House Passes Massive Medical Insurance Bill, 219-212 2424
The votes are in: yesterday evening, after a last-minute compromise over abortion payments, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill effecting major changes in American medical finance. From the BBC's coverage: "The president is expected to sign the House-passed Senate bill as early as Tuesday, after which it will be officially enacted into law. However, it will contain some very unpopular measures that Democratic senators have agreed to amend. The Senate will be able to make the required changes in a separate bill using a procedure known as reconciliation, which allows budget provisions to be approved with 51 votes - rather than the 60 needed to overcome blocking tactics." No Republican voted in favor of the bill; 34 Democrats voted against. As law, the system set forth would extend insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million Americans, impose new taxes on high-income earners as well as provide some tax breaks and subsidies for others, and considerably toughen the regulatory regime under which insurance companies operate. The anticipated insurance regime phases in (starting with children, and expanding to adults in 2014) a requirement that insurance providers accept those with preexisting conditions, and creates a system of fines, expected to be administered by the IRS, for those who fail or refuse to obtain health insurance.
health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:4, Insightful)
you are always going to pay for it. about time that we stopped the system of some people getting "insurance" only when they get sick
Hoorah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Who wrote the health care bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News for Nerds (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right in that it's not strictly face-value news of the geek type, but lets face it, it affects nerds too. It may well affect them in large ways. All the new tech that has to be put in place for this may well bring healthcare to headlines on /. more often.
Re:Hoorah! (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. It should be a day to celebrate in America.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, it's a question of which is cheaper; the fine or the insurance.
Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)
It was the "right to life" people that threatened to block life-saving medical care for millions.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans are opposed because it's obama's idea.
Then you have 'news' channels that do everything in their power to attack the president (which according to their own rule was very unpatriotic just one president ago), so again, because it's obama's idea.
And aside from that, there's a lot of FUD, leading to a lot of opposition amongst the people (kill squads for the elderly, all doctors stopping their work because they won't get paid, tripling of taxes, etc).
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pro / cons (Score:5, Insightful)
The propaganda cons are all about things like the tremendous waits and how all the medical practitioners are going to quit because they won't get paid enough.
The real ones are that this bill doesn't do enough to reduce costs, while also fining people for not getting insurance. Many people would also put the lack of a strong single payer program as a big con.
Re:Hoorah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Congrats US citizens! You're on your way to a non-broken health care system!
We could only be so lucky. This bill by and large doesn't change anything. Most of us have health insurance that we purchase through our employers, provided by insanely profitable corporations. And for almost none of us will that change.
Unfortunately our government doesn't do change this year.
Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedia) (Score:3, Insightful)
According to Wikipedia, Insurance [wikipedia.org] is, "a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss".
But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions, I don't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore. It is like selling "fire insurance" coverage for houses that are already on fire. That is not really "insurance".
You can call the new health care legislation many things, but it is more in the nature of a new medical welfare program than any form of insurance as we know it, since it does not appear that costs are based on actuarial risks.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're too poor to afford health cover, then you'll be fined for being too poor to afford health cover. In effect, it makes taking a median wage job untenable, unless the employee also provides health cover.
And that will - and this is the intent of the "insurance" crooks that drew up the bill - create a market for "Never Pay" cover, i.e. schemes that appear to meet the absolute minimum requirement, but which have such egregious exclusions and excess contributions that you'll never use them. In effect, free money for the insurers.
There's a big problem with the health industry in the US, but the problem is that it's infested with salesmen, lawyers and accountants. This bill makes that worse, not better.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
The Insurance industry in America is the closest thing we have to a legalized mob...other than Congress, of course. Hopefully, parts of this bill will change that.
Brilliant Plan (Score:2, Insightful)
How long until Americans figure out that it is much cheaper to pay the fines and pick up health insurance when you need it (now that insurers are required to sign people with preexisting conditions) than to pay premiums year-round?
Or was this the Democrats' intention? Bankrupt the insurance industry and come in as Mr. Government, Savior of All.
No (Score:2, Insightful)
"would extend insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million Americans" No, it doesn't. It requires you to buy insurance. There's nothing in that bill that addresses health care costs. Insurance is not health care, those are two separate issues. It just mandates you buy insurance. If you can't afford it, which is the main reason most people don't have it at lower pay scales, it just creates a larger bureaucracy to shuffle money around from one person to the next, with the government taking a skim in the middle. Big fines if you don't go along with this idea.
It would have been better if they addressed three decades of job losses instead, and approached it from that angle, because with more and better jobs, more people could afford healthcare anyway.
This is another stealth subsidy bailout for huge corporations in the "financial services" arena, and they have the bulk of the Ds faked out this is "health care reform". It's no different from the big investment bank bailouts.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
The cheapest route sounds like to get fired from your job, go on welfare to get your food and housing paid for, then get free health care. Who needs to work? That was the plan wasn't it?
Not citizens, just cars, ode to Detroit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I may be wrong, but from the UK perspective this is not "NHS Lite" socialised healthcare, rather this is the wetware equivalent of compulsory motor insurance, now applied to human beings...
Nice civil liberties you have there citizen, shame if anything happened to them, better buy this here medical insurance, know what I mean?
Sounds like this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with medical treatment per se.
One small step from the RIAA et al doing the same thing.
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hoorah! (Score:1, Insightful)
patriotism and morality and freedom won (Score:4, Insightful)
patriotism, as in caring for the health of your nation, the welfare of your fellow man, belief in the common good, as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"
morality, as in standing up and saying that i don't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing rates
freedom, from disease and sickness, as opposed to the false "freedom" to choose between paying for your broken arm, or depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you can't afford it (while you rail about your "right" to "choose" to not have health insurance)
if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that?
furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance? hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy, eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds. in other words: you already pay for it, but now you pay for it in the most common sense way
Re:Not reform, capitulation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hoorah! (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unintended consequences? (Score:3, Insightful)
If only . . . .
I believe Rush said he'd go to Costa Rica if he ever needed surgery. He wouldn't move there, he'd just go as a medical tourist.
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:5, Insightful)
"The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves."
Because it's a liberal progressive mentality bordering on socialistic/marxist ideals.
What would you do to help your mother/brother/sister/father?
How about your next door neighbor you hang out with?
The guy in the next street, or the next town?
At what point do you draw the line and say that I am going to help these people and not those people?
I think that part of the US problem is more that in general this line is drawn closer to home compared to other people who draw it further out.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
You get your kraft dinner and a shack paid for, you don't get a nice meal and a house with a large screen tv and high speed internet and fancy clothes paid for.
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I have one major issue... I know so many people in this country who try to game our systems of unemployment and welfare, and quite frankly its rather sad. I really am unsure if the government should take care of these people, as they are already a drain on our society to begin with...
Yup. Why not go all-out and line them up to be shot? I mean that's basically what you're talking about here isn't it? An elitism?
yay insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they should try a health care bill.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brilliant Plan (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, this could actually work: bankrupt the health insurance industry; declare that, since the commercial sector can't do the job, the government will; set up a government-run health insurance company; and pay the money from the fines to that freshly created health insurance company to cover those who "won't" pay the new health insurance company directly.
All of a sudden, hey presto - you have a system that's very similar to Australia's Medicare [wikipedia.org], or the UK's National Health Service [wikipedia.org].
All you have to do is make damn sure that you don't bail out the insurance companies when they go bankrupt. Good luck in your journey towards joining the rest of the civilised world.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hoorah! (Score:3, Insightful)
On the upside of that, is that prisoners are subject to government run health care.
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not citizens, just cars, ode to Detroit. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you see the natural evolution of this legislation turning into tougher regulations against your ability to download copyrighted material without paying for it, I suggest you get out more. There's this whole, big world out there that isn't all plugged into the wall and where the RIAA isn't the most evil guy on the block.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, this reform bill has everything to do with politicians wanting more control over the system and nothing to do with actually lowering prices. Government is a legalized mob, practically by definition -- it's just that we as a people are willing to listen to it. If you are suggesting those who put this bill into play did so for any kind of altruistic reason -- consider the context of their political ambitions (no one goes into politics to help people, they go into politics to control people).
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing missing... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing missing are the Tea Partiers calling congressmen niggers and faggots. But forget reality - what are CNN and Fox News saying?
CNN: Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, released a statement late Saturday saying he too was called the "N" word as he walked to the Capitol for a vote and that he was spat on by one protestor who was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police. Cleaver declined to press charges against the man, the statement said...
Protesters also hurled anti-gay comments at Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, who is openly gay, as he left the same health care meeting that Lewis attended in a House office building.
A CNN producer overheard the word "faggot" yelled at Frank several times in the lobby of the Longworth building. Frank said he heard someone yell "homo" at him.
FOX: Republican National Chairman Michael Steele and one of the organizers of Saturday's Tea Party rally strongly condemned the racial slurs that some black lawmakers alleged were yelled at them by some health care protesters as they headed for a procedural vote at Capitol Hill....
But black lawmakers weren't the only targets of the protesters' invective. Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., alleges some of the demonstrators also castigated Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is gay.
"I don't even want to repeat it," said Crowley when asked what they said to Frank.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police said she was unaware of any law enforcement inquiry into the incidents.
Oh Fox... will you ever be more than a conservative mouthpiece?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
what happens if you drive without car insurance? (Score:4, Insightful)
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
so if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? is everyone an upper middle class paragon of financial virtue with $200,000 in the bank for unforeseen health problems?
furthermore, does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that? so what is the "choice" here? there is no choice: you need health insurance
furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance? what happens is hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy... eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds
in other words: you already pay for all of the uninsured with your taxes!
but now you pay for it in the most common sense direct way
Yes it does change things (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us have health insurance that we purchase through our employers, provided by insanely profitable corporations.
