PDA

View Full Version : US House passes key healthcare reform bill



Madgrenade
22nd March 10, 08:01 AM
The Beeb informs us.

The US House of Representatives has narrowly voted to pass a landmark healthcare reform bill at the heart of President Barack Obama's agenda.

It extends coverage to 32 million more Americans, and marks the biggest change to the US healthcare system in decades.

"We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things," Mr Obama said in remarks after the vote.
"This legislation will not fix everything that ails our healthcare system, but it moves us decisively in the right direction," he said.

Mr Obama is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8579322.stm


So will this news have the Americans on this forum jumping for joy? No more worrying about whether you are able to get treatment? No more ignoring the pain to avoid massive medical bill.

As a Brit I would like to welcome you into the world of socialised healthcare. Maybe in time you will learn to care for one another as we have.

But are there those out there who bemoan the increased taxation that this will cause? Americans voted for change, but was this the kind of change you wanted? Is this the first step on the long and dangerous road to total bloody commie redness?

I will share a little story. When I was bottled round the face in a street fight many years ago, an ambulance came and picked me up, took me to the hospital, diagnosed me with a broken jaw, then sent me home. The following day I was taken to the hospital where a team of surgeons was waiting to tend on me. They operated, fixed up my jawbone with a bit of titanium. I stayed the night and the next day was sent on my merry way to heal up. All this at not one pennies charge to myself. And I must say, looking back, I am jolly grateful.

So, enlightened cause of caring society?

or commie conspiracy to bankrupt the hardworking American taxpayer?

You decide.

EvilSteve
22nd March 10, 08:27 AM
My biggest problem with this bill is the presence of a mandate with a lack of a public option. If you can't afford insurance now, charging you $2K-$3K / year for what you already can't afford doesn't make sense.

Is it a step down the road to socialized medicine, or as I like to call it- COMMIE DOCTORS. Yes, it is, and hopefully we'll get there soon, because half-assed bills like this will tend to cause more problems than they solve in the long run.

COMMIE DOCTORS all the way baby!

partyboy
22nd March 10, 09:05 AM
But are there those out there who bemoan the increased taxation that this will cause? Americans voted for change, but was this the kind of change you wanted? Is this the first step on the long and dangerous road to total bloody commie redness?

I will share a little story. When I was bottled round the face in a street fight many years ago, an ambulance came and picked me up, took me to the hospital, diagnosed me with a broken jaw, then sent me home. The following day I was taken to the hospital where a team of surgeons was waiting to tend on me. They operated, fixed up my jawbone with a bit of titanium. I stayed the night and the next day was sent on my merry way to heal up. All this at not one pennies charge to myself. And I must say, looking back, I am jolly grateful.

So, enlightened cause of caring society?

or commie conspiracy to bankrupt the hardworking American taxpayer?

You decide.

Saying this in a mocking, Glenn Beck-esque voice made my day...

BadUglyMagic
22nd March 10, 09:33 AM
Universal coverage is a grand ideal. Of course, the people who lose their employement because the employer was forced to lay off workers to pay the taxes and premiums in order to comply the law, will eventually disagree.

A good read on this is the moral and storyline of the children's book,"Drummer Hoff Fired It Off".

EvilSteve
22nd March 10, 09:46 AM
That's been a favored bugaboo of opponents of socialized medicine for some time. However, given that with universal state run healthcare employers would no longer have to pay for private insurance for their employees, I don't see the increased tax burden (which would be shared by employees) wouldn't be offset by the relief of private healthcare costs. Furthermore, private insurance must be run for a profit, which would tend to increase costs over a state-run system which does not.

Don't get me wrong- I'm generally not a fan of socialism, and I do appreciate that we Americans tend to have far lower tax rates than most other developed nations. However, no one chooses to get sick and to me forcing people to pay for private healthcare is tantamount to forcing them to pay for private security because a government run police department would impose undue tax burden.

BadUglyMagic
22nd March 10, 10:04 AM
That's been a favored bugaboo of opponents of socialized medicine for some time. However, given that with universal state run healthcare employers would no longer have to pay for private insurance for their employees,


I don't see the increased tax burden (which would be shared by employees) wouldn't be offset by the relief of private healthcare costs. Furthermore, private insurance must be run for a profit, which would tend to increase costs over a state-run system which does not.

Don't get me wrong- I'm generally not a fan of socialism, .

I believe you would benefit by reading the section where the taxes are identified and the taxpayers are identified.

This is not medical socialism.

It is a very expensive change to system with greater inefficiencies. Someone will have to pay for it.

Please elaborate on the belief as to why you believe there will be an offset of any kind. Also, why do you believe state run programs cost less to operate than private sector programs? Hint: The profit motive is not part of it.

KO'd N DOA
22nd March 10, 10:42 AM
Will the US now be letting in Cuban Doctors to make up for the urgent need for doctors that just came up over night, or are you about to steal my family doctor - again-?

Madgrenade
22nd March 10, 10:42 AM
So does this new reform not quarentee healthcare provisions to all U.S citizens? If it does not then its provisions are sorely lacking.

EvilSteve
22nd March 10, 10:42 AM
No- it's not medical socialism- I just love to use that word because some folks react to it like vampires to a crucifix. Hence the obviously farcical COMMIE DOCTORS.

However, as to why I think there would be an offset, here are some figures on per capita expenditures on healthcare:

US (private): $7290
Norway (public): $4763
Switzerland (private regulated - mandatory care is nonprofit): $4162
Canada (public): $3895

Source (http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_20091119_e)

So, with a nearly $2500 drop in expenditures for comparable services between US and Norway and a near $3500 drop between US and Canada, I would tend to say that the profit motive is a big factor. Swiss healthcare, while private, is heavily regulated. They share a mandate similar to the one in the current US healthcare bill, however, insurers are prohibited from making a profit from the mandated minimum insurance, which seems to keep costs down. They do also have higher out-of-pocket payments, but they have hard caps on them so no one ends up with a medical bankruptcy. However, having been to Switzerland, it was my observation that the Swiss tend to live a bit healthier than a) Americans and b) continental Europeans, so that probably helps as well.

EvilSteve
22nd March 10, 10:46 AM
So does this new reform not quarentee healthcare provisions to all U.S citizens? If it does not then its provisions are sorely lacking.

No, it does not, and it is sorely lacking. However, there is such opposition to healthcare reform in this country that this is about the best they could do at the moment. It's going to cause problems, and people are going to be pissed about it. While I think in theory it's a step in the right direction, I think it's possible that problems with this bill will long term increase opposition to national healthcare rather than decrease it.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 10:52 AM
It is a slight improvement on the status quo. But I'm not celebrating. It still leaves the hard work of cost control and systemic reform undone. Obama spent a metric fuckton of political capital, pretty much all he had and some deficit spending, on a fairly trivial piece of legislation.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 10:53 AM
No- it's not medical socialism- I just love to use that word because some folks react to it like vampires to a crucifix. Hence the obviously farcical COMMIE DOCTORS.

However, as to why I think there would be an offset, here are some figures on per capita expenditures on healthcare:

US (private): $7290
Norway (public): $4763
Switzerland (private regulated - mandatory care is nonprofit): $4162
Canada (public): $3895

Source (http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_20091119_e)

So, with a nearly $2500 drop in expenditures for comparable services between US and Norway and a near $3500 drop between US and Canada, I would tend to say that the profit motive is a big factor. Swiss healthcare, while private, is heavily regulated. They share a mandate similar to the one in the current US healthcare bill, however, insurers are prohibited from making a profit from the mandated minimum insurance, which seems to keep costs down. They do also have higher out-of-pocket payments, but they have hard caps on them so no one ends up with a medical bankruptcy. However, having been to Switzerland, it was my observation that the Swiss tend to live a bit healthier than a) Americans and b) continental Europeans, so that probably helps as well.

Correlation does not equal causation. The statement you buried at the end of your post is much more important than the numbers at the top of it.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 10:54 AM
It is a slight improvement on the status quo. But I'm not celebrating. It still leaves the hard work of cost control and systemic reform undone. Obama spent a metric fuckton of political capital, pretty much all he had and some deficit spending, on a fairly trivial piece of legislation.

And has essentially guaranteed a Republican sweep in Congress this midterm cycle.

