i agree.

You agree with this until they start imposing a will that you disagree with.

I'm sure you're a huge fan of the Patriot Act.

Is it possible to disagree with will?

A will or testament is a legal declaration by which a person, the testator, names one or more persons to manage his/her estate and provides for the transfer of his/her property at death. For the DEVOlution of property not disposed of by will, see inheritance and intestacy.

You learned a new word.

Actually sophistry is not my strong point, facts and data are.

LW, you are very uninformed and clearly did not follow the debate as it was ongoing during the passage of the Act. Which small and medium-sized health insurance companies are threatened by the Affordable Care Act? Cost-sharing and premiums have been rising precipitously well before Obama became president. Do you have any idea why?

You rely much too heavily on ideology for your perspective.

I'm not trying to be unkind, but society does not benefit from a sytem based on extreme polarization that disregards the facts.

If you believe that, however did you find the political forum on a Pearl Jam message board?

What facts and data have your brought to the table? Answer: None. All you've brought is politically charged rhetoric that exists well outside the sphere of reality on the ground. Sometimes you make some pretty good arguments; this is not one of them.

I don't think there are too many people who were paying more attention to the bill during its passage than I. And a lot of the things that I said would result in its passage are now occurring.

Insurance companies out of business:
Nhealth: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38194.html
National Health Insurance Company: http://customhealthplans.com/blog/2010/ ... -to-close/

This is the short list. And it will grow and grow as greater regulations and requirements are gradually imposed on insurance companies and employers who can no longer sustain the benefits they once could. We'll see more insurance companies go out of business, more massive hits to corporate profits, and more businesses that are unable to sustain the costs associated with government fiats associated with the legislation.

And of course cost sharing and premiums have been expanding, but it's pretty clear that a significant portion of increases to premiums in 2011 are directly related to this legislation. Particularly costs associated with individual plans, student plans, and plans for young adults (Plans that many insurance companies are dropping like a bad habit). Even Health and Human Services has acknowledged this. As to the reasons why healthcare costs have risen over the years, that point is pretty clear and simple. Technology and quality healthcare costs money. Research and Development costs money. Profit motive must exist for those involved in medical technology to pursue research and development, and America is the global incubator for it. Costs have risen because of government requirements imposed on insurance firms. And last but not least, we expect our insurance to cover more than it has in the past. Everyone expects insurance to cover everything, as opposed to being a tool utilized in emergency situations where costs are overbearing.

America is willing to pay the premiums for access to the best medical care, doctors, drugs, and equipment on earth. Europe and Canada are not. That, by and large, is the reason costs have been expanding. It's certainly not because of expanding profit margins. It is our demand for healthcare progress that inevitably drives up costs. If you want costs to go down, then kill progress in medical advancement and watch a whole industry evacuate this nation.

Speaking of disregarding facts, what do you think will happen if we introduce a Canadian, British, or French style system of healthcare? How come you fail to mention HHS's, overwrought intimidation against opponents to the bill? You boldly declared that people liked not losing their healthcare plans, but blatantly ignored the fact that most people will not have the plans they had in 2010 because employers cannot afford to keep them, and in conjunction, insurance companies cannot afford to offer them. We can keep the healthcare plan if we like, but insurance companies are not compelled to offer the plan, or offer it at the same price. So who benefits? Then you kindly ignored all the waivers that have been written for hundreds of businesses, unions, and corporations. Either you're disregarding facts, or you are very uninformed and clearly have not followed up with overarching unintended consequences of this rotten legislation.

And you make no mention of why the commerce clause can be used to require the populace to by specific commercial goods.

How does that jive with only about one-third of American medical research being done/funded by the private sector?

Where's your source on that?

As of 2003, the NIH was responsible for 28%—about US$26.4 billion—of the total biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S., with most of the rest coming from industry.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_I ... _of_Health

For perspective, the entire EU spends just 3 billion on medical research and development. Other countries keep costs down by rationing, not researching, not developing, and allowing the US to pioneer and pay for the latest and greatest the medical industry has to offer.

