Healthcare Suicide
 

So here we are. A health care bill soon to be rammed through that the people don't like, Congress itself doesn't truly like but it's going to ram it through.

The Dems are committing political suicide if they pass it through Reconciliation and just by the bill itself. It's not a good solution, it sucks.

The GOP is committing suicide by not coming out with a better solution to the people. Granted they may not be able to put it on the floor for debate.

Now, if I were a GOP strategist, I"d have a proposal better than that being passed and show it to the people (personally, my choice would be sliding scale). I'd have every GOP out there showing the proposal and comparing it to what will be passed and talking about how the Dems aren't even listening to the people.

This would show to the people that the GOP sees the need and unlike now, is willing to attempt to find some change. Now, the GOP just yells about all the faults and while it is extremely flawed, they offer nothing else.

Eventually, and I believe this is what the Dems are doing, it starts looking like the GOP doesn't see a need for reform and doesn't care, they just are playing partisan politics. Which WILL hurt the GOP immensely.

I could foresee the Dems waiting until the heavy electoral races before they truly do anything. Everything else is scare tactics. During the races, the Dems come at the GOP about how they don't want ANY health care reform and it's over for the GOP.

Then, the Dems vote on this fucking horrendous bill and get it passed. Taxes go up, people want their care now and we'll see hospitals go broke, go private, and so on. It's going to be a mess and in 2 years 2012... the Dems that voted for it will be toast. BUT it will be law.

The people by and large want and realize we need some form of reform but they don't like this bill and the way it is being processed. The GOP is truly taking a huge gambit with not offering their own plan up. The Dems are just going with the wrong bill and doing the wrong things to get it passed.

Just my opinion and observation.... what is yours about this?

I'm not touching this other than to say that it is completely untrue that the GOP offered no alternatives. With all due respect, how could we start a discussion on this when such a fundamental point to your post is so inaccurate?

I'd be more careful before claiming to know what "the people" think. I think that the Democrats are more fucked if they don't pass anything.

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

Wasn't their alternative the "Let's start over so we can drag this out for another year" plan?

I don't know if this goes as far as political suicide. Maybe this is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My opinion of this whole thing is skewed, as I'm writing this from a nation that's had health care in its current form for longer than I can remember. Its buildup predates me. Furthermore, the man credited for its development and inception is considered a national political hero.

Anyway, my view of what's going on south of the border is this: you're doing it wrong, but it's better than doing nothing — and the system can be reworked and rejigged after it's implemented.

I think the problem with most Americans is that they're too damned paranoid of socialism to actually develop and implement a workable system parallel to the systems in place in much of the developed world.

This needs to be quoted 100x.

Yes, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. That said, the polling data does not reflect the idea that this is political suicide. People want health care reform passed. Lots of people have reservations about this reform, but the data consistently shows that people trust the Democrats over the Republicans on this subject, and that they'd rather have something passed than nothing.

no one is committing political suicide on either side. some faces may change here or there, but the two parties can more or less do what they like with impunity

Yeah, people keep saying it's an unpopular bill, etc. etc.

The problem, however, is that most people are fucking clueless about what is on this watered down bill.

When asked about each provision on the bill, almost everything other than the mandated health insurance are overwhelmingly popular.

By the way, in many ways this bill is actually a lot like the one they republicans proposed as an alternative to Clinton's, which I suspect is strong indication that if the democrats gave in on everything (as opposed to almost everything like they just did), the GOP still wouldn't go along with it.

Pollster.com: Health Care Plan: Favor / Oppose

the republican/insurance industry combined disinformation machineries has done considerable work in convincing people of all manner of nonsense about health care reform.

rasmussen polling results, which tend to run right:
53% Now Oppose Congressional Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports

but
Most support public option for health insurance, poll finds - washingtonpost.com

57% favor a public option.

i don't see data that supports the op contentions.

Ever since I saw a mashup of "ramming down our throats" on The Daily Show, I can't help but notice it when someone uses it. It makes it very clear where they are getting their news from.

Nuclear option is the same as reconciliation
Ramming down our throats
American people don't want this
Start new
Go back to the drawing board
Political suicide

People pick up these phrases without even realizing it, but end up telegraphing their sources (and subsequent ignorance) via their choice of words.

EDIT: Links..

"Ramming down our throats" / "Anchor Management" - jump to 2:00
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...hor-management

"Nuclear Option":

Passing any kind of reform is the only thing that can save the Democratic party for the next election cycle. Once this gets passed, Democrats can hang their hats on being able to change things in Washington—even if the bill changes almost nothing compared to what it should have—and can run their campaigns on a continuation of "change". If the Democrats lose, it will be a political disaster of grand (I refuse to say "epic") proportions, and could lead to centrist Republicans making gains in November.

The funny part of this whole thing is how polling is being used by the obstructionists to somehow justify their abhorrent and disloyal behavior. "75% of Americans are agains ObamaCare". Really, Fox News? Did, as dippin point out, they actually read the bill? No? So the only source of theirs on information from this bill is from Fox News itself? Does your hand get cramped from all that circle-jerking?