Not to mention how this bill is completely unconstitutional.

Madgrenade
22nd March 10, 11:01 AM
And has essentially guaranteed a Republican sweep in Congress this midterm cycle.

Not to mention how this bill is completely unconstitutional.

How so unconstitutional?

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 11:01 AM
Not to mention how this bill is completely unconstitutional.

You are not allowed to use that word till you learn what it means.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 11:13 AM
You are not allowed to use that word till you learn what it means.

I don't know what it means?

Please point out the provision in the constitution which allows the government to fine people who chose not to purchase a service.

(Hint: it's not in the Commerce Clause.)

Madgrenade
22nd March 10, 11:30 AM
No, it does not, and it is sorely lacking. However, there is such opposition to healthcare reform in this country that this is about the best they could do at the moment. It's going to cause problems, and people are going to be pissed about it. While I think in theory it's a step in the right direction, I think it's possible that problems with this bill will long term increase opposition to national healthcare rather than decrease it.

So who gets left out? How does one decide who gets free treatment and who doesn't?

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 11:47 AM
I don't know what it means?

Please point out the provision in the constitution which allows the government to fine people who chose not to purchase a service.

(Hint: it's not in the Commerce Clause.)
Hint, yeah it is, also general welfare.

Unless you think that marijuana cultivated in your own garden for your own use is more of a commercial activity than buying insurance from a national provider is.

edit: cspan debate on the topic. Libertarian nutbag gets rayp'd.

http://fora.tv/2009/10/26/Are_Healthcare_Purchase_Mandates_Constitutional#fu llprogram

jkdbuck76
22nd March 10, 11:53 AM
No, it does not, and it is sorely lacking. However, there is such opposition to healthcare reform in this country that this is about the best they could do at the moment. It's going to cause problems, and people are going to be pissed about it. While I think in theory it's a step in the right direction, I think it's possible that problems with this bill will long term increase opposition to national healthcare rather than decrease it.


So you are saying: nice idea; piss-poor execution ?

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd March 10, 11:59 AM
And has essentially guaranteed a Republican sweep in Congress this midterm cycle.
My concern is they aren't going to make proper usage of this potential.
They will get fucking mired down in being more Anti-Obama then Pro-Everything Else.

new2bjj
22nd March 10, 12:23 PM
I want my constitutional right to be denied health care insurance because of pre-existing conditions! How is my doctor going to pay for his Porsche and what about the persecuted insurance companies!? This is very unfair! The next thing you know, they'll start asking doctors to do a pre treatment checklist!

BadUglyMagic
22nd March 10, 01:05 PM
It is a slight improvement on the status quo. But I'm not celebrating. It still leaves the hard work of cost control and systemic reform undone. Obama spent a metric fuckton of political capital, pretty much all he had and some deficit spending, on a fairly trivial piece of legislation.


While I disagree that it is an improvement on the status quo, you are right on the money about cost control and systemic reform.

What has happened is that everyone has to have insurance and someone/some entity will pay the premiums. There federal govt is now a middleman with the pwer to seize and sell your personal property if you do not pay your premiums or carry insurance.

Who is going to administer the insurance programs? The current insurance companies.

Can you identify any section of the that makes any cost control or systemic reform which/that does not increase costs or inefficiencies elsewhere?

Phrost
22nd March 10, 01:14 PM
I want my constitutional right to be denied health care insurance because of pre-existing conditions! How is my doctor going to pay for his Porsche and what about the persecuted insurance companies!? This is very unfair! The next thing you know, they'll start asking doctors to do a pre treatment checklist!


Yeah! That guy's got stuff. I don't have stuff. I can't go take his stuff myself, so Government should!

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 01:16 PM
While I disagree that it is an improvement on the status quo, you are right on the money about cost control and systemic reform.

What has happened is that everyone has to have insurance and someone/some entity will pay the premiums. There federal govt is now a middleman with the pwer to seize and sell your personal property if you do not pay your premiums or carry insurance.

Who is going to administer the insurance programs? The current insurance companies.

Can you identify any section of the that makes any cost control or systemic reform which/that does not increase costs or inefficiencies elsewhere?
Actually yes. One of the major drags on our current health system is that we currently use our emergency medical system to provide basic care to people without insurance. Which means that they take up a thousand dollar an hour emergency room bed to get looked at when they have a bad case of the flu, instead of a $50 doctors office visit.

If you look at the numbers, this is actually one of the major reasons our medical care is so expensive. The others are excessive treatments (especially tests) and an unbelieveably convoluted payment process that causes most hospitals to have more claim processors on staff than nurses.

EvilSteve
22nd March 10, 01:25 PM
So you are saying: nice idea; piss-poor execution ?

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. Between a GOP that stonewalled the hell out of this and a few Democrats who were in the pocket of the insurance co's, however, I think this was the best that was going to happen at the moment.

EvilSteve
22nd March 10, 01:36 PM
Correlation does not equal causation. The statement you buried at the end of your post is much more important than the numbers at the top of it.

No, it does not- and I'll be the first to say that there are many, many things that we as Americans can do personally to reduce the cost of keeping ourselves healthy (hey, do a sit-up for one). However, given how freaking greedy our insurance industry is / has become, I think this particular correlation may be indicative of causation.

As for this being a guaranteed sweep for the GOP in November, I'm not so sure about that. The people most pissed off by this bill weren't going to vote Democratic anyway, and this victory has stirred a great deal of enthusiasm in disenchanted Democratic voters. So, there may be a GOP sweep in November, but I suspect it will be despite this rather than because of it.

EvilSteve
22nd March 10, 01:43 PM
So who gets left out? How does one decide who gets free treatment and who doesn't?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that NO ONE gets free treatment under the current bill. They set up exchanges to buy insurance at the lowest rate possible, ban recission, ban denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions, allow people to be covered under their parents' policies until they're 26, and fine anyone who doesn't buy insurance $2500 / year. People making under $24K / year are exempted from that last bit.

As I've heard pointed out, this is remarkably similar to a GOP bill that never went through, and at a less divided time in our history we could have probably got a better one.

EDIT: Three posts in a row, for the hat trick!

Phrost
22nd March 10, 01:58 PM
Hey, look at that:



In 2009, health care costs were 17.3% of GDP.

Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8% of GDP)

Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9% of GDP)

---

This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured must purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.

---

Access to the “high risk pool” is limited and the pool is underfunded. It will cover few people, and will run out of money in 2011 or 2012

Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the CMS report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.



Looks Constitutional to me.

Oh wait, I meant extortion. Way to "reform" the bloated, corrupt health care industry by forcing people to send them money!

Great job!

new2bjj
22nd March 10, 02:01 PM
Yeah! That guy's got stuff. I don't have stuff. I can't go take his stuff myself, so Government should!

Considering that most schools that doctors and insurance executives go to are funded by the state, and drug company "research" has massive tax breaks, grants and incentives, yes, they need some of their stuff taken. Also, considering most doctors are arrogant, have god complexes and act like spoiled children in the operating room, yes, fuck them.

Also, what value does an insurance company have, it it only wants to take in premiums, yet never wants to pay? Honestly Phrost, I have perfectly healthy middle aged friends (who are small business owners, which seem to be the only people that count in your world view) who have been denied health care, and I work at a job with a poor guy who hates it here, but must stay for his 5 year old daughters coverage (she has childhood arthritis), the system is fucked up.

I realize that you have foregone all your VA benefits, and will not take social security or medicare, but we can't all be heroes and run a website about martial arts like you .

EvilSteve
22nd March 10, 02:21 PM
Hey, look at that:



Looks Constitutional to me.

Oh wait, I meant extortion. Way to "reform" the bloated, corrupt health care industry by forcing people to send them money!

Great job!

Oddly, this is the main criticism from the left of this bill. I imagine it's the same on the right, but I couldn't hear those people over the din of OMGSOCIALISMWTF???

Seriously though, there are some good things in this bill, and this ISN'T one of them. I think everyone involved in writing it knew that, but there was too much infighting to get a viable public option added to it. I suspect this is another reason we won't see the insurance fine come into play until well after the 2012 elections.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 02:27 PM
Considering that most schools that doctors and insurance executives go to our funded by the state, and drug company "research" has massive tax breaks, grants and incentives, yes, they need some of their stuff taken.