Except for the 35-50 million who don't and can't get health insurance. Never mind that losing your job has meant a double whammy of losing your health insurance too. Happened to me. It also matters for those who can't get coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Has happened to members of my immediate family.
Does this bill cure everything? Of course not. But it does change things for a lot of people, hopefully for the better. If you have been lucky not to be affected by the broken parts of the US healthcare system, consider yourself lucky.
Buy Health Insurance Stocks (Score:4, Insightful)
Cool. Government mandating that people buy PRIVATE health insurance (never been done...and no car insurance is not the same as you don't have to buy a car and many people don't own one). Private health insurance stock is going to skyrocket! Profit!
I predict a good chance it will be knocked down by the Supremes since the court is Majority conservative. Their justification will be the one I put above.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost everybody thinks reform is needed. Almost nobody thinks that Congress is competent enough to make good reforms.
Re:Brilliant Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
You're funny. Have you seen how much those companies have contributed in bribes [opensecrets.org]?
Re:Hoorah! (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Also, over the next decade, the exchanges will get larger and larger. The exchanges are the market place where insurance companies will place bids on standardized plans(The idea is that by pooling everyone together and creating standards, we can avoid the market inefficiencies that currently plague the individual market). It's originally only open to small businesses and the poor, but the it ramps up to the rest of the population in a fairly quick time-frame. That, combined with the excise tax which effectively phases out the tax exemption of health-care, puts us on a path away from employer provided health insurance.
You can argue whether that's positive or negative, but that it indisputably moves us away from the employer-based model with very profitable insurance companies.
Say, what'd be wrong with copying the Euro-System? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's how we do it: 23% of your paycheck is ripped from you. For that you get: As many sick days (with pay) as you have to get (of course they come check on you if you're sick too long), full accident and sickness insurance, including medication (albeit with a small fee, around 5 bucks, per prescription), hospital of your choice if you need one, pretty much all checkups your doc deems sensible, any life saving (or ability-saving) operation, hospital stay as long as you need to (iirc with a nominal per-day fee of a few bucks, unless you either absolutely HAVE to stay there or are needy, which also eliminates all other fees you'd have to pay) and a few other nifty things.
On the downside, you get the doc that happens to be available, you get crammed into a room with 12 other people, the food is pretty much ... well, let's say it doesn't instantly kill you and no TV, internet or other perks. You can of course invest in a private "additional" insurance that covers these expenses, or you pay for them directly when you need/want them.
I don't know about you, but somehow I like that system. Yes, it's anything but cheap (hey, it costs me a fourth of my income), but it means that I get any operation, any medication and any treatment I could possibly require to stay healthy (or return to that state as well as medically possible). I'd say it's worth it.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
NO IT ISN'T. Auto insurance is a voluntary deal, where you can choose not to drive. I know several people who don't pay a dime for auto insurance since they prefer to walk, or bike, or ride the bus.
Hospitalization insurance is not. You can't simply decide to not be alive.
Other flaws:
- I will be fined $1000 a year because I don't belong to an HMO. What's next? A fine because I bought a normal car instead of a hybrid?
- This fine is an unconstitutional grab for power that violates my 9th and 10th Amendment rights. (Right to Choice being the prime one.)
- In addition taxes will increase $1500 per single person (according to CNN Sunday Morning). I didn't catch what it will be for married people, but probably $2000 or more each year.
- Funding will be used to kill human fetuses. According to the U.S. Court, an executive order is inferior to Congressional Law, and the Law that was passed is clear: funding goes for abortions. - Personally this does not bother me, but I know alot of people who find the concept as objectionable as Abolitionists found slavery. - Also I find it dishonest on Obama's part to trick his own Democrats. He knows his XO is null and void per Supreme Court precedent.
There are other flaws with this bill too, but my main objections are (1) the cost and (2) the treatment of citizens as Serfs - "Do as we tell you, or else." This is not the government the Founders had in mind in 1786, else they might have stayed with the Articles of Confederation (a loose union of independent, sovereign states).
Similarly, I think the Europeans are discovering that the EU is quickly turning into a centralized behemoth with no apparent limits upon its power, and the ability to trump the Member States' governments.
Oh and yes. Bankruptcy. U.S. is on the verge of it, especially with talk of it being downgraded from AAA to AA status, as if it were a second world nation.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, very "social". Being social just makes it easier to live off the system and not for themselves. That is the big picture which you fail to see.
What happens when everyone sits back and bleeds the system dry? What then? Does the government then force you to work for them?
I work my ass of for what I have. You have too many people that want handouts. That is the big problem.
Re:Not reform, capitulation. (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess that's why health insurance stock went UP.
Our government is one of Mercantile Corporatism. Who do you think wrote the bill? The insurance lobby was right there with congressional staffers. This bill gives them a guaranteed profit stream.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:4, Insightful)
Note, especially, his dig at the "news" media and the yelling heads -- essentially, we are in 100% agreement on that point, that people like Limbaugh make money on conflict/controversy, not compromise/consensus, and they are in it for the money.
Not gonna happen (Score:3, Insightful)
> about time that we stopped the system of some people getting "insurance" only when they get sick
On the contrary, we've made doing it easier than ever before. Because insurance companies are no longer allowed to "discriminate" against me for preexisting conditions, it is actually better for me to not buy insurance until I get sick. The uninsured fee will only be $700 and there's a pretty high income threshold (~$80000? I think) before you have to pay it. Insurance costs on average $6400/year, so if you are buying insurance yourself, it's TEN TIMES more expensive to buy insurance now than it would be to wait until you need it. I predict that this is exactly what I and most other the uninsured are going to do. In fact, even those that have insurance now, might consider getting rid of it for the enormous financial gain that provides. How would you like to have and extra SIX THOUSAND dollars of disposable income every year?
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, what?
Take a look at the biggest Insurance industry recipients - the majority are DEMOCRATS. Who do you think paid for this bill?
Fuck, they WANTED a "everybody must buy" mandate. Premiums will rise because it's a required-purchase item. Same shit happened with Auto insurance, premium costs went up, not down when they made it mandatory. My home state used to say you could either have the insurance or maintain "proof of ability to pay", till the car insurance crooks paid off the legislature to get rid of that second part; uncoincidentally, premiums got universally jacked up by 10% the next year, and kept going up after that.
Watch and learn. Mandated "you must buy X" means that the cost of X will go up, not down.
It's not that simple (Score:5, Insightful)
But with the mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions, I don't see how there is a contingent aspect of this anymore. It is like selling "fire insurance" coverage for houses that are already on fire. That is not really "insurance".
You forgot the important qualifier. "a form of risk management PRIMARILY used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss". Insurance can be to hedge against gains, it can be to share risk, it can be to shift risk to another party. It's not so simple as a single sentence quoted from wikipedia. You cannot cover pre-existing conditions unless you force everyone to have coverage, otherwise the smart play is to buy insurance only after you get sick which destroys the financial structure of insurance (no premiums being paid in).
Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
Health insurance is a tax now (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever one may think of the health insurance changes brought about by this bill, it is essentially a new tax on all Americans to pay for those who cannot afford it on their own. I think it will, long term, contribute to unemployment and higher budget deficits across the country.
Although there are provisions to protect the middle and lower income classes from higher taxation, there are also huge tax increases on higher income groups, and the effects will be felt by all Americans.
A high earning physician told me his tax load will increase by $100,000 per year when this bill is fully implemented. That has a nice populist sound to it--tax the rich, give it to the poor. But the people who won't see that money will be master carpenters and their assistants, automobile factory workers, boat builders, waiters and bus boys, and all those businesses that he would have spent the money on. Also, the money won't be invested into the stock market. Instead, it will go to a new bulked up government bureaucracy which will then redistribute some fraction of it to this new policy purpose.
The states that are doing things right, relatively speaking, will be punished and the states that are screwed up will be rewarded. That is, the states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and California, where overregulation has driven insurance costs sky high, will accrue the greatest benefits from this redistribution effort, while states that have allowed relatively free markets for high deductible, basic plans (Arizona health insurance premiums start at about $60 a month) will have to pay more.
The companies that exceed 50 employees on the full time payroll will be forced to pay a fine per employee for lack of health insurance coverage. Will this cause millions of small to medium businesses to budget for health insurance, if they don't already have it? I suppose those who can afford it may, but the incentive will obviously be to keep the payroll to under 50, and perhaps contract out when they need the extra help. We'll probably see an uptick in contracting and temp agencies, and we'll probably see less of a commitment to salaried career positions within medium companies. The incentive will be to stay under 50 head count, plain and simple. I would expect to see unemployment stay at a permanently high rate for the next few decades, probably in the 8-10% range, up from the 4-5% range it has been for about the past 15 years up until 2008.
Will this bill actually reform health care? One of the principles underlying this legislation is that physicians should work in larger offices in order to afford the required electronic medical record systems and other changes that favor hospitals and larger practices. Internists and family practice docs will find it much harder going forward to open a private or small practice. Does this benefit the patient? I doubt it. Larger practices do have economies of scale, and of course they can afford the large staff necessary to deal with expanded Medicaid and other funding systems. But the freedom to practice medicine independently will be lost, and I think we will see less connection between physicians and individual patients. Add to this the plan to mandate "best treatments" nationally, and the system will become more faceless, more cookie-cutter, and less flexible to the needs of each unique individual. Probably we'll see a lot more midlevels like physicians assistants and nurse practitioners playing the front line diagnostic role, and physicians with their much longer and more expensive training will retreat to specialties and consultative roles.
