[size=18pt]Obama signs historic $938 billion overhaul[/size]

WASHINGTON – A beaming President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed a historic $938 billion health care overhaul that guarantees coverage for 32 million uninsured Americans and will touch nearly every citizen's life, presiding over the biggest shift in U.S. domestic policy since the 1960s and capping a divisive, yearlong debate that could define the November elections.

Celebrating "a new season in America" — the signature accomplishment of his White House so far and one denied to a line of presidents before him — Obama made the massive bill law with an East Room signing ceremony. He was joined by jubilant House and Senate Democrats as well as lesser-known people whose health care struggles have touched the president. Obama scheduled back-to-back events to mark the moment, with much of his White House audience, as well as hundreds of others, gathering at the Interior Department for Act II immediately after the signing.

"With all the punditry, all the lobbying, all the game-playing that passes for governing here in Washington, it's been easy at times to doubt our ability to do such a big thing, such a complicated thing, to wonder if there are limits to what we as a people can still achieve," Obama said, his remarks interrupted by applause after nearly every sentence. "We are not a nation that scales back its aspirations. We are not a nation that falls prey to doubt or mistrust. We don't fall prey to fear. We are not a nation that does what's easy. That's not who we are. That's not how we got here."

The president's victory lap proceeded even as Congress labored to complete the overhaul with a companion measure making changes to the main bill that were a condition of House Democrats' approval. Debate on that bill, also passed Sunday by the House, could begin Tuesday in the Senate.

Not everyone was cheering the new law.

Attorneys general from 13 states filed suit to stop the overhaul just minutes after the bill signing, contending the law is unconstitutional. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum took the lead in the lawsuit, joined by colleagues from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, Washington and Colorado. Other GOP attorneys general may join the lawsuit later or sue separately.

In Washington, Republicans remained firm in their opposition to the giant remake of the nation's health system, declaring it much too costly and unlikely to produce the results that Obama claims. The Republicans pledged to see Democrats punished in this fall's elections for approving the legislation over deep public skepticism.

"By signing this bill, President Obama is abandoning our founding principle that government governs best when it governs closest to the people," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Never before has such a monumental change to our government been carried out without the support of both parties. This debate has fostered unprecedented division at a time when this nation needs to come together and address the serious challenges we face."

With that in mind, and with many of the law's most sweeping changes not to take effect for years, Obama emphasized the overhaul's most immediate impacts, including the ability of young adults to remain on their parents' health plans and a ban on insurers denying coverage to sick children.

"We have now just enshrined the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health," the president said.

The second, much larger event had an even more combative, campaign-like feel. Obama thanked the players from labor unions to grass-roots supporters who helped push the bill forward, and openly criticized Republicans for "still making a lot of noise about what this reform means."

"Look it up for yourself," he urged the public. "You don't have to take my word for it, you'll see it in your own lives."

The White House did everything possible to make sure Obama's appearances carried the day without competition. A planned announcement of the administration's new drug control policy by Vice President Joe Biden was called off, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to hold his regular daily briefing for reporters, and all Obama's meetings were closed to coverage, including one with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The day was about more than celebration. It marked the launch of an aggressive sales job Obama will undertake to turn around public opinion on the legislation and help save Democrats — particularly those from conservative-leaning districts — who stand to suffer most in the fall elections from casting votes for the bill.

That effort continues Thursday when Obama visits Iowa City, Iowa, where as a presidential candidate he announced his health care plan in May 2007.

Obama's historic achievement was sealed late Sunday, when the House voted 219-212 — without a single Republican in favor — to send the 10-year bill to Obama. Passed by the Senate in December, the bill eventually will extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans and ban such insurance company practices as denying coverage to people with medical problems.

The House also passed the companion measure on Sunday, by a 220-211. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he has the votes to pass it in his chamber — though only under special budget rules requiring just a simple majority vote. Republicans plan to offer scores of amendments to slow or change that bill and stymie Democratic hopes to see it approved as written and sent directly to Obama for his signature.

The first changes under the overhaul take effect by the end of September. Other changes would not kick in until 2014.

By then, most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — through an employer, through a government program or by buying it for themselves. Those who refuse will face penalties from the IRS.

Tax credits to help pay for premiums also will start flowing to middle-class working families with incomes up to $88,000 a year, and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income people.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill awaiting Obama's signature would cut federal budget deficits by an estimated $143 billion over a decade.