So when are you applying for Cuban citizenship, Fidel?


Also, considering most doctors are arrogant, have good complexes and act like spoiled children in the operating room, yes, fuck them.

Well then, I guess that just settles the issue.

(I stopped reading at that point.)

kracker
22nd March 10, 02:31 PM
I can see both sides of the argument. I'm not a misanthropic asshole who thinks poor people should die because they can't afford life saving treatment. I might ideologically agree with some socialist ideas, but the problem is they only ever seem to work in principle. Government has a proven track record for fucking up everything they touch and the more powerful they get the more corrupt they get. Hopefully this works the way it's supposed to but I'm not bouncing up and down with optimism.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 02:44 PM
Hey, look at that:



Looks Constitutional to me.

Oh wait, I meant extortion. Way to "reform" the bloated, corrupt health care industry by forcing people to send them money!

Great job!

Looks exactly as constitutional as the law that requires you to pay into a government mandated retirement fund unless you have an equivalent and taxes you to ensure compliance.

You know, social security.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 02:52 PM
Looks exactly as constitutional as the law that requires you to pay into a government mandated retirement fund unless you have an equivalent and taxes you to ensure compliance.

You know, social security.

Social Security is levied as a tax, this is a penalty.

Not to mention that in Bailey vs. Drexel Furniture, the Supreme Court decided that taxes cannot be used to penalize behavior.

But all of that aside, even if you support UHC, you have to realize what a huge pile of garbage this bill is. It's literally a step in the opposite direction to force people to pay money to private companies.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 02:58 PM
Hint, yeah it is, also general welfare.

Unless you think that marijuana cultivated in your own garden for your own use is more of a commercial activity than buying insurance from a national provider is.

Wait, so what you're saying is that not having healthcare is now, and should be considered, a crime?

Cullion
22nd March 10, 02:58 PM
You mean after all that fucking hoo-haa, Obama just made it illegal not to buy private insurance instead of giving it out for free?

lolz.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 03:01 PM
You mean after all that fucking hoo-haa, Obama just made it illegal not to buy private insurance instead of giving it out for free?

lolz.

Pretty much, in a nutshell.

Also, if you don't fall into lockstep and start sending a chunk of your paycheck to a private insurance company, you will be fined up to 2% of your income.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:03 PM
Wait, so what you're saying is that not having healthcare is now, and should be considered, a crime?
Where does crime enter into this? There is no criminal procedure necessary to impose a fee or a tax (depending on which version they implement).

Cullion
22nd March 10, 03:06 PM
HoG, would you be annoyed if a Republican president did this ?

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:07 PM
HoG, would you be annoyed if a Republican president did this ?

Your reading comprehension is going way downhill old boy. I'm annoyed that a democratic president did this.

That doesn't make phrosts argument about constitutionality any less retarded.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 03:08 PM
Where does crime enter into this? There is no criminal procedure necessary to impose a fee or a tax (depending on which version they implement).

You drew the comparison when you referenced the Government's power to regulate growth of marijuana.

Because that's what's happening here; the government is assessing a fine (not a "fee" you disingenuous cocksucker, fees are paid for services) as a penalty for not paying an insurance company.

Cullion
22nd March 10, 03:10 PM
In your constitution, does a fine levied without a trial constitute 'unreasonable seizure' ?

Cullion
22nd March 10, 03:10 PM
Your reading comprehension is going way downhill old boy. I'm annoyed that a democratic president did this.

I'm just not feeling it. I think you should be even more annoyed.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd March 10, 03:15 PM
I'm just not feeling it. I think you should be even more annoyed.

I think he is "annoyed" because he wanted even more in the bill by way of universal health care coverage, while Republicans are "annoyed" because it exists, at all.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:16 PM
You drew the comparison when you referenced the Government's power to regulate growth of marijuana.


No, I drew a reference to an on target court precedent that happened to be about marijuana. Another identical precedent exists for growing wheat. The government didn't claim that they were imposing a criminal law on the states, because that they can't do. Instead they said that they had authority to prohibit legalization as part of their commerce clause powers, and the supreme court agreed.


In your constitution, does a fine levied without a trial constitute 'unreasonable seizure' ?

Not when it's a fee or a tax.

Cullion
22nd March 10, 03:17 PM
What's your definition of a fine compared to a fee or tax ?

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:20 PM
I think he is "annoyed" because he wanted even more in the bill by way of universal health care coverage, while Republicans are "annoyed" because it exists, at all.

Republicans had a bill on the table almost exactly like this one a year ago. They are pissed because a democrat is in the white house.

But yes, I am pissed at the shitty handling that led us to this useless bill. The bill itself I could take or leave. For all phrosts ranting and raving, it really does almost nothing.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 03:20 PM
He's using the word "fee" because he doesn't want to admit that it's a "fine".

A fee is something charged for a service. In this case, there's no goddamn service.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:20 PM
What's your definition of a fine compared to a fee or tax ?

Something applied punitively by a court.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 03:23 PM
So in your Constitutional expertise, only the Judicial branch has the power to assess fines.

Am I getting that correct?

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:23 PM
A fee is something charged for a service. In this case, there's no goddamn service.

This is a fee for the health care that the government provides. I pay fees every day for services I don't use that support the general good. Fees to support schools being one obvious one.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd March 10, 03:26 PM
Fees to support schools being one obvious one.
However you have the ability to move to an adults-only community that does not have education bonds/taxes/fees and avoid this.

Cullion
22nd March 10, 03:27 PM
Something applied punitively by a court.

So by definition, it's impossible for the state to fine you without a court trial, because if you don't get a trial it cannot be a fine ?

Phrost
22nd March 10, 03:28 PM
This is a fee for the health care that the government provides. I pay fees every day for services I don't use that support the general good. Fees to support schools being one obvious one.

So you're saying the money collected by the IRS for this will only be used for health care that the government provides.

Is that correct?

If it proves to not be, can I come to your house and punch you in the eye socket?

Feryk
22nd March 10, 03:29 PM
So basically all this bill does is force the insurance industry to take everyone, and force everyone to take insurance?

Did I get that right?

Cullion
22nd March 10, 03:29 PM
This is a fee for the health care that the government provides. I pay fees every day for services I don't use that support the general good. Fees to support schools being one obvious one.


This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured must purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties

It sounds more like a punitive charge for refusing to become a customer of a corporation to me.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:30 PM
So in your Constitutional expertise, only the Judicial branch has the power to assess fines.

Am I getting that correct?

Yes.

But the courts have specifically allowed taxes that also have punitive or other intents as long as they collect revenue and are otherwise permissible. Think about fuel efficiency standards for example.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 03:31 PM
So by definition, it's impossible for the state to fine you without a court trial, because if you don't get a trial it cannot be a fine ?

Well hopefully he's not saying the Supreme Court would be levying individual fines to people who don't want to fork money over to the corrupt insurance industry.

At least not until after they decide on MacDonald vs. Chicago.

Cullion
22nd March 10, 03:37 PM
Yes.

But the courts have specifically allowed taxes that also have punitive or other intents as long as they collect revenue

How could a fine not collect revenue ?



and are otherwise permissible.

What does this bit mean ?


Think about fuel efficiency standards for example.

This sounds like a fine too.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:39 PM
It sounds more like a punitive charge for refusing to become a customer of a corporation to me.

There are waivers. But substantially yes. That is what it is.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:42 PM
This sounds like a fine too.

Again. Don't confuse arguments about constitutionality with arguments about policy. They may be a fine if you are thinking about their intent, but they aren't when you talk about whether they are constitutional or not.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 03:43 PM
There are waivers. But substantially yes. That is what it is.

So you agree that this is, literally, fascist.

Feryk
22nd March 10, 03:43 PM
If I were a rich American businessman, like Warren Buffet, I'd be jumping into the Heath Insurance business....oh, wait...

Am I the only one who thinks the 'bad, evil, insurance companies' that Obama has been railing against, have just made out like bandits?

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:44 PM
So you agree that this is, literally, fascist.

The highlighted word also is another one you aren't allowed to use anymore.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:46 PM
If I were a rich American businessman, like Warren Buffet, I'd be jumping into the Heath Insurance business....oh, wait...