Admittedly it's testimonial in nature. One of my closest friends is a former pharmacist working for (and getting paid insane amounts of money from) Pfizer, and my wife works in the blood bank at a hospital. I was visiting her at work over the summer, flipping through a copy of the Journal of the American Medical Association while I waited for her break to start. The article was something like Funding for BioMed somethingsomething 2003-2008, and it claimed that private funding accounted for about half of all development (academic research being the other big player besides NIH). I mentioned it to Sam the Pfizer Man not long after, and he gave me a long breakdown on all the reasons that wasn't true and all the loopholes used to create that figure. I'd be lying if I pretended to understand or remember it all...basically, it came down to a "you the taxpayer are paying for Pfizer's research" thing. I genuinely wish I remembered how all of it went.

That may be true if you take into "academic" research. But remember, what is funded by the government is funded by private endowments which are typically coming from corporations sponsoring research. The numbers may be right, but it sounds massaged to support a particular argument.

Either way the bottom line is that we pay a premium for the best of the best. We certainly have structural problems that could be addressed, but the solution is not a European model. Going that route will not only hurt America, but it will likely hurt the world in the long run, and we'll end up watching a whole industry emigrate to more profitable pastures.

Makes sense.

sophistry

For the record, I learned a new word today.... and I for one am pleased about that.

I think it's foolish for the House to waste time prioritizing the repeal of health care over everything else. Given the likelihood of it going anywhere, it's like saying "we're going to go to Washington and immediately do nothing for several months." It's also funny that Republicans have a rule against any bill that increases the deficit, but they exempted a bill that would repeal healthcare, b/c repealing healthcare would actually increase the deficit.

But I also can't get behind this idea of asking Republicans to give up their "tax-payer-provided healthcare," because it's also "employer-provided healthcare." That's really not a very good example of hypocrisy.

Does anybody really think that this bill will reduce the deficit? The CBO analyzed numbers handed to them by the administration that include some blatant and purposeful accounting errors. This bill, if seen through in its entirety, will never reduce the deficit and everybody knows it...

Why shouldn't the Democrats go through with this? It's not the business of politicians to do what they think they can get done within the political realm. It's their job to represent their constituents, and the constituents of the party in power WANT THIS DOG SHIT REPEALED! I gotta be honest, if they didn't attempt to get this dog shit repealed, they'd be sinking their own ship. Even if they don't succeed in getting this repealed, it's still not a waste of time, as there will be concrete votes to run against in 2012. It will either be an opportunity to get rid of an awful and unpopular bill, or an opportunity to stress and reiterate your support for an awful and unpopular bill.

This whole bill stinks, it needs to go away. And the way the executive branch is now using rule making privileges to re-insert elements of the bill that we were promised wouldn't be in the bill, is even more proof that this has to go away.

H.R. 2:Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

It's gonna be a fun couple of years, folks. Is John Boehner 2?

2005: CBO projects the Social Security Trust Fund will begin running deficits in 2020; Trust Funds exhausted in 2052
2006: CBO projects the Social Security Trust Fund will begin running deficits in 2019; Trust Funds exhausted in 2046
2007: No report.
2008: CBO projects the Social Security Trust Fund will begin running deficits in 2019; Trust Funds exhausted in 2049
2009: CBO projects the Social Security Trust Fund will begin running deficits in 2016; Trust Funds exhausted in 2043
2010: Social Security Trust Fund begins running deficits; Trust Fund exhausted in 2042

Please read David Stockman's The Triumph of Politics to see how easily politicians rig the game to make projections from organizations like the CBO look much rosier than they actually are. Thinking this bill will approach deficit neutrality - let alone reduce the deficit - is a mistake.

I think you found a candidate for priority #1 for the House Republicans. eh?

Pretty sure most Republicans are even less eager to confront real problems than were the Democrats. Political theater at its finest.