, is that the Second Militia Act of 1792, required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase a long list of military equipment:
[E]very citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
This Act became law only a few years after the Constitution was ratified, in President George Washington’s first term. Many of the Members of Congress who voted for the Act also were members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution. In other words, they probably knew a little bit more about the Constitution than Ken Cuccinelli.
A return to Socilism, back to the founding fathers.
kardasha

Rio De Janeiro, Brazil

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 22, 2010
 
ru kidding wrote:
<quoted text>A return to Socilism, back to the founding fathers.
Only in the wet dreams of you and your fellow frustrated control freaks.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Waterloo Discussions

Search the Waterloo Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
lou and michelles Jul 1 client 1
Michele Bachmann Considers Suing Obama Over Can... (Dec '13) Jun 28 straw grasping teabaggers 3
Tim Daman dead at 43 (Aug '13) Jun '14 cudiya 12
IA Iowa House primary ground zero for gay marriage... (Jun '10) Jun '14 slayer rules 411
Witness says he saw missing Iowa girls after th... (Jul '12) May '14 Gypsy 475
Do you approve of Carolyn Cole as Council Member? (Oct '12) May '14 Fishboy 2
He's back Apr '14 Correctional Colorado 2

Related Media

Waterloo Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]