Am I the only one who thinks the 'bad, evil, insurance companies' that Obama has been railing against, have just made out like bandits?
You are correct. The public option was supposed to be the check against that. But in the real fight (the one between the insurance companies, the providers, and the suppliers over who was going to give up what in the interests of preserving a functioning healthcare system) the insurance industry won.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 03:49 PM
The highlighted word also is another one you aren't allowed to use anymore.

So how is this not a move towards strong nationalism featuring corporatist collectivism?

You're literally forcing nearly everyone in the nation to send a portion of their pay to corporations.

Feryk
22nd March 10, 03:51 PM
^ This is the stupid part. Pretty sure I'd rather just pay higher taxes than this.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 03:52 PM
So how is this not a move towards strong nationalism featuring corporatist collectivism?

You're literally forcing nearly everyone in the nation to send a portion of their pay to corporations.

Not nationalist. Not corporatist collectivism. Nor are those two things alone sufficient to call something fascist.

The second sentence is correct. Or close enough for government work.

BadUglyMagic
22nd March 10, 03:56 PM
Actually yes. One of the major drags on our current health system is that we currently use our emergency medical system to provide basic care to people without insurance. Which means that they take up a thousand dollar an hour emergency room bed to get looked at when they have a bad case of the flu, instead of a $50 doctors office visit.

If you look at the numbers, this is actually one of the major reasons our medical care is so expensive. The others are excessive treatments (especially tests) and an unbelieveably convoluted payment process that causes most hospitals to have more claim processors on staff than nurses.


Can you supply the numbers on a systemic basis for a major city or MSA?

Abuse of services happpens. Emergency rooms do not assign beds to people with the flu. They tend to let the infected sit in the waiting area infecting others.

Excessive treatments? Please to define.

The convoluted payment process for federal payments is not the fault of insurance companies, but of the same federal bureaucracy that will be inserted itself as overseer. It will only get worse.

This is more about seizing power, both political and economic than it is about providing any benefits.

Feryk
22nd March 10, 04:01 PM
See, here I thought one of your biggest problems was the pharma companies charging you guys 5 times what the rest of the world pays for your drugs. This bill didn't do anything about that did it?

Fearless Ukemi
22nd March 10, 04:08 PM
If I were a rich American businessman, like Warren Buffet, I'd be jumping into the Heath Insurance business....oh, wait...

Am I the only one who thinks the 'bad, evil, insurance companies' that Obama has been railing against, have just made out like bandits?


Dude, this is THEIR bill. Millions of guaranteed new customers at government mandate.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 04:09 PM
Can you supply the numbers on a systemic basis for a major city or MSA?

Abuse of services happpens. Emergency rooms do not assign beds to people with the flu. They tend to let the infected sit in the waiting area infecting others.

Excessive treatments? Please to define.

The convoluted payment process for federal payments is not the fault of insurance companies, but of the same federal bureaucracy that will be inserted itself as overseer. It will only get worse.

This is more about seizing power, both political and economic than it is about providing any benefits.

The convoluted payment process is for each insurer, of which there are hundreds. Medicare is only one, and isn't close to the worst.

You really don't understand the basics of the problem. Emergency rooms do assign people beds for the flu. They are required by law to provide service to anyone who walks in. They are the only ones required to do so. That means that the most expensive way to provide care is the only way available to people who can't afford to pay.

The best single resource on health care costs and analysis is the kaiser foundation. But google can find you lots of others.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/index.cfm

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd March 10, 04:11 PM
So how is this not a move towards strong nationalism featuring corporatist collectivism?

You're literally forcing nearly everyone in the nation to send a portion of their pay to corporations.

It is a stop-gap measure to get people accustomed to this concept and allow the health care sector a chance to build up their infrastructure so the government can then implement stage 2 which will be to cut out the need for Insurance Companies and run it themselves.

Feryk
22nd March 10, 04:12 PM
Dude, this is THEIR bill. Millions of guaranteed new customers at government mandate.

Read 'Guaranteed Government Profits'. See your Mortgage debacle and Fannie Mae for how well that worked out.

This is potentially the DUMBEST way of doing this there could be.

OTOH, I'm now looking into Aetna, Cigna and Fortis as potential investments.

Feryk
22nd March 10, 04:12 PM
It is a stop-gap measure to get people accustomed to this concept and allow the health care sector a chance to build up their infrastructure so the government can then implement stage 2 which will be to cut out the need for Insurance Companies and run it themselves.

Which is infinitely smarter.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 04:14 PM
It is a stop-gap measure to get people accustomed to this concept and allow the health care sector a chance to build up their infrastructure so the government can then implement stage 2 which will be to cut out the need for Insurance Companies and run it themselves.
That was the original plan.

This mess is a political stop gap so they can declare victory and get away from the issue. It doesn't actually have any policy objectives at all.

The fat paycheck to the insurance companies is a 'fine' for having the temerity to even contemplate crossing them.

Cullion
22nd March 10, 04:23 PM
I actually don't think there's that much to argue over between the grassroots of the left and right here.

The only people who won sound like insurance corporations.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd March 10, 04:28 PM
I actually don't think there's that much to argue over between the grassroots of the left and right here.

The only people who won sound like insurance corporations.
Which is where the Right would like the whole she-bang to end:
with profits to the insurance companies and presumably jobs being created in health care and in the insurance companies.

The Left would, presumably, like it to continue on to Government run and controlled, with presumably jobs transferring from the private sector, in the form of insurance companies, to public sector, in the form of "the Department of..." or "the Office of....."

Blue Negation
22nd March 10, 04:32 PM
I know some of the "insurance companies made out like bandits" talk is being funny/cynical, but if it were profitable for them to have those people which the companies are now required to take on as customers before, wouldn't they have done so?

I was under the impression that the bill required insurers to supply coverage to those who would actually be using their medical insurance, costing the insurance companies more than the premiums paid in. Yes, more customers - but customers who require pay-outs (which is why the companies dropped them or refused to cover them).

Is this impression mistaken?

Phrost
22nd March 10, 04:45 PM
They could have probably taken them on and stayed profitable. They just won't make as much profit now.

Which is why service will undoubtedly go to shit as the members of their boards and other smart shareholders slowly divest themselves of ownership and leadership of those companies.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 04:50 PM
I know some of the "insurance companies made out like bandits" talk is being funny/cynical, but if it were profitable for them to have those people which the companies are now required to take on as customers before, wouldn't they have done so?

I was under the impression that the bill required insurers to supply coverage to those who would actually be using their medical insurance, costing the insurance companies more than the premiums paid in. Yes, more customers - but customers who require pay-outs (which is why the companies dropped them or refused to cover them).

Is this impression mistaken?

It's a mix. They are being theoretically being forced to cover the uninsurables (previous conditions), but most of the most expensive of those will fall into the new expanded medicaid system. In the meantime, they will get to cover all those groovy healthy young folks who will be forced into the system.

Again, most of the real fight (i.e. not the one on TV or in phrosts fantasyland) has been about all the players wanting to keep the cream and dump the skim on the government. Of all of them, the insurance industry had the most to lose but came out the most whisker licking.

Cullion
22nd March 10, 04:51 PM
I'm not sure why Americans bother to vote any more.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd March 10, 04:53 PM
I'm not sure why Americans bother to vote any more.
Considering the turnout of our last local elections was just >10%, many agree with you

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 05:00 PM
I'm not sure why Americans bother to vote any more.
It lets our wannabe alphas duke it out without tearing up the furniture too much.

Robot Jesus
22nd March 10, 05:01 PM
And has essentially guaranteed a Republican sweep in Congress this midterm cycle.




possible, but could go the other way as well.

if republicans don't change tactics when it comes to the coming financial reform they will loose the angry populists. also around that time people will start to get some of the benefits of this package. I could go into detail, but I would just be copying this article i just read.
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

it should be noted this guy came up with the axis of evil (he wanted hatred but Bush went off script).





Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

this will end up like Canada, campaigning to allow insurers to drop paitents who use their services will never be a winning platform.

Feryk
22nd March 10, 05:11 PM
this will end up like Canada, campaigning to allow insurers to drop paitents who use their services will never be a winning platform.

David Frum is a Canadian, btw :)

You guys should be so lucky as to have our health care system, compared to this Frankenstein's monster that just passed.