The second measure, which House Democrats demanded before agreeing to the first one, includes money to close a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage over the next decade.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

I have mixed feelings about this

One hand I am glad that people who cant afford healthcare will be able to be treated but at the same time
it takes away from the quality of healthcare.

Many people come to the US to get treated, because you pay for what you get.

If everything is free, it diminishes the quality.

It means more taxation.

And those who are earning over 70K in the healthfield as either nurses or doctors. - FORGET IT.


Already they started shutting down hospitals as the economy gets tighter.

I dont mind helping our the other brother, but at the expense of myself?

Well People may not see it coming now but look at Europe, Canada, Universal Healthcare doesnt work .

What are your opinions?
We will start earning money like the Germans- as little as 24 k

platinumnk:

I have mixed feelings about this

One hand I am glad that people who cant afford healthcare will be able to be treated but at the same time
it takes away from the quality of healthcare.

you've been watching too much Fox news. How does it take away from the quality of healthcare? Pls explain.

platinumnk:

Many people come to the US to get treated, because you pay for what you get.

If everything is free, it diminishes the quality.

1. Even in single-payer health care systems it isnt free. You pay taxes for it.

2. How has single-payer diminished quality of health care in France? It is #1 for quality of health care in the world, the US is #37.

platinumnk:

It means more taxation.

you're just confused and parroting talking points you heard from somewhere.

Your last line says - "If everything is free, it diminishes the quality" . . . then you say "It means more taxation". Which is it? Free or taxation?
Where did you hear that you would be taxed more? Do you earn close to $250,000 a yr?

platinumnk:

And those who are earning over 70K in the healthfield as either nurses or doctors. - FORGET IT.

Absolute nonsense.

platinumnk:

Already they started shutting down hospitals as the economy gets tighter.

and this is the fault of this bill how?

platinumnk:

I dont mind helping our the other brother, but at the expense of myself?

How does the bill affect your own quality of care?

platinumnk:

Well People may not see it coming now but look at Europe, Canada, Universal Healthcare doesnt work .

What rubbish. Health care works in Germany, Canada, France e.t.c. they have better health care indices than the US by a very clear margin.

platinumnk:

What are your opinions?

that you really dont know what you're talking about and you shld stick to the romance threads.

platinumnk:

We will start earning money like the Germans- as little as 24 k

Where in the bill did you read this?

How will universal health insurance lead to nurses and doctors earning less?

platinumnk:

Well People may not see it coming now but look at Europe, Canada, Universal Healthcare doesnt work .

It works - the Europeans you are talking about spend less money per capita on healthcare than the US, and have a comparable (if not better) life expectancy.

Universal healthcare works in Canada - the only issues have been with regard to waiting lists for some medical procedures, which is being addressed.

Universal healthcare does work in Canada. Its so good to know that your income has very little impact on the quality of healthcare you receive.

It does work in Canada. Its one of the many factors that Canadians takes pride in.

you've been watching too much Fox news. How does it take away from the quality of healthcare? Pls explain.

Oh come on, when you get paid less? The price for a surgery will still be the same, and now you have to wait in long lines to see someone.  

Even places like Walgreens and CVS have begun to reject medicare for precriptions.

1. Even in single-payer health care systems it isnt free. You pay taxes for it.

2. How has single-payer diminished quality of health care in France? It is #1 for quality of health care in the world, the US is #37.

The US is already has a huge Debit. The poor cannot pay for it, whos pockets is it coming from?

What rubbish. Health care works in Germany, Canada, France e.t.c. they have better health care indices than the US by a very clear margin.

For where, me and you hear two different stories. My good sister works in Germany as a Nurse, she does not make enough to supplement her family. And she works long hours. They will chop off your pay to pay for this.

you're just confused and parroting talking points you heard from somewhere.

Your last line says - "If everything is free, it diminishes the quality" . . . then you say "It means more taxation". Which is it? Free or taxation?
Where did you hear that you would be taxed more? Do you earn close to $250,000 a yr?
It is both David, have you been to a free clinic before David?
The Free clinics here have almost 8 hours waits, and poor assistance, and we are already paying it with Taxes.
Now it has been multiplied all over the country.
If I go to a hospital that I know I will pay there is a hell of a difference.

How does the bill affect your own quality of care?
Doctors could opt out of options due to cost, there is likely going to be cap limits.

and this is the fault of this bill how?
It is not directly the fault of the bill but it will be, we are already in debt.
The Charity Hospital was closed in New Orleans, The Largest Psc Hospital will be closing in June, when you have to cut costs.  .