I don't see this as the best move for our nation, but then I could be wrong. It'll be interesting to watch what happens, anyway.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what the parent said; I get to keep my house and food. I never claimed to have a TV [of any size] or high-speed Internet (although I am forced to pay $38/mo for 256kpbs cable Internet. I'd just use the library WiFi, except my second job requires I have Internet access, and I don't have a phone [except a Tracfone], so this is cheaper than Dialup). I'd hardly call my $2 jeans from Goodwill 'fancy'. I work two jobs, and I've signed an agreement with Immigration (because my wife is from Canukland) that I will never accept any public assistance program. I'm already living paycheck to paycheck, and can't afford $700/year for a fine, or any non-subsidized insurance. Thanks, B.O., for driving my family into debt.
Compassion gone bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not my fault that if I injure myself others feel compelled to help me. If I think I can go it alone, who does it hurt? Do you really think it's my responsibility to make sure people like you can live in a society that takes compassion on me without having to pay for it? Why can't you let other people take responsibility for themselves?
I don't want free health care. Now, I have to pay for it. That doesn't seem like a good situation to me.
Re:It is surprising to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowhere does it call for the FBI, either...what was your point?
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:4, Insightful)
Legally required car insurance is insurance for other people/property you injure/damage.
You are not required to insure your car against theft, you are not required to insure your car against the damage done to it when you crash it.
Health insurance is not for other people that you might harm in some way, it is for yourself. And hence is nothing like mandatory car insurance.
Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming. (Score:1, Insightful)
Uhh, Democrats ran largely on a platform of healthcare reform (among other things). If the American people had wanted absolutely nothing to be done, they would have elected Republicans.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>"the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get [Bluedog Democratic] support."
.
Fixed. The Democrats didn't need Republican support (as was demonstrated by the vote). The problem was a lot of Democrats are actually conservatives, and they were against the "One Payer" goal set by Obama. They were also against funding the killing of human fetuses.
The bill was watered down to make those conservative Democrats happy.
Re:Hoorah! (Score:1, Insightful)
Obviously so are you.
Either that or your priorities are so far out of whack that a $95 fine (sorry, there is no debtors prison in the bill) for being a leach on the rest of us by not buying insurance is somehow worse than the massive social, financial, and societal drain on our country that is the current health care situation.
posting a/c because I'm so fucking sick of the so called libertarian flat earth society cranks and their fucking myopic greedy selfish fucking warped rationalize-anything my interests trump all else imposed view of the world which somehow exists to serve them at the expense of everything and everybody else. see the god damn forest through the fucking trees you selfish bastards.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:2, Insightful)
U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country.
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...
Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
It actually is, in many ways. Every infection is a potential health hazard for others.
Re:It is surprising to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowhere does it call for warrantless wiretapping - in fact, there's an amendment that specifically forbids it.
It's unconstitutional (Score:0, Insightful)
This bill has so many things about it that are unconstitutional.
On the simplest level, the requirement to buy insurance is tantamount to a license for being an American. I hate to break this to the Democrats, but my citizenship, by birth, is not revocable by them or anyone else. And the conditions for its exercise will not be licensed nor legislated by anyone.
Fuck the State.
Non-Americans don't seem to understand the issue with this bill and that is simply because they capitulated on their Rights as human beings generations ago. And just because something makes you feel good, doesn't make it right.
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:2, Insightful)
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
Yes, but do you? You are only required to have liability insurance not repair insurance. It is up to you whether you want insurance to help repair your car. The requirement is only to ensure you are solvent if you cause someone else harm. (Technically liability insurance isn't even a requirement as long as you can post a bond ($30,000 IIRC) showing that you are solvent.)
Re:Yes it does change things (Score:5, Insightful)
Ditto here, my freind. But, there are millions of Republicans lined up, waiting their turn to call us both "LOSERS!"
I remember when that Cobra (or, Corba?) thing was passed, making it possible to keep your health insurance between jobs. Big joke. My insurance was costly while I was employed. When I was laid off, the price quadrupled. Jesus H. Christ! It looked good, when it was being tossed around by the politicians. In reality, it was just another cruel way for the rich bastards to let me know they had really stuck it to me!
Re:Yes it does change things (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you not know what "most" means? DO you know what "insurance" means?
Of course you shouldn't be able to get insurance for a pre-existing condition. What sort of retard would let someone whose house was on fire buy fire insurance, or who was about to have the life support machine turned off buy life insurance?
Government provided health care for the public is fine and reasonable (though in the US there's that consitution thing which should be stopping the Federal Government from doing so - the states can of course) but why lie and call it "insurance". Is that trying to pretend it's "free market" and all that crap? If so it really isn't tricking anyone who actually cares about free markets...
I'm from a country with a working public health system (though I'm a US resident now). Rock up to a hospital, get treated, leave without receiving a bill. Rock up to the doctors, get treated, sometimes leave without getting a bill other times pay the bill and get reimbursed. If you want more/better/different health care then either be rich or buy health insurance.
I have no problem with a system like that, but it obviously isn't "health insurance" and calling it such means you are either a complete moron or trying to deceive me. And both cases are not the person whose ideas I'm going to take seriously.
Re:It is surprising to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it does say that. I'll quote it for you:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Democrats ran on the platform of healthcare reforms. And they won! By a sizeable margin! This is what we call a mandate.
Yes they did run on a platform of "healthcare" reform. At the same time, over 60% of people did NOT want THIS legislation to become law. THAT is a mandate, and the Democrats did not listen to their constituency ... there will be hell to pay in November.
Just watch the Senate get bogged down by the "reconciliation" bill that was passed by the House, it'll never get passed as-is, and the House Democrats will be left out to hang.
Re:Health insurance is a tax now (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with applying the "free market" model to health care is that this is not, in practice, how the American people treat it. When your kid is seriously injured or has a high fever, you don't expect to be turned away from an emergency room because you couldn't pass a credit check. As the GP said, it's more like auto liability insurance, where you pay for it one way or another (which is why most states have mandated auto insurance for drivers). Whether someone has insurance or not, they're going to find a way to get treatment if they're ill or injured. It's just a question of whether you let them see a regular physician or force them to go to the (more expensive) emergency room.
To truly turn health care into a free market, you would have to create a system that is much more callous than almost anyone would be willing to tolerate. But, I guess if you're a free market thinker, every problem looks like a nail.
Re:It is surprising to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the CIA. Or the air force. Or the public education system. Or funding nuclear power plants. Or the FDA, FCC, CDC, OSHA, EPA, FBI, NSA, and believe me, I could go on.
The founding fathers believed only landowning white men should have rights. The world is quite a different place. We have germ theory, evolutionary theory, cars, planes, electricity, running water, and a toilet that is more than a hole in the ground. And women and non-whites and non-landowners can vote.
The real genius of the Constitution is that they gave us the power to change it. So, right after you get all of the above in the Constitution, you're welcome to start bitching. Otherwise, it's just empty rhetorical fluff that stops rational discussion.
One thing many of the founding fathers had was an affinity for a "natural" aristocracy, in other words, smart people; and a hatred of the aristocracy of birthright, in other words, wealthy people. In fact, some of them believed in awarding good education through competition and paying for it with public funds, passed laws ending entails and primogeniture, and here's a couple quotes that will really blow your mind:
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
Oh no! One of our founders was a socialist marxist pinko commie fascist! Run for your lives, I mean, money!
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
>>Watch and learn. Mandated "you must buy X" means that the cost of X will go up, not down.
Yeah, people used to understand things related to supply and demand, but now we just wave magical fairy wands and get whatever we want.
Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats ran after 8 years of a very unpopular administration with a major economic collapse against an opponent who was over 100 years old with a veep whose main qualification was that she could see Russia from her house. Healthcare reform isn't what got the Dems into power.
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:3, Insightful)
"The biggest problem is no one has ever given me an answer as to why my money has to go to pay the medical bills of my neighbor who smokes half a pack a day, or my neighbor on the other side who thinks it's funny to drink a case of beer each weekend by themselves."
Because it's a liberal progressive mentality bordering on socialistic/marxist ideals.
What would you do to help your mother/brother/sister/father?
Yes, they are my family
How about your next door neighbor you hang out with?
Perhaps. They are not my responsibility.
The guy in the next street, or the next town?
At what point do you draw the line and say that I am going to help these people and not those people?
I think that part of the US problem is more that in general this line is drawn closer to home compared to other people who draw it further out.
No. My family is my primary responsibility. I do not have the means to help anyone else at this point.
If I did have the means, I would make the decision of my own accord, and fight tooth and nail any attempt for someone else to make it for me, and enforce it at the point of a gun.
You people seem to think this is all some reasonable trade-off - it isn't. It is a direct assault on personal liberty, and the very ideas that this country was founded upon. To quote Patrick Henry:
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
You underestimate the importance many American place on that simple concept - the idea that the individual has a God-given right to work for themselves, provide for their family, and dispose of their own possessions as they see fit.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:1, Insightful)
That's awesome.
Am I the only one in this world that sees the un-sustainable direction this country is going? Our grandparents didn't think like this. They believed in working hard, paying their dues and doing the right thing. We've become soft and immoral when we're willing to pass our debt to the next generation so we can "watch TV and play video games". I'm disappointed in my country.
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:5, Insightful)
selfish libertarians
You, sir, are too kind. Compliments such as this truly lighten a dark day.