You have a for PROFIT industry that has been mandated to take patients - people who you know damn well are unprofitable. So, let me ask you, do you think the corporation and it's shareholders will just say, 'okay, let's make less now'?

Hell no. They can and will raise rates. They can and will blame the government - who made themselves the ultimate scapegoat. They can and will lobby and appeal for 'adequate funding' for increased payouts - or they won't be able to continue to operate under these conditions. Then will come the massive bailout at your expense. And, of course, you will pay for it with higher taxes.

It's the mortgage bubble all over again. Well done you.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 05:17 PM
Eh, there is nothing inherently wrong with mandated private insurance. It's the system used by a bunch of the most effective healthcare systems in the world.

But if you are going to go that route, and control costs, you need the government to be planting it's hobnail boots quite firmly on the insurance companies necks. It needs to centralize processing, set standards on coverage, require the companies to insure everyone, and basically let the insurance companies compete solely on who can process payments the cheapest and provide the best customer service.

Once you let the insurance companies try to slice and dice coverage plans and set services, that's where the perverse incentives go haywire.

Phrost
22nd March 10, 05:18 PM
And now we've got insurance companies that are "too big to fail".

Robot Jesus
22nd March 10, 05:20 PM
I think any sort of conclusion about how much people actually want this is going to be highly inaccurate, but I would guess that it's more popular then it appears; more often then no the louder group are the ones in the weaker position.

Aphid Jones
22nd March 10, 05:32 PM
So it turns out that to convince Pro-life Democrats not to vote down the bill, Obama promised to issue an executive order which he claims will prevent any of the bill's measures from being used to Federally fund abortion.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/26668

Both sides of the debate are having a major shitstorm. Checks and balances collapsing, cats and dogs living together, etc.

Wounded Ronin
22nd March 10, 07:51 PM
I blame the Republican party for the mediocre frankenstein monster bill that just got passed. They had to go and filibuster hoping that by making Obama fail they'd gain political power in a few years. As a result they made it into a pissing contest between Republicans and Democrats and not a real effort to solve the untenable situation with health care in the United States. Basically the Republicans would rather have let Medicare bankrupt the United States than let Obama take credit for accomplishing something that would have helped most Americans, i.e. create a better health bill with real bi-partisan input, instead of vague meaningless statements about socialism and nonsense about abortion.

The fact that abortion in particular helped to wreck the health care legislation really makes me mad. How can conservatives be against abortion but then also against welfare and entitlements? Isn't that a failure to take responsibility?

Robot Jesus
22nd March 10, 07:58 PM
The fact that abortion in particular helped to wreck the health care legislation really makes me mad. How can conservatives be against abortion but then also against welfare and entitlements? Isn't that a failure to take responsibility?


life is only sacred while it's in the womb, after that the goal is to get them into the electric chairs as fast as possible.


say what you want about the bill, the republicans were so "party before country" on this it's sickening.

Cullion
22nd March 10, 07:59 PM
No. What a conservative is saying when they do that is 'Take responsibility for your own choices. If you cannot care for the child yourself, place it for adoption. You do not have carte blanche to act in any manner you want and have strangers pick up the tab."

From that position, opposing taxpayer funding of abortion and welfare is perfectly consistent.

HappyOldGuy
22nd March 10, 08:55 PM
I blame the Republican party for the mediocre frankenstein monster bill that just got passed. They had to go and filibuster hoping that by making Obama fail they'd gain political power in a few years. As a result they made it into a pissing contest between Republicans and Democrats and not a real effort to solve the untenable situation with health care in the United States. Basically the Republicans would rather have let Medicare bankrupt the United States than let Obama take credit for accomplishing something that would have helped most Americans, i.e. create a better health bill with real bi-partisan input, instead of vague meaningless statements about socialism and nonsense about abortion.


I blame Obama. He really did try hard to make it a bipartisan effort instead of just ramming it through right after he took office.

He should have known better.

Aphid Jones
22nd March 10, 09:33 PM
I blame Obama. He really did try hard to make it a bipartisan effort instead of just ramming it through right after he took office.

He should have known better.

Yep.

Robot Jesus
22nd March 10, 10:50 PM
and that is the mistake the partisans always make.

the "change we can believe in" is a post partisan political climate, not liberalism run rampant. he tried that, but that gave the GOP a glimmer of hope, so they tried to rape him..

this worked in 1994, but it did not work today.

he could have rammed all manner of phallic bills down the poop chute, but he did not. instead he asked for comprises when he only, sort of, needed it. he could have thrown many softball liberal bills at his party and changed a lot of things without trying

the question is can he turn around his presidency? if he can then offering the olive branch when he has no reason to want to compromise other then principals could achieve this goal. if he can't then more of the same.

Ajamil
22nd March 10, 10:59 PM
If he expects a big loss for Dems in Congress, he should try to say that now Health Care's done, he's gonna do something for the Republican side. Might try fixing immigration, or hey - I don't know - finishing a war.

Robot Jesus
22nd March 10, 11:04 PM
I thought that too, for a time. as long as the GOP has a chance at destroying him, they are going to take it. he needs to deliver a killing blow, financial reform would really split the populists; after all, who doesn't hate the banks at this point. right now the Republicans must e crushed under the weight of who owns them. the only options available are all or nothing.

anticipating defeat, and preparing for it will only make things worse for obama.

SFGOON
22nd March 10, 11:09 PM
You're supposed to do this kind of mean, controversial shit about two years from election time.

It gives you a temporal buffer from the public attention span, and allows time for other, safer issues to be put in the forefront.

As is, I'm extremely glad this happened. It will go a LONG way in deterring abuse of the system, both by insurance companies and freeloading assholes who look at an ER and see a free trip to the doctor.

Hey Phrost, do you carry liability insurance for your car? What happens if you get caught without it? Why do you suppose this is mandated by the government?

I've had to involuntarily commit some motherfuckers for 72 hours at a cost of 72,000 to my city. The city dude. Not the county, not the state, not the Federal government. The god-damn (fairly affluent) 40,000 person city.

In the span of my lustrious 60 day career, this happened more than once.

Thrice, to be precise. (As Dr. Seuss would say.)

Every time I did it, I literally took about 10$ from each household so crazy Mr. Shitbag wouldn't hang himself. 'Cuz he didn't have health insurance.

Had they acted that irresponsibly - I dunno - in a car I could have done something about it, held his shitbag feet to the fire over it.

But no. I had to take $72,000 out of the public coffers - a whole fucking two years living wages - so some stinking idiot wouldn't slit his wrists for another week.

Hurr hurr later I got fired for a municipal budget shortfall. I just now made the connection. I'm going out an kill those cocksuckers right now, as'n I should've done in the first place. As for you Phrost, I want you to go stand in the corner and slap yourself until you know what you're talking about.

I'll let you know when you've figured it out. Probably once I'm done executing losers.

Robot Jesus
22nd March 10, 11:23 PM
you complete me

JohnnyCache
22nd March 10, 11:40 PM
Correlation does not equal causation. The statement you buried at the end of your post is much more important than the numbers at the top of it.

You're trying to say it's all lifestyle? That the divide in spending vs quality and ubiquity of care is all because in America we are free to eat cheeseburgers?

we spend the most for the least. We would be well served to adopt ANY of the systems mentioned over the one we have.

Also, if "you people" on the right had just let the public option pass, the bill would HAVE a massive cost control in it. If I serve you a cheeseburger, are you allowed to pick the cheese off it and then send it back for having no cheese?

SFGOON
23rd March 10, 12:26 AM
The bill didn't push through health insurance as a right, it forced it on the American public as a responsibility.

The bums have lost again!

http://media.canada.com/gallery/dose_grumpyoldmen/090528old_lebowski.jpg

JohnnyCache
23rd March 10, 12:43 AM
The bill didn't push through health insurance as a right, it forced it on the American public as a responsibility.

The bums have lost again!

http://media.canada.com/gallery/dose_grumpyoldmen/090528old_lebowski.jpg

your points in this thread are excellent.

SFGOON
23rd March 10, 12:57 AM
That's because I have a superior intellect, a greater social reach, a higher "election" in the Biblical sense.