Absolute nonsense.
Not Really David, see how much these medical professions are earning in those Universal Countries.  


that you really dont know what you're talking about and you shld stick to the romance threads
Ad hominem

I must say, am impressed. I dont follow politricks (ye%ck@*) much but this sounds like one hell of a good news to me.

Congrats, America!

Platinum you have LITTLE or no understanding of the healthcare bill.

The crucial portion is this:

By then, most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — through an employer, through a government program or by buying it for themselves. Those who refuse will face penalties from the IRS.

That means you can still get your 'expensive' healthcare if you want, but the poor folk who aren't covered can at least get basic care as well.

It is unreasonable to suggest that adding a mere 30million people to a system that already covers 270million people will cause the quality to diminish the way you imply.

Most insurance will still be offered by PRIVATE companies so the wages will not reduce as a result of universal coverage.

You will still have the MAJORITY of healthcare offered privately, BUT no one will go bankrupt at the slightest illness anymore - because you MUST have some form of insurance so that doesn't happen.

Frankly, MOST people will see no changes in their daily lives/medical treatments, but it will make a dramatic impact on the lives of the 30m or so who have no cover and are in danger of losing all they have if they are unlucky to require extensive medical treatment.

platinumnk:

Oh come on, when you get paid less? The price for a surgery will still be the same, and now you have to wait in long lines to see someone.  

Can you be more clear on those 2 pls?

platinumnk:

Even places like Walgreens and CVS have begun to reject medicare for precriptions.

what has this to do with this bill?

platinumnk:

The US is already has a huge Debit. The poor cannot pay for it, whos pockets is it coming from?

this bill cuts the deficit by $138bn over 10yrs and more than $1tr over 20. Did you read the bill at all?

platinumnk:

For where, me and you hear two different stories. My good sister works in Germany as a Nurse, she does not make enough to supplement her family. And she works long hours. They will chop off your pay to pay for this.

what was this meant to answer? Is the issue about whether healthcare works in Germany or that your sister doesnt earn enough?

platinumnk:

It is both David, have you been to a free clinic before David?
The Free clinics here have almost 8 hours waits, and poor assistance, and we are already paying it with Taxes.
Now it has been multiplied all over the country.
If I go to a hospital that I know I will pay there is a hell of a difference.

I dont think you understand this bill at all. It isnt single-payer. Pls read up on the issues.

platinumnk:

Doctors could opt out of options due to cost, there is likely going to be cap limits.

huh? Actually there are cap limits on how much your insurance company can pay out for healthcare. This bill eliminates that.
What are you talking about? Doctors opt out of treating you due to cost of what?

platinumnk:

It is not directly the fault of the bill but it will be, we are already in debt.

How does this bill add to the debt? Did you read the CBO score?

platinumnk:

The Charity Hospital was closed in New Orleans, The Largest Psc Hospital will be closing in June, when you have to cut costs.  .

and what has this to do with health care bills?

platinumnk:

Not Really David, see how much these medical professions are earning in those Universal Countries.  

where did this bill seek to cap doctors pay? do you really understand the issues ma'am?

platinumnk:

Ad hominem

No its not . . . honestly. Its a sincere assessment of your baseless claims.

debosky:

Platinum you have LITTLE or no understanding of the healthcare bill.

The crucial portion is this:

That means you can still get your 'expensive' healthcare if you want, but the poor folk who aren't covered can at least get basic care as well.

It is unreasonable to suggest that adding a mere 30million people to a system that already covers 270million people will cause the quality to diminish the way you imply.

Most insurance will still be offered by PRIVATE companies so the wages will not reduce as a result of universal coverage.

You will still have the MAJORITY of healthcare offered privately, BUT no one will go bankrupt at the slightest illness anymore - because you MUST have some form of insurance so that doesn't happen.

Frankly, MOST people will see no changes in their daily lives/medical treatments, but it will make a dramatic impact on the lives of the 30m or so who have no cover and are in danger of losing all they have if they are unlucky to require extensive medical treatment.

You say its going to cover, Medicaid doesnt do enough as it is.
Seriously.

@David- There is a huge differencve between the Salary of a RN in Canada than here.