Re:Health insurance is a tax now (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with ya, dude. I've spent a long time analyzing the health care industry, just for my own personal edification.
Health care definitely needs reform. As a small business owner myself, I can see how hard it is to get insurance sometimes, even if you're healthy and willing to pay. Our current health care system is designed with the 1950s in mind - people working for large corporations, getting their health care from a group pool. It can be a nightmare for individuals and small business owners.
However, the new system incentivizes everything backwards. It is now optimal for healthy people to go without health insurance, perhaps with just catastrophic coverage, and then sign up when they get sick. Everyone else in your pool will pay for your illness, so people who have traditional insurance will end up paying more. While the current system supports the corporate employee at the expense of the small business owner, the new system reverses the exploitation.
Some notes:
1) About half of all the health care money in the US comes from the government, so the notion about socialized medicine is already half-true. If they opened up Medicare to everyone (paying in at cost so that it doesn't bankrupt the government) that could be an effective replacement for a single-payer system that doesn't destroy the advantages of our current health care system. Or it would, except I think a lot of hospitals are about to start dropping Medicare coverage entirely due to the cuts in the current bill. Medicare reform is desperately needed - it incentivizes doctors in paradoxical ways that are deleterious to patient care.
2) Tort reform is necessary. John Edwards suing doctors because kids randomly get born with Cerebal Palsy does not make doctors better. It makes doctors quit the OB/GYN business, and hurts the general public. The Democrats are a party of lawyers, and the lawyers were the conspicuous winners from this bill. Malpractice insurance makes up a huge part of the cost of health care these days.
3) Medicare Part D needs to be able to negotiate with drug companies for reduced prices. The VA does, which is one of the reasons they can stay afloat on a restricted budget. VA reform is necessary though, too - their computer systems are a babylonian nightmare.
4) The way billing works in hospitals is more or less fraudulent. It works by inflating prices by 4x, offering a 75% discount to insurance companies (who essentially pay the original price), thus screwing over people that don't have insurance in order to cover losses from people that don't pay. You also can't tell how much something is going to cost before you pay for it, if you don't have insurance. When you remove the free market that far from a payer, it's no mistake that the billing system is so messed up.
Ever been to an auto mechanic? They have a list of prices up on the wall - this much for an oil change, this much per hour for labor. We need a rule for hospitals for the same.
Oh god we are screwed, the public education system (Score:1, Insightful)
has ruined a once great nation. This bill will make insurance companies insane profits, cover a bunch of illegals, pay for abortions, and limit health coverage to those that really need it. All so a retarded foreign bastard can be the next Hitler, thanks idiots.
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:4, Insightful)
Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health. Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one). Incidental injuries like the ones you've listed are relatively inexpensive to treat compared to the medical conditions caused by the things I've listed above. The only major exception is cancer, which is often associated with lifestyle too.
I am not a libertarian, but let me ask you:
Who is more selfish: someone who refuses to pay for your care, or someone who demands that you pay for their care?
As a society, we seem to have lost all respect for other people's boundaries. And to be sure, our boundaries are what define us. That means that we have lost all respect for each other. It is never appropriate to compel or demand that someone do something. We are human beings and we need more respect than that. I am not a beast of burden, I am a human being.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
I was born and raised in Europe, and moved to the U.S. when I was 30, and I believe can give a educated opinion about this:
The kids in in Europe typically don't watch TV in preschool / elementary school. They don't grow up with Dora and fast food culture or how to use credit cards. You can't take your infants or toddlers into a theater and watch Saw 5 with them. You can send your children to a school or University without losing all your assets. Here in the states, you gotta spend roughly 20k per year in order to send your kids to college, and I am sorry to say, but I have met only very few graduates who could potentially compete with graduates coming from a university in Europe. If a student graduates in the U.S., he or she is already screwed. If your student loan is less than 50k, then I guess you can call yourself lucky.
Europeans are indeed lazy, but guess what ? I'd rather have 6 weeks of paid vacation, infinite sick leave, 2 weeks break over Christmas / New Years Eve, and have a life instead of busting my butt of for the rest of my life.
Tell me which country has the highest prison population in the world ?
Health Insurance bill not Health Care bill (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAICT, all the provisions in this bill relate to Health Insurance not Health Care. How it this magically going to reduce the 15+% GDP spent on health care? (Well, OK, it does expand MedicAid and cut MediCare which I guess counts as Health Care.)
The best I can see this bill doing for Health Care costs is making the currently uninsured seek preventative care rather than putting it off until it results in an expensive emergency room visit. But even that theory doesn't work if they all buy the cheapest insurance which will likely have a $25,000 deductible, which means they will still put off preventative care.
So I ask again, what does this bill do to reduce Health Care costs?
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're whining about it.
Welfare State != Democratic Republic (Score:0, Insightful)
Stupid idea all around. Socialized medicine is a complete and utter failure everywhere that it has been implemented. Welcome to Obamacare, a subsidiary of the welfare state paid for by honest workers so the slackers can get away with doing nothing...
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly why we needed a public option. If your costs go up, blame the Republicans who killed it.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
If i understand the US-founders correctly they had a country in mind where everybody is equal and even the poorest have right to a respectable life in America.
Then I think you partially misunderstand them. They had in mind a country where everyone is free, not equal. There's a difference. The idea is that freedom allows people to reach their own potential and to pursue happiness in their own way, not that it guarantees three hots and a cot, and free healthcare, and the "right" to broadband, and so forth and so on.
So no, universal health care is not what they had in mind. They were rightfully skeptical of government in a way that we, to our detriment, have forgotten.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
Which gun law prevents you from getting a gun license, and purchasing a shotgun or something suitable for protecting your home? IANAGE (gun enthusiast) but I feel like the only barrier that the laws really provided was if you expected to walk into a store that minute and walkout with a gun and or a handgun (and some background checks that you aren't a convicted fellon / have outstanding warrants / have otherwise taken choices that resulted in the loss of the privilege to personally own a gun).
Given that you can get a gun faster than you can get a passport, I'm not sure what your point is other than a general "i hate gun laws because i hate them"
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, Someone Who Doesn't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
I love it when someone forgets the "hidden" stuff.
If you are paying for Health Insurance yourself, on an individual plan or through COBRA, $6400 is a steal. If your employer is providing it, with you paying some part of the premium, $6400 is about average. If you have a very large employer, they may be getting a break but $6400 (employer part plus employee part) is still within the norm.
Back in '96, when I got laid off at Lam Research, my COBRA was just at $585 per month as a single guy. Undoubtedly, it's gone up.
If you shop around for individual coverage, it's going to be more.
Re:Hoorah! (Score:2, Insightful)
...provided by insanely profitable corporations.
Insanely profitable corporations? The average profit margin of hospitals is around 3.4%. Health care plans ring in at a whopping 4.4%. (source: Yahoo! finance - http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html [yahoo.com]). Sure, the healthcare companies have the economies of scale on their side, but with margins that low I would rather place my investment dollars into higher margin businesses.
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
so what is the "choice" here? there is no choice: you need health insurance
Before yesterday, you could choose to live "off the grid". You could grab some stuff, head out for the mountains, build a shack, and provide for yourself. While you were still technically supposed to file taxes, etc., no one really cared if you didn't apply for the tax credits and social programs you'd almost certainly be eligible for.
Today is different. As of now, you are officially a tax cheating criminal if you choose to wander off alone. You can bet the government will be interested that you're not filing returns that certify that you owe money for being uninsured.
The world is changed this morning, and I awake to applause. This is not the country I grew up to love and swore to protect.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what to think about the real pros and cons of the bill. I'm mostly sad because driving in this morning was listening to a news program with a heavy republican bias. They likened passing the bill to 9/11 and the attack Pearl Harbor. I'm not kidding! Sound bites of politicians arguing were 100% propaganda tricks on both sides, and completely devoid of sound reason.
Media coverage and the strong polarization along party lines says a lot about US government. I'm concerned that my country is tearing itself apart in a massive power struggle between two parties. We don't have two competing ideologies. That would be impossible because ideologies are multi-faceted. We have two warring factions, us versus them. The very same techniques used to teach terrorists to hate their targets and soldiers to hate their enemies, dehumanisation etc, we're using on ourselves to hate republicans and democrats. Listen to 10 minutes of Limbaugh and you'll see exactly what I mean.
I'm disgusted by all this. And right here in this forum you see arguments on both sides that should ideally be settled by observation of fact. But no science can be done on this topic since there is no way to avoid overwhelming political bias. Is the bill a Good Thing? I'm sure I won't know for at least 50 years if ever.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, the goal of unemployment is to let you keep your home and keep your family fed while looking for a new job.
Unemployment is quite restricted in length, so it's not like you can sit back and goof off for that long. And if you do, you're probably the same type of stupid person who lives paycheck to paycheck, and will lose everything the next time you lose a job and can't find one that starts immediately.
Supposedly you have to prove you're looking for (and unable to find) work, but I've heard that's a joke as currently implemented, unfortunately.
Re:Unintended consequences? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they are in Berkeley. In the rest of the US it is illegal to turn such a person away or force them to pay. In fact it is illegal for any hospital to check the if a person can pay before they treat the person. This was put into law by Reagan. This stupid new law does nothing to fix this, as the OP mentioned, people who show up at the emergency room with an emergency will still get treated with no costs and no expectation that they will pay.
As for the rest of your comments. The majority of the US has said in multiple surveys of a true sampling of the population that they do not want a single payer or government option, the only surveys showing it are ones that asked people in liberal groups or those that hide using new terms or definitions. The Republicans did not vote for this and had pushed for solutions that fixed the various problems but did not cause the problems this new law will cause so the only concessions were to democrats who are running scared when they have to face the public. Don't blame the Republicans for this mess.