Yes, yes. I am "The Mind of God" as discussed by Alexis de Toqueville. My powerful cognition allows me to make snap judgments without the crutch of generalities. I understand every person and situation in depth and at a glance. Incomplete applications of law or justice are impossible for me.

This is why Phrost is in the corner right now, slapping himself. It's also why I'm writing this from my iPod, in a back alley, eating the brains of a guy I had committed six months ago.

AAAAAA
23rd March 10, 04:38 AM
I'm trying to understand the finer points of the bill, but it's not easy.

But I think that the main point (as SFGOON said) is about taking responsibility. It's not about the details, about how it's being done; it's about administering a shock to the nation, to move things forward, to set a new course in motion.

In 20 years, or 200, the idea of healthcare for everybody will be part of the national conscience, and that will be a good thing, which will take the USA to a more civilized, humane stage. This is what the bill should mean and that's how it should be analyzed. I'm talking especially to those ranting about the constitution, about the guvt-stealing-my-stuff, about the guvt-fucks-up-everything... come on, those sound like excuses to avoid the real issue, which is, if you haven't money for insurance, you die like a dog. That's just not appropriate for a superpower, or is it?

Lebell
23rd March 10, 05:07 AM
for al those monkeys that think the usa is now instantly a socialist state: fuck you, in 30 years from now historians will see you for the ignorant fucks you've been.
Cos of your irrational fear and selfishness for decades poor americans have died r have been amputated.

congrats to the rest: this is the best thing that happened to you in years.
Obama mentioned my country: we're not socialist and eventhough there's healthcare for all, people pay a reasonable amount, we have 0% ZERO PROCENT governmentrun healthcare companies.
They are all normal healthcare companies.

If you were rich and therefor had a better medical plan:you can still do that but with even less fee.

Lebell
23rd March 10, 05:27 AM
omg...
just been reading some more pages...some idiots were using terms as fascist for the coming new system...

ARE YOU PEOPLE FUCKING STUPID???

Whats is more nazilike?
The current system where the average inmate or terrorist captive gets better medical care then your own poor citizens?
The current system where insurance companies decide what treatment they're going to pay for you.
people who sometimes get amputation rather then the more costly procedure?
people who dont get follow ups after an ER visit cos they dont ave enough money?

THAT'S pretty nazilike.
it's cold harsh and selfish, and its all fueled by the childish fear that
' the bad guys' aka freeloaders (9% max) could get freebies.
this new system is more fair for all, and there will always be sneaky freeloaders cos guess what, you cant stop that.
On the other hand poor decent people can now have a chance on some proper medical attention too.

These two systems arent about socialism, fascism or whatever, its about an inhumane corporate faceless system being replaced with a more humane one.
nobody regulates the worlds major pharmaceutrical companies and their minions at the insurance companies.

its the medical version of the industrial-military complex.
the power should be with the consumers, the people who pay for healthcare, and together with the insurance companies you could force the medical moguls to lower their goddamn prices.

i'll give you my example:on average i pay 60 euros a month for ealthcare, this includes a 100% coverage on dental works, doctor visits etc.
When they prescribe me medicine or an operation at hospital it works like this: annually i have my own riskamount which can maximally be 155 euros.
so whatever the hell happens: the first 155 euros i pay for myself (not dentists and regular doctor checkups) and the rest even if its a procedure of 10000 is covered by my insurance.
my company does not interfere with what hospital i go to, and what procedure woud be more 'costefficient'.

If i would be richer i could switch to paying about 150 a month and then EVERYTHING is covered no questions asked.

or i could lower my onhly fee and leave a higher ' open bill'/ own risk so i'd pay only 30 or so a month.
but i better be damn sure bout my health etc.

THAT is real freedom of choice.

JohnnyCache
23rd March 10, 07:11 AM
the risk someone will turn out to be a so called "uninsurable" is accounted for in the mathematics of insurance.

We are charged for "unisurable" people anyway, then insurance companies maximize profit by recinding their coverage.

It's bullshit.

Madgrenade
23rd March 10, 08:27 AM
Ah see I thought it meant that you were going to get a system like ours whereby health insurance is an optional extra, kind of like a luxury good, and that most people who aren't fussy don't bother with it. Then the cost is met via tax paid out from central government.

Truculent Sheep
23rd March 10, 08:28 AM
The real issue is how expensive healthcare is, and its relative effectiveness per Dollar/Pound/Euro spent.

For example, the Japanese have found ways of making treatments more cost-efficient, and the main bugbear of most healthcare systems - bureaucracy - can be streamlined, thus saving lots more money. It's not so much how a health system is funded so much as it is run, and the US system is not well run. [LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778_pf.html)]

The other issue is that the Obamacare proposal is not fascist. Fascism is one of the most badly used words in the English language, and until the storm troopers from the Daughters of The Blessed Mother Michelle Obama kick your door in to euthanise granny and make you burn your Ayn Rand collection, or make you flee to that nice city under the sea, it is just another way of Godwinning the thread without invoking Hitler.

Still scaremongering and appealing to people's darker instincts has resulted in all sorts of wonderful things, like death threats, open displays of racism and homophobia and howling mobs, so who am I to criticise?

Or to put it another way, I know several Americans. One survived leukaemia but he and his parents nearly got bankrupted by it, another is really loaded but still panics about healthcare and prays she doesn't get ill because premiums are too expensive even for her, and another had such bad experiences back home, she actually ended up LIKING the NHS. The US system, it seems, works perfectly well until you actually need it.

(Oh, and there's the small matter of the fact that the new system has not even been implemented yet. Wouldn't it be more useful for critics to closely monitor its progression and point out when it goes right, as well as wrong? Or does this get in the way of the polarised melodrama that is American politics these days?)

EvilSteve
23rd March 10, 08:36 AM
^ This

As far as I'm concerned, no one on the left has any business cheering this bill because the Democrats compromised on all the most important parts of it, and no one on the right has any business complaining about this bill because GOP stonewalling made it what it is.

</rant>

That being said, this can be built on- it's a bit like jumping halfway over a shark tank. Good start, but don't stop there or you're in for it.

EvilSteve
23rd March 10, 08:47 AM
I blame Obama. He really did try hard to make it a bipartisan effort instead of just ramming it through right after he took office.

He should have known better.

It's really only partially his fault. Yes, he tried to be bipartisan but even if he hadn't there was no getting around the fact that the GOP were going to block him at every turn because they felt it was their only shot at maintaining political relevance. The irony here is that they basically got THEIR bill, and they will get no credit for it.

I'm already seeing fundraising efforts on the part of liberal groups to mount primary challenges to blue dogs who opposed the public option. Although many on the left are pissed about this bill, they are still mobilizing to push for greater reform, and still consider this a victory, if a Pyrrhic one.

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 08:49 AM
How so unconstitutional?
Was this serious?!

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 09:02 AM
So basically all this bill does is force the insurance industry to take everyone, and force everyone to take insurance?

Did I get that right?
Short term, not long term.

Step One: Private companies can't assess risk and exclude pre existing conditions.
Step Two: Private companies are not charities and must jack rates even higher to compensate for this insanity.
Step Three: Nobody can afforded private insurance so the companies all shut down.
Step Four: Being legally obligated to, everybody is force to sign up for government assistance.
Step Five: We all become dependent on the Unconstitutional Federal Nanny State.
Step Six: An OVERWHELMING percentage of the populace, no dependent, vote for the Democrat Party for the rest of their lives.
Step Seven: The now have permanent control.

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 09:03 AM
This is a fee for the health care that the government provides. I pay fees every day for services I don't use that support the general good. Fees to support schools being one obvious one.
Schools are suppose to be the states responsibility...this decision should be to.

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 09:05 AM
If I were a rich American businessman, like Warren Buffet, I'd be jumping into the Heath Insurance business....oh, wait...

Am I the only one who thinks the 'bad, evil, insurance companies' that Obama has been railing against, have just made out like bandits?
they will be out of business if this goes through.

EvilSteve
23rd March 10, 09:18 AM
Short term, not long term.

Step One: Private companies can't assess risk and exclude pre existing conditions.
Step Two: Private companies are not charities and must jack rates even higher to compensate for this insanity.
Step Three: Nobody can afforded private insurance so the companies all shut down.
Step Four: Being legally obligated to, everybody is force to sign up for government assistance.
Step Five: We all become dependent on the Unconstitutional Federal Nanny State.
Step Six: An OVERWHELMING percentage of the populace, no dependent, vote for the Democrat Party for the rest of their lives.
Step Seven: The now have permanent control.