Would love to argue more . .  but got to run

France median salary PPP $ 2,379
Canada average income PPP $ 2,217
Germany average salary PPP $ 2,078
U.S. average salary  PPP $ 3,168 
Australia average income  PPP $ 2,703
  UK median salary  PPP $ 2,397  $

platinumnk:

Would love to argue more . .  but got to run

France median salary  PPP $ 2,379
Canada average income  PPP $ 2,217
Germany average salary  PPP $ 2,078 
U.S. average salary  PPP $ 3,168 
Australia average income  PPP $ 2,703
  UK median salary  PPP $ 2,397  $ 
 

What has this to do with the healthcare bill? 

platinumnk:

You say its going to cover, Medicaid doesnt do enough as it is.
Seriously.

It doesnt do "enough" but no one would dare repeal it . . . ditto for medicare. They are not perfect programs but they are very effective. Its interesting that the government spends far less on medicare/medicaid than it does on private health care.

platinumnk:

@David- There is a huge differencve between the Salary of a RN in Canada than here.

and? What does this have to do with healthcare?

Pls you dont understand this topic, read up on it before you return. thanks.

@platinumnk,

your argument is all over the place . . . the comparisons and contrasts serve no purpose and are almost incoherent. you basically have no idea what you're talking about.

davidylan:

What has this to do with the healthcare bill?

It doesnt do "enough" but no one would dare repeal it . . . ditto for medicare. They are not perfect programs but they are very effective. Its interesting that the government spends far less on medicare/medicaid than it does on private health care.

and? What does this have to do with healthcare?

Pls you dont understand this topic, read up on it before you return. thanks.

Im saying look at the salaries, all of them are lower than the US.
All of them, if you think the current salary of a Doctor will remain the same think again.

Insurance works based on that you can force the good people to pay enough to make up for the bad people. So they basically are saying everyone has to buy insurance from somewhere - which is good but they are not regulating the people we buy it from. Funny how their stocks all went up on this - best case for them they can set any rates they want and we have to buy it.

[PyRo]:

@platinumnk,

your argument is all over the place . . . the comparisons and contrasts serve no purpose and are almost incoherent. you basically have no idea what you're talking about.

u joined just to post, whats ur other id?

Finally, the Republicans can go commit suicide.

Obama's plan for a centrally managed government insurance program exacerbates Medicare's problems by redistributing even more income away from lower-paid primary care providers and misaligning doctors' financial incentives.

Like Medicare, the "public option" will control spending by using its purchasing clout and political leverage to dictate low prices to doctors. (Medicare pays doctors 20% to 30% less than private plans, on average.) While the public option is meant for the uninsured, employers will realize it's easier -- and cheaper -- to move employees into the government plan than continue workplace coverage.

The Lewin Group, a health-care policy research and consulting firm, estimates that enrollment in the public option will reach 131 million people if it's open to everyone and pays Medicare rates, as many expect. Fully two-thirds of the privately insured will move out of or lose coverage. As patients shift to a lower-paying government plan, doctors' incomes will decline by as much as 15% to 20% depending on their specialty.

Physician income declines will be accompanied by regulations that will make practicing medicine more costly, creating a double whammy of lower revenue and higher practice costs, especially for primary-care doctors who generally operate busy practices and work on thinner margins. For example, doctors will face expenses to deploy pricey electronic prescribing tools and computerized health records that are mandated under the Obama plan. For most doctors these capital costs won't be fully covered by the subsidies provided by the plan.

Government insurance programs also shift compliance costs directly onto doctors by encumbering them with rules requiring expensive staffing and documentation. It's a way for government health programs like Medicare to control charges. The rules are backed up with threats of arbitrary probes targeting documentation infractions. There will also be disproportionate fines, giving doctors and hospitals reason to overspend on their back offices to avoid reprisals.

The 60% of doctors who are self-employed will be hardest hit. That includes specialists, such as dermatologists and surgeons, who see a lot of private patients. But it also includes tens of thousands of primary-care doctors, the very physicians the Obama administration says need the most help.

Doctors will consolidate into larger practices to spread overhead costs, and they'll cram more patients into tight schedules to make up in volume what's lost in margin. Visits will be shortened and new appointments harder to secure. It already takes on average 18 days to get an initial appointment with an internist, according to the American Medical Association, and as many as 30 days for specialists like obstetricians and neurologists.

Right or wrong, more doctors will close their practices to new patients, especially patients carrying lower paying insurance such as Medicaid. Some doctors will opt out of the system entirely, going "cash only." If too many doctors take this route the government could step in -- as in Canada, for example -- to effectively outlaw private-only medical practice.