Re:An Illegal Assault... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to moan about the actions of the military, at least place the blame where it belongs.
BTW, if you were to bother actually researching, you'd quickly discover than the U.S. military is far more efficient than almost any in history, and also the most 'well behaved'.
Re:Hoorah! (Score:5, Insightful)
You clearly don't understand our politicians ability to screw something like this up.
[Waits to see if this gets modded funny or insightful.] *sigh*
Re:Health insurance is a tax now (Score:5, Insightful)
A high earning physician told me his tax load will increase by $100,000 per year when this bill is fully implemented. That has a nice populist sound to it--tax the rich, give it to the poor. But the people who won't see that money will be master carpenters and their assistants, automobile factory workers, boat builders, waiters and bus boys, and all those businesses that he would have spent the money on. Also, the money won't be invested into the stock market. Instead, it will go to a new bulked up government bureaucracy which will then redistribute some fraction of it to this new policy purpose.
So you're saying that we should not try to improve health care in the US, if it involves taxing wealthy people more, since it would interfere with trickle down economic policies?
I hate to break it to you, friend, but we've had ill-conceived forms of this since Reagan (and long before, in fact), and it never works unless the tax rate is absurdly high (and it isn't now, and won't be even after the bill takes effect). Even then it's somewhat dubious.
Personally, though, my complaint with the bill is not that it goes too far, but that it doesn't go too far enough. We need a single payer system.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's the equivalent of taking out a loan so you can build a workshop and (hopefully) use the profit from stuff you produce there to pay off both debts.
Since this is kinda obvious - the extra spending is supposed to encourage investment into production facilities that are useful even after the initial spending is done, while the root is not going to produce anything - I'm guessing that you're using a purposefully flawed analogue in an attempt to make a strawman argument against people you dislike for ideological reasons. That's fine, this is just a discussion forum for the nerds, but don't expect anyone who actually wields any power over anything to listen to such rubbish. So drop the strawmen, or resolve to spend the rest of your life complaining that nobody important cares about your opinion.
Re:I live in the UK... (Score:0, Insightful)
Sure, and your completely ignorant of the reality-
Britons die of diseases at higher rates than americans, fact
NHS is a fucking disaster and you know it with famous cases of incompetence and long waits, rationing etc.
If you believe the "information" which is controlled by the same entity that controls health insurance in the UK, the govt, then of course you would come to your rosey conclusions and your silly ear infection story offers 0 evidence of your claim that national healthcare is a superior system.
You believe it so, because your so dependent and deprived and when you get a little crumb of care, you think its the real deal.
And how would you know better unless you experienced better and that better has been here in the US.
Spare me the simplistic rationale, it means absolutely nothing
How can China compete against us now? (Score:1, Insightful)
your philosophy is incompatible with human nature (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'd rather live in a society that lets people die in the street (and I don't want that at all) than one that demands they pay for health care."
it is not possible for a moral human being or a moral human society to do this (walk by someone dying in the street)
therefore, you've made a choice that is reprehensible: you'd rather be immoral
forcing someone to pay for their healthcare IS FAR LESS FREEDOM DESTROYING than letting them die in the street. you don't have any freedom when you're dead
what you see before you is a forcing, a compelling: to render aid and then demand repayment. you examine this compulsion against someone's will in a vacuum of other choices. but in reality, the other choice is to leave them dead or permanently disfigured, which is far more freedom destroying
so your argument has two logical fallacies:
1. that freedoms exist in a vacuum. in reality, freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms, and your job is to pick the more freedom affirming avenue
2. only society and government impose on your freedom. reality: simple hunger or sickness destroys more of your freedom than a totalitarian government ever could
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously... All government services are meant for the betterment of society, and picking and choosing which ones you use is the tragedy of the commons at work. It is in everyone's best interest to maintain a healthy and productive workforce.
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that in the case of health insurance, there is no "repair" insurance. If you do not have insurance and you have any medical procedure provided, the cost of that procedure is offset by those who do have insurance. Even more so if you declare bankruptcy or use other debt settling means to get out of paying for the bill.
So if you don't have insurance you are effectively taxing everyone else for your care. Sure, maybe they should add a solvency test, but what would the dollar amount be? $10,000 won't cover a torn ACL. $50,000 won't cover open heart surgery. $100,000 won't cover a muti-year battle with cancer. So what, maybe a quarter of a million dollars? How many people can front a quarter of a million dollars for a bond? Anyone with the brain power to have those kinds of resources laying around is going to have the intelligence to get the insurance they want or will just pay the annual penalty.
-Rick
Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi (Score:1, Insightful)
As much as you "debate" over health care is fun to watch from here (France), and as much as I support the reform I must agree with the guy : this isn't "insurance".
Question : should health be "insured" ?
Should your health depend on your body's liability?
(as determined by either a private corporation or a health state)
Of course not and that's why this reform is both mandatory AND will greatly improve the overall welfare of the US population.
PS: you are really scary discussing the worth of your own people's lives this way for months...
Re:It is surprising to me (Score:2, Insightful)
You fail at reading comprehension. Let me complete your quote....
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We can get the meaning of the "general welfare" part by eliminating the rest of the list.
"We the people of the United States in order promote the general welfare do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
They are promoting the general welfare by establishing this constitutional government they will describe later in the document. It's not a general enumerated power to do whatever the fuck Congress thinks will promote the general welfare.
The constitution is very specific about what the feds are supposed to do (Art 1, sec 8) and very specific that they are supposed to do nothing else (Amendment X).
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
So the bill has been in the works for a year or so, and the American people still don't know what's in the bill? Are you really suggesting that?
Yes, that's exactly what he's suggesting. To quote Nancy Pelosi, "you'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it". The bill is 2000+ pages, which had undergone changes (often behind closed doors) right up until the time of the vote. There's nobody on earth who knows all of what's in the bill. And with something that big, there's sure to be a bunch of "gotchas" and loopholes, intentional or not, that are just waiting to be exploited.
There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for any congressional representative to be voting in favor of this bill without having a clear analysis of the entire bill in the form it was to be voted on, no matter how good the bill is or is not. Any of them that did so should be impeached and found guilty for dereliction of duty, then dismissed from office and imprisoned. I don't care what party you're from or what the bill is, you should not be voting on things without knowing what it is you're voting on. If you can't get your bill to pass as written after thorough examination, it shouldn't be passed at all.
All of us know better than to sign things like mortgage contracts, employment contracts, etc, without thoroughly reading the contract and getting competent legal advice to help. And that's just for things that affect you. So why is it ok for our congressional types to do that on things that affect all of us?
Re:Unintended consequences? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How can China compete against us now? (Score:3, Insightful)
...with more personal freedom.
Have you had your morning coffee yet? Did'ja eplace it with crack?
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
Take my friend, lets call him Tom.. He was born in Japan, both his parents were Japanese, When he was 3 his mother married an American soldier and he was adopted by his step father and moved to the US with a permanent visa. When he was 17 he moved back to Japan for 10 years, during that time he met a Japanese woman and got married. he Moved back to the US at age 27 and was told that he needed to renew his visa since the information on his paperwork was still from when he was 3. Around this time he and his wife applied to become citizens. Since his wife didn't have a permanent visa she was only able to stay in the country a few months at a time before going back to Japan. She always left early to avoid any issues with her "overstaying her welcome" in the eyes of the department of immigration. Unfortunately the new visa they issued him had an expiration date and even though he submitted to have it renewed Immigration never approved the paperwork.
His Visa has since expired and he hasn't been issued a new one, the best advice the local Immigration office can give him is to "lay low until it's all worked out"... that is a direct quote, He's technically been "illegal" for 5 years now. They also refuse to let his wife back into the country because "she has too many contacts" and as such is "at risk of becoming an illegal". It's now been 12 years since they applied for citizen ship, they've spend THOUSANDS on legal fees trying to get the paperwork pushed though the system and they're pretty much followed every rule in the book save for Tom not leaving the country when his Visa expired, but then he still followed the advice of the local Immigration office.
He speaks English better than most natural born American citizens I know. He's incredibly smart (was accepted to MIT but decided to go to school in Japan, which is why he went back). He's also an extremely well matured and hospitable guy. He would give you the shirt off his back if he thought you needed it. Now consider that some schmuck from another country can enter illegally, not speak a word of english, not have any worthwhile qualities to themselves, and not even make any attempt to play by the book can sneak into the country, pop out a child and get a free pass to citizenship....
How messed up is that?
My Friend "Tom" isn't the only one in this situation either, it boggles my mind how nearly impossible it is to legally obtain a greencard in this country unless you decide to just pop out a kid on American sol.
consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
From their perspective, the number of lives lost due to poor health care is completely dwarfed by the lives lost due to abortion.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
[lecture and rant modes on]
The Constitution was written after the Articles of Confederation had failed to provide a country that met the vision of the Founding Fathers. They decided that a stronger, more centralized government was necessary for the survival of the new country.
In this context, "the general Welfare" should probably be interpreted as establishing a level playing field for everyone to succeed on their own merits. I cannot believe for a second that the Founding Fathers would be OK with more than 700,000 personal bankruptcies due to health costs Every. Single. Year.
[modes off]
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
I would also add, no matter how poor you are, you don't have a right to your neighbors' money.