Jesus dude- I love conspiracy theories but this is a bit much. Don't sweat it- health insurance stocks were slightly up on the passage of the bill, so clearly they don't think they're going to be losing money on the deal.

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 09:20 AM
Supreme Court should smack the shit out of it anyway so there hopefully isn't anything to worry about.

EvilSteve
23rd March 10, 09:22 AM
WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?? OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PRAXX, BRING BACK YOUR OLD AVATAR! BRING BACK YOUR OLD AVATAR!!!

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 09:30 AM
WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?? OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PRAXX, BRING BACK YOUR OLD AVATAR! BRING BACK YOUR OLD AVATAR!!!
It is warming up around here. I need to get in the pool.

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 09:31 AM
"As long as I get my Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Food Stamps, I don't need no help from nobody!" -Mrs. Avery

http://sharetv.org/images/the_pjs/mrs_avery-char.jpg

Madgrenade
23rd March 10, 09:35 AM
Was this serious?!

Ummm yup. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

mrblackmagic
23rd March 10, 10:47 AM
In the long run, I still think this is a bad idea, erstwhile I will be looking into getting my joints reinforced with steel. My kung fu is going to be obscene.

UpaLumpa
23rd March 10, 11:07 AM
Which is why service will undoubtedly go to shit as the members of their boards and other smart shareholders slowly divest themselves of ownership and leadership of those companies.


Service will go to shit? What planet are you on, the service is already shit. The insurance companies already abuse the setup because they already have a monopoly. While this certainly isn't a great bill there are certain aspects to it that are very good (e.g. restrictions on dropping for pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to stay on [and pay] their parent's insurance).

There are legitimate grievances and issues with this bill but neither "facism" or "unconstitutionality" are included in that. The service going to shit certainly doesn't count either, insurance companies haven't served anyone in a long time.

UpaLumpa
23rd March 10, 11:12 AM
"As long as I get my Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Food Stamps, I don't need no help from nobody!" -Mrs. Avery

http://sharetv.org/images/the_pjs/mrs_avery-char.jpg

How about the town hall shrieker that said to keep the government's hands off her meidcare? Oh that doesn't count because you can't try and put race in on that..

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 11:13 AM
Ummm yup. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

If you want to understand the controversy. Here is a decent little page that explains how it was presented and debated 70 years ago when the precedents were settled.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 11:36 AM
How about the town hall shrieker that said to keep the government's hands off her meidcare? Oh that doesn't count because you can't try and put race in on that..
What?

UpaLumpa
23rd March 10, 11:51 AM
What?

You don't fool anyone on here.

UpaLumpa
23rd March 10, 11:52 AM
Phrost,

Remember how hysterical you were a year ago about ammo and how you had to stock up (thereby driving up prices)? Do you look back and laugh at yourself or think that was a reasonable reaction?

I'm just trying to figure out where you'll be a year from now.`

KhorneliusPraxx
23rd March 10, 12:34 PM
You don't fool anyone on here.
I wasn't trying to so good.

Phrost
23rd March 10, 01:59 PM
Phrost,

Remember how hysterical you were a year ago about ammo and how you had to stock up (thereby driving up prices)? Do you look back and laugh at yourself or think that was a reasonable reaction?

I'm just trying to figure out where you'll be a year from now.`

No, I don't.

I've never been hysterical on here.

Mildly agitated and more prone to make use of profanity, yes, but "hysterical" would imply that I was banning people for disagreeing with me and that sort of thing.

I just don't operate like that.

UpaLumpa
23rd March 10, 02:15 PM
No, I don't.

I've never been hysterical on here.

Mildly agitated and more prone to make use of profanity, yes, but "hysterical" would imply that I was banning people for disagreeing with me and that sort of thing.

I just don't operate like that.

Correction, you don't think you operate that way.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 02:18 PM
To be fair to our deluded host. He pretty much never bans people who disagree with him here, no matter how much disrespect we heap on him. As the host of a no holds barred discusssion forum, that's a pretty important character trait, and one that is often lacking in people who try to host susch things.

Feryk
23rd March 10, 02:42 PM
I have to agree. Phrost has created a good forum to discuss some issues that people (including him) take personally.

I appreciate it, even when I do want to wring Cullion's neck, or stick Toby in a box.

Fearless Ukemi
23rd March 10, 02:53 PM
If more of our leaders governed like Phrost, we would be a better nation for it. I'm not saying anything about his political preferences, before people start bitching. Just the way he operates.

Phrost
23rd March 10, 03:17 PM
To be fair to our deluded host. He pretty much never bans people who disagree with him here, no matter how much disrespect we heap on him. As the host of a no holds barred discusssion forum, that's a pretty important character trait, and one that is often lacking in people who try to host susch things.

If my ideas and views can't stand up to unimpeded argument then they're not worth having. That's why I can't take any of this personally, and why it's necessary that we don't censor discussion.

Feryk
23rd March 10, 03:59 PM
While I agree with you, some of your ideas have not stood up to unimpeded discussion (like the stockpiling ammo thing). Has it changed your view at all?

Kein Haar
23rd March 10, 04:24 PM
Wiki:

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes.

In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment.

Justice O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 04:34 PM
How exactly do you think that applies?

Kein Haar
23rd March 10, 05:14 PM
How does it not, you old queen?

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 05:19 PM
There is nothing in the bill that calls for the states to enforce federal mandates.

That would be if you were going to have to arrest people for not having insurance.

Which would be cool mind you.

SFGOON
23rd March 10, 05:21 PM
Well, isn't the most logical choice to enforce the new laws the IRS?

You don't honestly think you're going to have to say the phrase "and your proof of health insurance" during traffic stops, do you?

Do you?

Kein Haar
23rd March 10, 05:27 PM
There is nothing in the bill that calls for the states to enforce federal mandates.

Oh yes there is, you old queen.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 05:27 PM
There is actually no specified enforcement mechanism in the bill as signed, however that is dealt with in the package of amendments that have already been negotiated and will be voted on in the next couple of days.

And yeah, it will be a tax penalty on your 1040.

But I still like the idea of Kein having to go door to door in Flint michigan asking people for their proof of insurance.

Goon I see as more of a Repo Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1053424/) candidate.

Kein Haar
23rd March 10, 05:27 PM
Well, isn't the most logical choice to enforce the new laws the IRS?

You don't honestly think you're going to have to say the phrase "and your proof of health insurance" during traffic stops, do you?

Do you?

I'm not sure, Ensign Expendable. Do I?

Kein Haar
23rd March 10, 05:28 PM
There is actually no specified enforcement mechanism in the bill as signed, however that is dealt with in the package of amendments that have already been negotiated and will be voted on in the next couple of days.

And yeah, it will be a tax penalty on your 1040.

Look harder.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 05:39 PM
Look harder.
Than what. The IRS is identified as the enforcer, but the mechanism is not specified. The mechanism is included in the package of house amendments that they have already negotiated but deferred in order to get the thing out before easter.

Troll someone who hasn't forgotten more about this topic than you will ever know.

UpaLumpa
23rd March 10, 05:40 PM
To be fair to our deluded host. He pretty much never bans people who disagree with him here, no matter how much disrespect we heap on him. As the host of a no holds barred discusssion forum, that's a pretty important character trait, and one that is often lacking in people who try to host susch things.

I really fail to see how any of that is relevant to what I wrote.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 05:44 PM
I really fail to see how any of that is relevant to what I wrote.

This bit.


our deluded host

SFGOON
23rd March 10, 05:46 PM
I'm not sure, Ensign Expendable. Do I?

No no no. I wasn't expendable, I was expensive.

Know who's expendable? The asshole who goes through the door or down the unlit forest trail first armed with nothing more than a fuzzy bow-wow.

Odacon
23rd March 10, 05:52 PM
This whole thing is a big fucking deal apparently:
wAIE5WVu6vM

UpaLumpa
23rd March 10, 06:09 PM
This bit.

His comments still suggest a hysterical view on the topic.
Sorry, I guess I'm being obtuse.