These changes are superimposed on a payment system where compensation often bears no connection to clinical outcomes. Medicare provides all the wrong incentives. Its charge-based system pays doctors more for delivering more care, meaning incomes rise as medical problems persist and decline when illness resolves.

So how should we reform our broken health-care system? Rather than redistribute physician income as a way to subsidize an expansion of government control, Mr. Obama should fix the payment system to align incentives with improved care. After years of working on this problem, Medicare has only a few token demonstration programs to show for its efforts. Medicare's failure underscores why an inherently local undertaking like a medical practice is badly managed by a remote and political bureaucracy.

But while Medicare has stumbled with these efforts, private health plans have made notable progress on similar payment reforms. Private plans are more likely to lead payment reform efforts because they have more motivation than Medicare to use pay as a way to achieve better outcomes.

Private plans already pay doctors more than Medicare because they compete to attract higher quality providers into their networks. This gives them every incentive, as well as added leverage, to reward good clinicians while penalizing or excluding bad ones. A recent report by PriceWaterhouse Coopers that examined 10 of the nation's largest commercial health plans found that eight had implemented performance-based pay measures for doctors. All 10 plans are expanding efforts to monitor quality improvement at the provider level.

Among the promising examples of private innovation in health-care delivery: In Pennsylvania, the Geisinger Clinic's "warranty" program, where providers take financial responsibility for the entire episode of care; or the experience of the Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Virginia, where doctors are paid more for delivering better outcomes.

There are plenty of alternatives to Mr. Obama's plan that expand coverage to the uninsured, give them the chance to buy private coverage like Congress enjoys, and limit government management over what are inherently personal transactions between doctors and patients.

[PyRo]:

@platinumnk,

your argument is all over the place . . . the comparisons and contrasts serve no purpose and are almost incoherent. you basically have no idea what you're talking about.

It is, because I didnt argue it correctly. The Bill Does impose a lot a changes, and I believe it wasnt thought out properly.

Obama's plan for a centrally managed government insurance program exacerbates Medicare's problems by redistributing even more income away from lower-paid primary care providers and misaligning doctors' financial incentives.

Like Medicare, the "public option" will control spending by using its purchasing clout and political leverage to dictate low prices to doctors. (Medicare pays doctors 20 percent to 30percent less than private plans, on average.) While the public option is meant for the uninsured, employers will realize it's easier -- and cheaper -- to move employees into the government plan than continue workplace coverage.

The Lewin Group, a health-care policy research and consulting firm, estimates that enrollment in the public option will reach 131 million people if it's open to everyone and pays Medicare rates, as many expect. Fully two-thirds of the privately insured will move out of or lose coverage. As patients shift to a lower-paying government plan, doctors' incomes will decline by as much as 15% to 20% depending on their specialty.

Physician income declines will be accompanied by regulations that will make practicing medicine more costly, creating a double whammy of lower revenue and higher practice costs, especially for primary-care doctors who generally operate busy practices and work on thinner margins. For example, doctors will face expenses to deploy pricey electronic prescribing tools and computerized health records that are mandated under the Obama plan. For most doctors these capital costs won't be fully covered by the subsidies provided by the plan.

Government insurance programs also shift compliance costs directly onto doctors by encumbering them with rules requiring expensive staffing and documentation. It's a way for government health programs like Medicare to control charges. The rules are backed up with threats of arbitrary probes targeting documentation infractions. There will also be disproportionate fines, giving doctors and hospitals reason to overspend on their back offices to avoid reprisals.

The 60 percent of doctors who are self-employed will be hardest hit. That includes specialists, such as dermatologists and surgeons, who see a lot of private patients. But it also includes tens of thousands of primary-care doctors, the very physicians the Obama administration says need the most help.

Doctors will consolidate into larger practices to spread overhead costs, and they'll cram more patients into tight schedules to make up in volume what's lost in margin. Visits will be shortened and new appointments harder to secure. It already takes on average 18 days to get an initial appointment with an internist, according to the American Medical Association, and as many as 30 days for specialists like obstetricians and neurologists.

Spam bot errfg!

Obama’s plan #1 Align incentives for excellence.
"Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will accelerate efforts to develop and disseminate best practices, and align reimbursement with provision of high quality health care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHB will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on physician-validated outcome measures.”

Even if clear criterion was established to measure “quality”, pay based on quality and not volume will automatically lower physician potential earnings. This will probably have the biggest negative impact on highly procedural subspecialties Any thoughts?

davidylan:

you've been watching too much Fox news. How does it take away from the quality of healthcare? Pls explain.