Well, there is, of course, a pragmatic argument to be made. People understand that it's wise to have a fire department to keep fires from spreading, growing out of control, and burning down entire towns as used to happen. A modest investment protects against possible catastrophic loss, which is even better than merely being compensated after the fact for such a loss.
Think of the cost of providing a decent minimum standard of living for your countrymen as being a way to protect against violent revolution. The US came close to this in the 1930's, and if we had not had the New Deal, we very well might have one that would be far worse for wealthy people than anything FDR did.
So if those neighbors would like to keep most of their money, a modest investment is not such a bad idea. Given that there's usually a whole lot more poor people than rich people, and given that a large enough group of people have a perfect right to reorganize their government and society as they see fit, but that contentment doesn't cost a lot (no one wants strawberries and cream here, just honest work, a decent living wage, a reasonable standard of living, including access to health care when needed, particularly preventative care), it's not a bad idea at all.
You might say that this sounds ugly, and if the problem is left to fester, it can be. But that's the reality of the situation. Ignoring it for whatever reason -- the 'let them eat cake' approach -- has predictably bad outcomes.
Re:Unintended consequences? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I think most people on the left would be quite happy in Europe or Canada. Whether Europe or Canada would be happy with having a bunch of whiny Americans is another story.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not disagreeing with your logic, but wanted to point out that by so over-reaching in their denial claims the insurance industry brought this upon themselves. Had they been more reasonable and less greedy, it would not have been far less of an issue.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
So why would the health insurance companies be sending so much money on the Democrats especially since the Democrats keep repeating that companies and people would save 3000% over what they pay now? For that lets look to the various health insurance companies and also investment banks. Under Obamacare they are expecting that heath insurance costs will go up 10 to 13% for those purchasing they own insurance and since those people are now required to purchase insurance even more money, the only people expected to see some decrease are people who pay a majority of the cost with their companies paying a smaller portion and those people are expected to see a 4-6% decrease vs what would happen without this horrible law.
After the majority of states finish suing the federal government to stop this, and probably fail, we can get something closer to the Republican bills where the problems are fixed and the people are protected vs this mess.
Welcome to DrugeDot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stop calling it 'insurance' (or update Wikipedi (Score:3, Insightful)
You haven't really thought about what it means, have you? The youngest (and healthiest) in the population WON'T BUY INSURANCE, they'll just pay the fine, which is cheaper. Then, the overall costs to the insurance companies to cover the people who have insurance will rise on a per capita basis, so they'll raise rates. Oh, and when those young, healthy people suddenly develop expensive cancer, they'll go buy insurance at some absurdly-low rate and cost the insurance company millions of dollars for treatments. Which means the company will have to raise rates on everybody else to make up for their losses. Which means more healthy people will drop their coverage and wait until they get really sick before buying in again. Rinse, repeat.
The only way you can make something like this work is if insurance companies can look at people without insurance and say "Hmm, you've gone this long without it, guess you don't need it now, either." That would be a much stronger incentive for healthy people to maintain coverage than the stupid fine they have now.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're going to need to be a little more fine-grained than that for a means test. One good car accident can put someone of that degree of wealth into the poorhouse.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:3, Insightful)
And by failing to mention the onerous requirements NYS puts in all health insurance plans as a reason for their being so expensive, you either don't know what you're talking about either, or you're being dishonest.
It's absolutely crazy. But it's crazy of our own doing, thanks to your benevolent rulers selling us all down the river.
America gets fucked again (Score:3, Insightful)
Now it is mandatory to pay for this shit? We have a system for paying for federally provided services, it is called income tax. It is already designed to use a fair and progressive system to spread costs.
Grow a damn pair of balls and provide no premium insurance and fund it 100% via the existing tax system.
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than guessing why don't we just ASK James Madison, the man who authored the Constitution? He knows better than anybody what he meant when he scribed the words on the page:
"With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs, was not contemplated by its creators."
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." James Madison as he vetoed a bill.
"There is nothing more natural than to begin with a general statement and then qualify it with specifics. [In other words read the WHOLE sentence, not just the first clause.] If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." James Madison.
And if you still have doubt, just read the Constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really get sick, but just sigh in resignation.
With the upper class having all the gold and pushing all the buttons it's hard to get righteously angry at something that powerful people will make damn sure I can't do anything about.
Hell, I can't even run for office. The powers that be will make sure the media will never give me any face time.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
The trick is to distinguish a lazy person who deserves to starve, from a disabled person who doesn't.
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
and when you broke your arm off the grid, and wandered in bleeding to the emergency room 50 miles away, you gratefully accepted the aid of a society you rejected
i do weep for american society too. that so many people are so blindly selfish and irresponsible that they think aggressively defying what is obviously just common sense fiscal policy is somehow being patriotic or american
just admit you have no interest in american society, and leave social policy to those who actually care about american society
after all you are the one championing going off grid!
don't you see the simple logical fallacy in your attitude?:
"i am declaring myself apart from american society in the name of american society!"
pfffffffft
logic fail
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
... Sure, the bill imposes fines to prevent people from remaining uninsured, but for many people those fines are cheaper than actually getting insurance.
I see this talking point a lot. It sounds like a strong point on casual hearing, it's bottom-line simplicity and all that, but it ignores a very important fact.
Even people who are reluctant to pay for a health plan are not actually opposed to having it! Except for small number of odd (or quite wealthy) individuals, they actually would very much like to have health coverage, just in case. When faced with the prospect of paying a fine, and getting nothing in return, and paying somewhat more and getting a valuable benefit - health coverage - people are very likely to go for the coverage. (Remember also that people on the low end of the economic ladder get assistance.)
When framed properly as a decision theory problem, the rational choice is very likely to be buying the insurance even if more money is spent.
NB. It is also easy to adjust the fine as experience dictates with routine legislation, and all such major legislation is modified after the fact. The apparent belief that mid-course adjustment will not occur is profoundly unrealistic.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a feeling this will go all the way to SCOTUS and likely be thrown out, maybe this will be a good thing after all, as that the feds have been running roughshod over the 10th amendment for a long time now.
I mean, they had to pass an amendment to let the feds tax income, which should there be any LESS requirement for them to force a citizen to buy something or pay a fine?
Re: Page Count (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we stop with that? It's not like anyone would normally read the whole thing anyway. Have you gone and read any of the other millions of pages of laws that already apply to you? Or thanks to case-law, all those decisions rendered in random cases that might, if brought up by opposing counsel, be construed to apply to you as well? No. You didn't. And you won't.
So how about you let legislators do what they're paid and elected to do, which is write legislation, not fortune cookies or hallmark cards. The goal isn't to be short, nor even particularly readable -- it's to be comprehensive and precise, because it'd suck to be the victim of the activist-judge boogieman or the loophole scam artist. There's really no reason to think that the more important some legislation is considered to be, the shorter and more accessible it ought to be, and there's nothing new about this.
For fuck's sake, the whole point of the republican system of government (as opposed to a direct democracy) was that the common people were too busy, uneducated, disconnected and uninformed to be handling this complex stuff themselves. Complaining about this is like having your clueless customer butt in every few seconds while you try to write complex code to solve their problems, or seal a joint, or do whatever professional work it is you do, telling you that you need to do it in a way they understand.
So, seriously. Let's stop this. It does nothing to advance the overall debate.
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you get cancer and end up with $2 million in hospital debt and no way to pay it (because in the US hospitals must do life saving procedures regardless of your ability to pay) who do you think pays for that now? Everyone else who uses that hospital system and everyone's taxes already subsidize the uninsured because the uninsured are guaranteed care if they need it (which incidentally is the care that tends to be the most expensive). Nothing has changed except that now maybe the people who would have been uninsured otherwise will go to the doctor for that weird mole on their leg instead of waiting until they're coughing up blood and treatment is two orders of magnitude more expensive than it would have been earlier.
The damage of you not paying your impossible to pay medical bill is done to all of society. Forcing you to pay for some minimum amount of insurance protects society from that damage.
Re:An Illegal Assault... (Score:3, Insightful)
"the U.S. military is far more efficient than almost any in history, and also the most 'well behaved'."
You are correct with the rest of your statement but this is a little far fetched.
Most efficiency metrics are highly debatable but in the one that isn't, cost, the US military is the LEAST efficient. As for 'well behaved' the answer to that would depend on who you ask. Are you gauging 'well behaved' by actual unreported and unpunished behavior or just the above board/official policy stuff?
Re:Non-American: questions (Score:1, Insightful)
>>> 1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
If the premiums can only go up if the actual cost goes up not for profits sake. The insurance co. will now mandated to spend $0.8 to $0.85 or so of every premium dollar it receives. Right now, that number is between $0.6 to $0.8. Therefore, if the money rolls in, either hospitals and doctors get richer (i.e. costs increase) or premiums drop. The CBO estimates premiums will drop due to other restrictions on hospitals (like per-incident charges instead of per-visit charges etc.) Let's see what happens.
>>> 2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?
State by state regulations, just like it is now. And the mandated spending I mentioned previously. The pre existing conditions ban is a bit of a joke. The fine is $100 a a day. So if your treatment costs over $36,600 a year, it would be more profitable for the insurance co. to deny you coverage.
>>> How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
That will never happen. That doesn't happen even in socialist paradises. The best this act will do is to provide expanded coverage to 32 million people and hopefully doesn't increase costs too much.
Re:Pro / cons (Score:3, Insightful)
Those things are taxes - I don't agree with them, but they are within the scope of the power granted the government by the people via the state and federal constitutions. Well, perhaps schools are not, but that is debatable.
This healthcare nonsense is not a tax - you are being forced to purchase something from a private company. More importantly, there is no constitutional authority for this. The federal government does *not* have the power to compel purchases by individuals.