Cullion
23rd March 10, 06:38 PM
Than what. The IRS is identified as the enforcer, but the mechanism is not specified. The mechanism is included in the package of house amendments that they have already negotiated but deferred in order to get the thing out before easter.

Troll someone who hasn't forgotten more about this topic than you will ever know.

What's your best guess at what the enforcement mechanism will be for people who refuse to pay the fine ?

Robot Jesus
23rd March 10, 07:08 PM
my guess is superjail

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 07:25 PM
What's your best guess at what the enforcement mechanism will be for people who refuse to pay the fine ?

It won't be implemented as a fine, it will be implemented as additional income tax.

So it won't really work not to pay. If you mean people who refuse to pay that bit of their taxes. They will get treated just like anyone else who refuses to pay income tax.

Phrost
23rd March 10, 07:28 PM
It won't be implemented as a fine, it will be implemented as additional income tax.

So it won't really work not to pay. If you mean people who refuse to pay that bit of their taxes. They will get treated just like anyone else who refuses to pay income tax.

Doesn't this violate his promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 then?

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 07:32 PM
Doesn't this violate his promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 then?

Bill Clinton would say it depends what is is.

I would say yes.

jkdbuck76
23rd March 10, 07:33 PM
What was the Senate up to? What were they thinking? I'm sure they had to know that mandating insurance coverage would unleash a shit storm.

Is this their way of leaving the door open for a public option before 2014? I see that about a dozen states have already filed suit.

UpaLumpa
23rd March 10, 07:35 PM
Is this their way of leaving the door open for a public option before 2014?
Yes it is.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 07:37 PM
Yes it is.
Hmm, no.

Besides the practical issues implementing it, they moved it out to 2014 to put it past the 2012 elections. Note that the good stuff all hits before the election. But the mandatory coverage has always been part of every plan.

jkdbuck76
23rd March 10, 07:38 PM
So when enough people bitch/piss/moan about being forced to buy healthcare (even if you and the spouse lose their jobs), they'll pop up and say "Dammit! We told you that there needed to be a public option!"

OK. We'll see what happens.

Any predictions on the states that are filing suit?

Phrost
23rd March 10, 07:50 PM
While I agree with you, some of your ideas have not stood up to unimpeded discussion (like the stockpiling ammo thing). Has it changed your view at all?

Obama's website stated that he wanted to reinstate the idiotic "Assault Weapons Ban"; it was a part of his published platform. Eric Holder, his Atty. General, has made even more extreme statements on the subject of restricting the second amendment.

That he's been held in check on this, spending political capital on health care instead, is not indicative of anything. He's only been in office a year.

Assuming he gets a second term, we've got 7/8ths of his presidency left. It's too early to make a declarative statement that Obama and a Democratic congress have proven to be no threat to the 2A.

Truculent Sheep
23rd March 10, 08:39 PM
I doubt he will somehow. It would be electoral poison - he's just going through the motions to keep the anti-gun end of his base happy. Still, great news if you've got shares in ammo manufacturers.

Kein Haar
23rd March 10, 08:53 PM
If not harder, then deeper and faster, you old social worker.

HappyOldGuy
23rd March 10, 09:07 PM
If not harder, then deeper and faster, you old social worker.

Damn, would it kill you to do some kegels?

Cullion
24th March 10, 05:38 PM
So it won't really work not to pay. If you mean people who refuse to pay that bit of their taxes. They will get treated just like anyone else who refuses to pay income tax.

Sorry, what I meant instead of 'fine' was 'bit of your income tax you only have to pay if you refuse to become a customer of a govt. approved corporation'.

What will the enforcement mechanism be for people who refuse to do that ?

HappyOldGuy
24th March 10, 05:53 PM
Sorry, what I meant instead of 'fine' was 'bit of your income tax you only have to pay if you refuse to become a customer of a govt. approved corporation'.

What will the enforcement mechanism be for people who refuse to do that ?

Again, that bit is lacking in specificity in the current bill as signed. But one way or another, you would be required to provide evidence of insurance as part of your annual income tax filing, and failure to do so would increase the amount of tax owed.

Cullion
24th March 10, 05:59 PM
Yes, but what happens if you refuse to pay that increase ?

HappyOldGuy
24th March 10, 06:05 PM
Yes, but what happens if you refuse to pay that increase ?

Ultimately you go to jail. The IRS prefers to negotiate, but if you just flat out refuse to pay your income taxes, you will do time.

Cullion
24th March 10, 07:10 PM
So it's charge backed by the threat of jail time which is only levied if you refuse to become a customer of a private corporation ?

Now, I understand how a modern judge might not see that as a fine. Any tax is backed by the same threat, but might there be some legal play in the fact that this tax is only levied punitively?

See, if you wanted to not make it look like a fine, you'd just allow healthcare costs to be written off against tax and leave people alone who for some reason had just decided not to be insured. You see what I mean ?

I have no doubt that your view will prevail in the courts BTW, unless massive funds come to the aid of the lawyers wanting to thwart this, and I don't know which deep pockets would be interested now it's set up as a guaranteed revenue stream for Big Insurance.

HappyOldGuy
24th March 10, 07:36 PM
70 years ago when social security was being set up, or 50 years ago when medicare was being set up, that might have been a compelling argument. But it turned out not to be, and those programs which operate exactly the same way were ruled constitutional in cases dealing with exactly this question.

Whether they should have been is a whole nuther kettle of fish, but once precedent is set, that pesky law thing we inherited from you lot makes it stick.

Kein Haar
24th March 10, 08:27 PM
See, if you wanted to not make it look like a fine, you'd just allow healthcare costs to be written off against tax and leave people alone who for some reason had just decided not to be insured. You see what I mean ?

!

nihilist
25th March 10, 01:41 AM
When I get my bill for health care it's going to make me sick.

nihilist
25th March 10, 01:52 AM
See, if you wanted to not make it look like a fine, you'd just allow healthcare costs to be written off against tax and leave people alone who for some reason had just decided not to be insured. You see what I mean ?



The way Bush would have handled this would have been to create a fake war and draft all the uninsured.

Lebell
25th March 10, 05:23 AM
well, over here we say: if you cant fix the problem you can always eat it.

Kiko
25th March 10, 10:27 AM
http://wondermark.com/c/2010-03-23-606moot.gif

Ajamil
25th March 10, 11:53 AM
Disease will be gone, but who will do the dental work? Wait - no dental care means less coverage to pay for. This is genius!

Lebell
26th March 10, 02:29 AM
well, we always could pull all teeth as soon as a kid is fullgrown in the dental way.
no moar dental work EVAR.
and great blowjobs too.

edit: i mean great blowjobs when the kids are grown into consenting adults ofcourse.

Kiko
26th March 10, 08:34 AM
http://wondermark.com/c/2004-08-17-068.gif

Fearless Ukemi
26th March 10, 11:20 AM
What IS boxing day all about? Isn't that the day the English go boar hunting?

jkdbuck76
26th March 10, 11:43 AM
Boxing day? 14 oz or 16 oz gloves?

Truculent Sheep
26th March 10, 12:35 PM
What IS boxing day all about? Isn't that the day the English go boar hunting?

Boxing Day (26/12) is that date on the calender where most of the new toys are already broken, violence starts breaking out between the extended family and we all slump down on the sofa, watching a really bad Roger Moore-era 007 film, the food poisoning from the undercooked Turkey slowly liquifying our bowels.

Robot Jesus
26th March 10, 01:03 PM
it means we have a proper name for the most horrific shopping day of the year.

Kiko
26th March 10, 01:58 PM
My gut said to post BOTH of them, but here ya go!

http://wondermark.com/c/2004-08-24-069.gif

Cullion
26th March 10, 06:46 PM
it means we have a proper name for the most horrific shopping day of the year.

A lot of shops are closed here on Boxing Day. It's a public holiday (unlike Christmas eve).
It's also St. Stephen's day, and whilst it's a very unobtrusive, liberal arrangement, Anglican Christianity is still our official state religion and the origin of several of our public holidays.

People do go hunting on Boxing day, but it's a tiny fraction of the population. A small remnant of the rural middle and upper classes mostly. It's usually foxes and stags hunted by people in bright red old-fashioned hunt clothing on horseback.