1. Even in single-payer health care systems it isnt free. You pay taxes for it.

2. How has single-payer diminished quality of health care in France? It is #1 for quality of health care in the world, the US is #37.

you're just confused and parroting talking points you heard from somewhere.

Your last line says - "If everything is free, it diminishes the quality" . . . then you say "It means more taxation". Which is it? Free or taxation?
Where did you hear that you would be taxed more? Do you earn close to $250,000 a yr?

Absolute nonsense.

and this is the fault of this bill how?

How does the bill affect your own quality of care?

What rubbish. Health care works in Germany, Canada, France e.t.c. they have better health care indices than the US by a very clear margin.

that you really dont know what you're talking about and you shld stick to the romance threads.

Where in the bill did you read this?

David,

This your post has made me laugh more than those dry jokes in the Jokes section.

You said it all well.

Next is immigration!

I need my latina hotties to be legal in America!

Abeg you people should leave Platinumk jare.

Everyone is just talking theory now, we shall see in a few years the true effect of this bill. Everyone should just take a seat and enjoy the show

JeSoul:

Abeg you people should leave Platinumk jare.

Everyone is just talking theory now, we shall see in a few years the true effect of this bill. Everyone should just take a seat and enjoy the show

Shldnt we just repeal it like your republican masters are threatening?

platinumnk:

Spam bot errfg!

Even the spambot does not agree with you ma'am. Its instructive to note that everyone who has posted here has had the exact same assessment of your claims - i.e. you dont know what you're talking about.

davidylan:

Shldnt we just repeal it like your republican masters are threatening?

Repeal what? abeg let it become law. Me I want to see what the o-messiah has done . And by the way, I have only one master and His name is Jesus Christ. Don't get it twisted homeboy.

Even the spambot does not agree with you ma'am. Its instructive to note that everyone who has posted here has had the exact same assessment of your claims - i.e. you dont know what you're talking about.

And there are millions of taxpaying Americans who agree with her. It is perhaps instructive for you to note that 

JeSoul:

Repeal what? abeg let it become law. Me I want to see what the o-messiah has done . And by the way, I have only one master and His name is Jesus Christ. Don't get it twisted homeboy.

Absurd.

JeSoul:

And there are millions of taxpaying Americans who agree with her. It is perhaps instructive for you to note that 

Folks like you who probably have no idea what's in the bill anyway.

Of course we know nothing. We only pay our taxes, obey the law, contribute to our communities and do our part to make America better. But who are we to voice our irrelevant opinions on how our money will be spent? how dare us.

@jesoul -thanks.

@david- i read the bill thank you but you people see what they want to happen, not what will happen.
they plan to adjust pay according to the quality of care- how will they measure quality?
and then if doctors opt to open more private practices because if the healthecare pays like medicaid then government will regulate private practices just like in canada.

JeSoul:

Of course we know nothing. We only pay our taxes, obey the law, contribute to our communities and do our part to make America better. But who are we to voice our irrelevant opinions on how our money will be spent? how dare us.

By all means voice your opinions . . . but make sure you are informed before you do so.

platinumnk:

david- i read the bill thank you but you people see what they want to happen, not what will happen.
they plan to adjust pay according to the quality of care- how will they measure quality?
and then if doctors opt to open more private practices because if the healthecare pays like medicaid then government will regulate private practices just like in canada.

All 2700 pages? you're lying. Its more than obvious. regulating doctor pay does not appear in the bill.

YAY!!

davidylan:

you've been watching too much Fox news. How does it take away from the quality of healthcare? Pls explain.

1. Even in single-payer health care systems it isnt free. You pay taxes for it.

2. How has single-payer diminished quality of health care in France? It is #1 for quality of health care in the world, the US is #37.

you're just confused and parroting talking points you heard from somewhere.

Your last line says - "If everything is free, it diminishes the quality" . . . then you say "It means more taxation". Which is it? Free or taxation?
Where did you hear that you would be taxed more? Do you earn close to $250,000 a yr?

Absolute nonsense.

and this is the fault of this bill how?

How does the bill affect your own quality of care?

What rubbish. Health care works in Germany, Canada, France e.t.c. they have better health care indices than the US by a very clear margin.

that you really dont know what you're talking about and you shld stick to the romance threads.

Where in the bill did you read this?

Well said.