If you want universal healthcare, then get a constitutional amendment.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
So you think you'll wait until your sick to buy insurance. Ok.
If you get a chrnoic illness that requires ongoing treatment, having set aside the money you would've spent on premiums to cover the initial treatments before you can process the purchase of insurance, then I suppose you win. Hope it doesn't happen before you've had time to set aside enough money. For anything serious it's going to take many years of savings on premiums even if you don't spend any of that sweet money you're planning to pocket.
On the other hand, if you get an acute illness, you lose. You'll pay for the treatment on your own because you'll be treated before your coverage becomes effective. Sure, the insurance company can't deny you coverage, but do you really think they're going to pay bills you'd already received? Better think twice.
You're worse off still if you get in an accident. A few years ago I went to the ER because a bicycle had run over me. (After dark, bike had no lights and was on the sidewalk. And I think the cyclist was drunk.) Because I was insured, I paid the hospital $100. If I were uninsured, I wouldn't have had a chance to buy coverage for the emergency treatment I received. Instead, I would've been handed a hospital bill for over $10,000.
Also, insurance covers this thing called "preventative care". It's one of the most effective ways to reduce your odds of getting severely sick. Since your plan is to avoid paying for insurance until you need it, I assume you won't want to erode those savings by getting the preventative care that the insurance would otherwise be covering for you. You might want to consider that while you might pay something like $20 to see your doctor, that isn't what you'll pay to see him if you're uninsured.
If you do eschew preventative care, the odds increase that sooner or later you will get sick enough to (1) be unnecessarily miserable, and (2) have some nasty bills to cover while you scramble to find last-minute coverage.
This still sounding like a good gamble to you?
Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won (Score:2, Insightful)
Where there is force charity can not exist. I do not believe the guarantee of welfare is worth sacrificing any pretense of freedom and individual right.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't any different than requiring drivers to purchase liability for auto insurance. Very similar in fact as lack of liability cost others when the driver didn't carry it. I can only assume that when that legislation was passed, similar challenges were presented and obviously didn't fly either.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
And LoTR lost money. As did all the Spiderman movies. I spent a lot of time in my middle paralegal years working on litigation in opposition to Insurance Companies, and I simply do not find anything they say as the least bit credible. Bitter and/or cynical? Sure, but, believe me, it was well earned.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
They know what's in the bill. The points have been debated endlessly for over a year with many congressmen and women putting their job on the line for it. To claim they don't know what's in it due to the number of pages is ridiculous. I can read a 2000 page novel in a weekend and give you a very detailed outline of what's in it. It also wasn't a very good 'closed door' meeting if every deal made in the meeting is published in the bill now is it? Considering we all knew what was discussed the same day also makes that argument a little silly. The political buzzards were circling within minutes, and folks in the room were actively tweeting about the discussions going on like the various deals being discussed. Any detail discussed behind closed doors is in black and white, and you can bet that any opponents of the bill will go over every letter of the bill with a fine tooth comb. There is no hiding what's in it.
I find these claims about the number of pages rather stupid not to put too fine a point on it. One of the primary reasons lawyers thrive is due to ambiguity in law. "Thou shall not kill". Kill what? Only people? What about animals? What if there are religious rights in involved? Have we thought about the children? Have we though about the chickens? Law is messy, and needs very complex verbiage to define what's what.
I would rather have very specific terminology in a bill this complex, rather than some ambiguous concept that will be abused as was not intended in the original bill.
Re:Beware, lawmakers: November is coming. (Score:1, Insightful)
The Democrats ran after 4 years of a very unpopular administration with a major military debacle against an opponent who was dumber than a sack of hammers with a veep who meets some definitions of "war criminal". And lost. Handily.
Ideas aren't the only things that got the Dems into power, but they sure did help.
Re:Non-American: questions (Score:4, Insightful)
1) What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.
Insurers have new regulations. First, 85% of revenue must go towards providing care, which caps administrative costs (and profit) at 15%. This isn't a huge difference from the current system; most insurers keep similar margins, and grow revenue through volume. It sounds crazy, but insurers actually depend on doctors and hospitals doing too many tests and procedures.
Second, health insurers are no longer protected from anti-monopoly laws. This should actually help, because currently most regions are locked into 1 or 2 insurance choices.
2) What will stop the insurance companies from making their own rules that slowly erode the value of coverage by limiting the treatments that they pay for?
The bill has pretty specific requirements for what plans can be eligible for assistance and/or tax credits. I.E. You can't start a health insurance company that just hands out band-aids. Additionally, there will be expanded eligibility for Medicare and insurance exchange programs; competing for customers will keep insurers from cutting too much.
3) How will someone who is poor be ensured the same treatments as someone who is wealthy?
That doesn't even happen in Canada--the wealthy can always turn to medical tourism if they want special treatment. The poor will still get inferior care, but inferior is better than non-existent or bankrupt.
Re:Health insurance is a tax now (Score:5, Insightful)
So tell me - why has every other first world nation been able to implement universal coverage? Why have so many of those nations consistently beaten the US in virtually every measure of health care efficacy? Why have so many of those nations consistently beaten the US when it comes to quality of life, child mortality rates, and lifespan?
If reforming healthcare is such a bad, awful, wrong thing to do that will ultimately wind up in some kind of small-business apocalypse, why has virtually every other nation on Earth who's tried it wound up in a pretty enviable spot, health-care wise?
Or, put another way, why do you think Americans are incapable of doing something virtually every other major nation has managed to do?
I keep on hearing people say this will be bad, yet I keep on seeing examples in the real world of it working pretty well - so all I can figure is that you guys seem to think we're just not as good as everyone else since you think it'll cause such huge problems for us.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is surprising to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that providing for the general welfare is a power delegated to the US by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8. The "general welfare" clause is a very broad one, and lots of people don't like it, but it is there. It's exactly parallel with the clause about providing to the common defense, which suggests that a national health-care system is precisely as constitutional as the United States Air Force (which is neither the army nor navy mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution).
"INSURANCE" (Score:2, Insightful)
The funny thing about health insurance is that it's only insurance if you're young; when you're old it is a payment plan. Of course, we try not to pretend this is true, thinking that everybody can live forever and that these health "events" are randomly spread out through life; it's not true to any degree. Insurance, used broadly, is something one uses to protect oneself from catastrophic events (e.g.: hit by a bus) that are unlikely to happen. It is a way of hedging one's bets by pooling money with people of similar risk factors. Unfortunately, health insurance does not pool people of similar risk factors -- the old don't pay a rate representing their actual risk; this makes health insurance a poor bet for anybody young.
Compounding problems is the idea that people with preexisting conditions must be insured, and at the same rate; this brings up two groups of people, and while neither shouldn't be denied medical care outright, they ought to be willing to pay for it. The first group of people are those that simply didn't buy insurance until they became sick. These people are completely dishonest and the people paying into the insurance pool should not have to assume the risk someone took by not purchasing health insurance beforehand. In the second group is someone who has perhaps has had a lifelong illness and could never obtain coverage. Should they pay the same rate as everyone else? Absolutely not. Should they be able to obtain insurance for things OTHER than their illness? Certainly; however, nobody really knows how to distinguish between the two.
As an example of how new healthcare legislation is a complete failure, look into Massachusetts. The state mandated that every person must purchase health insurance or pay a fine, and that nobody could be turned down for preexisting conditions. The price of insurance has skyrocketed: the fine is low enough that people pay it until they get sick, buy premium insurance, get cured, then stop paying insurance. It rewards the dishonest and punishes those who actually pay for their insurance.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:4, Insightful)
This has never existed before. All previous taxes/fees/mandated insurance were based on you doing/earning something first:
Income taxes: Only if you earn money
Auto insurance: Only if you drive a car
Property taxes: Only if you own property
Now, however, the second you become an adult in this country you have to pony up money to the government or insurance company, or else you will be fined.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
"Common Good" has always been a convenient euphemism for what is good for the group of people that hold power at the time. Paying Taxes is not a good thing when the government receiving the taxes continually wastes it on self interest and continually ignores the will of the people. No one will tell you the Health CARE is not a good thing, and that they don't want it, however insurance does not guarantee you health care, and for the majority of healthy people, it is simply another expense. What if someone said to you "I want the freedom to NOT have health insurance if I don't want or need it. There are other means of gaining health care. I don't have health insurance, and I don't want it. I am part of a health co-op, with our own doctors, and hospital, and we deal with barter and a savings plan for emergencies." ? There are many ways of obtaining such care with and without insurance, but we certainly don't need an massive government intrusion into our lives to get it.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I think a later poster got this one right. This will be a 2% tax across the board, with a credit for those who have health insurance. I'm not clear on how they're going to justify the $700 minimum provision, though, as that isn't an income-based tax. Also, the details of the exact wording in the bill are important to the constitutionality of this provision.
Most of the other provisions are definitely the purview of the federal government under the commerce clause.
Re:patriotism and morality and freedom won (Score:4, Insightful)
Making car insurance mandatory has not lowered rates as far as I know in any of the 48 states.
I get amazed at how many people are not for 'freedom' in things like this. I may be an idiot if I don't have insurance, but that should be my choice. If I'm mid twenties making ok money, then I should be able to risk not having car or health insurance if I want. Lets say I want out of my current situation, save up, start my own business; well health insurance can very easily run me dry - especially if my company doesn't cover much or any, and I can get stuck where I am. Odds are for 3-4 years I can go without it and not need it even once. In 4 years I can save up a lot. If in those 4 years I need something, I pay for it, if I don't my credit gets totally screwed and I lose everything I've been working for; so I might take out a loan and pay it off. On top of that I get a worse price than a health insurance company does - so unless I default then I don't hurt the system. I don't use any of 'your' money. If it is something drastic that costs me hundreds of thousands of dollars, then yes I can't pay all that off and you will pay for it - the system will pay for it; however if you or I with insurance also have something of that magnitude then other people will also pay for it. In my lifetime I will never put that much money into the system, so having a child or two can easily put you in a position where the insurance company has paid more for you than you will ever put in.
The argument you, and many others make, is a very poor argument; but unfortunately usually wins out in politics. It is very similar to an alarm system on a house. Do you know anyone that would argue that an alarm system is a bad idea? anyone? Yet how many people do you know have one? According to your argument for the better good the state, heck the Federal government, should make it mandatory for every house to have an alarm. Everyone will be safer that way, you can't argue against that - its perfect f'd up logic that totally forgets the principles that this country was founded on and has made us ahead of the rest of the world. Some people prefer Universal Canadian Health care, this country was not founded by people that felt that way. People didn't get in boats from Europe to come over here for Universal Health Care, they came for freedom. I'm afraid too many generations have past and we have forgotten just that.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
Social Security and Medicare are not ponzi schemes any more than, say, road maintenance is. A ponzi scheme collapses because everyone expects to get out of it more money than they paid into it and there is no productive activity being done with the money (if there is, it's a normal and legitimate investment firm). A social scurity program is simply a state-run (and often tax-funded) insurance program, where the average participant ends up putting in as much or more money than withdrawing.
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:4, Insightful)
Before yesterday, you could choose to live "off the grid". You could grab some stuff, head out for the mountains, build a shack, and provide for yourself.
Whose mountain land would you be building that shack on? Scavenging and/or farming on? fishing/hunting on?
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
What a myopic view. Fine, keep all the money you earn, every penny. But please be moving to your own private island and stop using my public services. Get off my internet, it was invented by the Government in case you've forgotten. I can only imagine what the corporation created internet would look like. AOL but worse? Where you can only say, read and discuss what they choose so as not to offend and push away customers?
Stop driving on my interstates, again taxes at work.
No more postal services for you. Shit almost every business in existence these days has been the benefit of tax dollars, or rebates/credits. So fuck you and stop buying our products.
You are no longer allowed to participate. Have fun with that.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, hospitals ERs are required to treat everyone without regard to their insurance status. The cost of treating those w/o health insurance gets passed along to those of us that have insurance. So, if you (and everyone else w/o insurance) agree to not seek any health care if you don't have any insurance and/or can't otherwise pay for the service yourself, we'll all be fine. Sometimes, the cost of being a responsible citizen isn't zero.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
Republicans are only fiscal conservatives when they aren't in power.
Democrats only give a shit about the "working class" when they aren't in power.
Not much changed... (Score:1, Insightful)
For all the applause and cheering on one side, and hand wringing, breast beating on the other... There isn't any real.. change... here.. It's really pathetic.
No single payer, no public option... Just a mandated tithe enforced by the IRS to racketeers and profiteers that make BILLIONS off the suffering of others..
Sure, you won't get denied coverage for a "pre-existing condition" like having had a c-section in the 70s, they'll just charge $10,000/year for that coverage..
There's little to no reform here. All this is is more of the same old same old political theater, and idiots on both sides of the issue parroting talking points from pro and con propaganda like a bunch of fracking retards.
A mandate w/o at least a public option is nothing more than a sloppy wet blowjob to racketeers and profiteers whose industry shouldn't even exist.
Sad.
Also Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one in this world that sees the un-sustainable direction this country is going? Our grandparents didn't think like this.
"WE" haven't really become soft. Our politicians have. Thats why this bill was rammed through without 70% of the peoples approval. "WE" still know this is wrong. The only ones that dont are the ones jealous of people who work for a living that they get nice cars and they dont. Hey i should have that car too! who do you think you are! Im a person too, im entitled!
We were already on shaky ground with debt, and stable currency. This will accelerate the shift of investments somewhere else now that top researchers will not be paid what they're worth here due to the new mentality of steal from "the rich" and every year following "the rich" will be a lower and lower salary and "the poor" will be a growing population not cause the numbers stay the same but because they'll change what poor is. Google the supplemental poverty measure.
Re:what happens if you drive without car insurance (Score:3, Insightful)
This looks like a job for selective quoting!
"While you were still technically supposed to file taxes, etc., no one really cared..."
"As of now, you are officially a tax cheating criminal if you choose to wander off alone."
"This is not the country I grew up to love and swore to protect."
You mean the country that was too lazy to chase you down if you cheated the law yesterday, and probably doesn't actually care one iota more today? The country that likely wouldn't criminalize this activity anyway, since by your description you wouldn't have an actual income and would be exempt?
Hilarious. Go get your gun, move into your shack in the Appalachians, kill some possums, and get "off the grid". Since this freedom is so precious to you, maybe you should exercise it and see how it goes.
Re:Those were dark times, Harry, dark times. (Score:4, Insightful)
You should be so lucky as to have Canadian health care. We spend around 60% of what is spent in the U.S., proportionally (either per capita or as a portion of GDP), and have better outcomes by almost any measure: life expectancy, infant mortality...
Personally, I feel lucky to have it because I'm an independent businessman. I'd never have been able to take the risks I took up here, down in the U.S., because I'd never have been able to afford insurance. Ask yourself how much entrepeneurialism your (now previous) fucked up situation squashed.
It's continually shocking to me how delusional Americans are about health care: You think you've got the best system in the world, when it's actually the worst in the first world; you think you get better service when you get worse (ask my brother, living in Ohio and with an executive health plan); and you think you pay less when you pay far, far more. It's like fucking bizarro-world down there.
Re:currently (Score:3, Insightful)
with mandated insurance, the freeloaders are outlawed.
No they aren’t. They’re still freeloaders. The government just steps in and pays their bill.
furthermore, since everyone is on insurance, premiums drop because the pool now includes the healthy as well.
Supply and demand don’t work like that. Please re-take Economics 101.
Alternatively, just wait and see.
Re:So the government is forcing me to buy somethin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. Bills aren't like novels. They aren't entirely self-contained, they don't flow logically from beginning to end, you can't get everything you need to know out of them without lots and lots of supporting materials.
I'm going to approach this from an engineering standpoint. Let's imagine that the current law is like a gigantic drawing, or specification, or source code. It is thousands and thousands of pages long. Let us also assume that the current health bill is like an engineering change order, specifying the changes to be made and where to make them. Things like "change Paragraph 7 in section VI of page 27,512 to read 'quick brown fox' instead of 'slow spotted dog'" or "strike paragraph 8, section II of page 22,212 and replace with the following...". Isn't that meaningless on its own? I mean, if I went in to check and comment your code, and rather than mark up your existing code, I handed you a couple thousand pages of change notes, making you go back into the source to figure out what the hell I actually meant, don't you think it would be a little harder?
Without going back and comparing the original law and the current changes, the changes are likely to make little sense. A seemingly simple change of a sentence or two can change the entire implementation of something very large and complex. Oh, and lets compound the problem by adding in another change or two that has been approved and released, but not yet directly incorporated. You also have to go dig through those and figure them out, too, just to understand the law as it currently is before trying to apply the proposed changes.
Plus, you not only have to be able to read the bill and incorporate the changes into the text, but you also have to be able to understand all the ramifications of the bill. We're talking about making drastic changes to laws that affect everyone in the country and affect large portions of the economy. That's just not something you can evaluate properly in a weekend, even if you're an expert in the field. Yet, somehow our politicians can read through this document and compare every single one of its changes against the current annotated US code, analyze every change and think each one of them all the way through to their conclusions, and consider all of the legal, political, medical, and economic ramifications? Yeah, I didn't think so.
So it's not as simple as "oh, it's just 2000 pages, I can read that!" If I were to take 2000 pages' worth of proposed engineering orders against one of the airplanes my employer makes and try to make sense of them all at once, and ensure that none of the changes they make will negatively affect the safety, operation, maintainability, or certification of said airplane, it would take me a lot longer than "a weekend". That's exactly why such things are broken down into simple, easy, small chunks. The order for one particular change stands on its own and is approved on its own, so its purpose is clear and it doesn't get lost or misinterpreted among all of the other changes.
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm comparing the national economy to the workshop.
So who were you planning on selling the national economy to? China?
Oh yes, and those stronger workshops are known as Europe, China and India.
Um, what? The Great Depression started when the poorly regulated stock market overheated and crashed, lasted a decade, helped Hitler to rise to power and only ended with the help of massive government spending on World War II (which it helped cause in the first place). That is your idea of "worked brilliantly"?
On the good side, the GD drove home the need for market regulation, which, once implemented, kept the economy in steady growth - until some laserbrains in love with libertarian ideology removed these regulations, resulting in the current mess.
Re:Hoorah! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is indeed a glorious day for the Socialist Republic of America.
How is that unfettered capitalism thing going for you guys lately? We heard you were having some problems, and that a system built around pure unadulterated greed was maybe turning out to be slightly less efficient than you had thought?
Re:health insurance is like auto insurance now (Score:3, Insightful)
While I will agree good things have come from that act....strictly speaking, I'm not sure what power the feds have enumerated by the constitutions to pass and enforce such an act. I can see how they could mandate it for federal buildings, I'm not sure how they can for private or even state buildings.
It has done good things, but honestly, I don't know that the feds really have that power? If so....from where?