If I were a GOP strategist, you know what I'd be doing right now? I'd be positioning my Senator or Congressman to step across the aisle and vote yes. I'd send him or her all over Fox News to interview with Beck and ORLY and Hannity and on to talk radio to talk with Limbaugh and such, touting about how my representative managed to get Republican ideas into the bill despite heavy resistance from the "leftist" Obama administration. I'd talk about Republican ideas like undercover fraud-spotters for Medicare, the $500m for tort reform, and the plan being budget neutral. I'd present my representative as a David, facing off against the Goliath of the Democratic majority and doing whatever needed to be done to legislate Republican principles. My rep would win in a landslide in his or her district or state and would no doubt pave the way for a presidential run in a few terms as a maverick or as bipartisan. Now would be the best time in the last 30 years to create a stand-out Republican persona.

But they won't do that because the insane far right thinks President Obama is the second coming of Hitler or some such nonsense, making compromise all but impossible to the ignorant cowards.

I think that once this bill passes and people realize that very little will change in the next 4 years or so there will be a lot of pressure to move things up. Also once people start (are required) to pay money to insurance companies many will insist on a public option.

Also I believe that after people start getting health care benefits, the chances of repealing it would be about the same as getting rid of social security.

If "ObamaCare" and its' system of hospitals and doctors, appointment making and force of vaccinations is anything like military health care, military health care being run be the government, so I would think they will be close, it isn't going to be at all what people think it will be.

The doctors will have more authority than before and if you don't follow their guidelines, well, in the military, it can look really bad not to conscientiously have your children vaccinated, regularly, they call you if you don't, and as for the lucid being proven insane and locking you up, I can see state run patty wagons on their way already.

When you do come in they question you about every decision you make, there is absolutely no continuity of care, and a lot of the doctors are outdated, don't read up on the new med stuff, because they all get paid the same, and very few of them will even remember who you are, just another body walking through the door.

Even the military has heard enough from it's own and allowed some of use to pick up Johns Hopkins, if we want.

Don't ever expect to get a same day appointment, unless you are active duty, or important to the government system itself. If you are truly lucky you will come across that one or two special doctors who are merely active to get their degree and then get out as soon as they can, into the real health care system, which I guess will only be available to the ultra rich after this.

Kids can get almost all free health care through their local health clinics, there is in place ways for people to get help that need it now, if they want it, it's already government run, and surprisingly most people don't like that now, I don't see how they will like it more when it is all government run.

If this happens, the gap between the rich and the poor will escalate. The sick will become sicker, the youth will stand a chance, but as a parents you better follow through because they will be tracking you. Our kids will grow up with a complete medical history available to anyone as they walk through that doctors door, and swipe their special personalized number, only the wealthy will be able to seek treatment without repercussions of any sort.

Doctors will be overwhelmed, under-payed and undereducated, just to get them out their working, older doctors will be kept on just to make you suffer with their out of date diagnoses, and if you think these health care people are going to go out of their way to be personal to the multitude of clients they will be inundated with, think again.

I agree their should be some plan in place that protects children and people under the age of 18 and over the age of 65, but other than that, your on your own. And yes, they will make decisions as to who is worth "fixing" and who isn't, if the American people are footing the bill and the government is in control of the money, you better hope your young when that hip goes out.

I love the military, blessed to be a part of it, blessed to have what they offered, can't wait to find a practitioner that I can pick for myself with trust in the doctor, not just because he/she is who is available, and who I get.

I remember somebody mentioning something about health care in Canada and how you are not given a choice as to which type of doctor you want to see, you will have to conform to get the help you need/want, or you will not get help at all.

Raise taxes, but fewer people will get the help that is already available to them now, they will just have to pay for it regardless, ask most affluent Canadians where they go when they really need expertise in medical treatment, it's typically not local, no offense.

I hope I'm wrong, but it all smells like anesthesia to me. Their is so much more as to what government funded health care is like, to the things they say to you and the way you are treated, like animals in a zoo, your just another body and unless your really physically broken and young, your just not a priority for care.

I've listened to most of the GOP health care proposals and they just can't seem to come up with a way to cover most of the uninsured and those with pre-conditions. The cost savings from tort reform and opening up state lines just don't get us there.

Never been told what doctor I will or won't see. I love how Americans with no experience in our system always use information that was initially wrong to try and make their point.
I hate when people say 'ask most' how many is 'most affluent Canadians'? 6? 126? 1026? Just saying ask most affluent Canadians where they go, doesn't mean 'most' do, and as I altready pointed out, how many is 'most'. Let me guess, you're going to use Danny Williams as an example.

As BG stated previously in this thread:

We also have extensive opinions on purple elephants in Africa. :thumbsup:

It really is funny though, it's like some think you get sent to a proctologist if you have a head injury or something, simply because the ass doctor is avaliable at the time you came to emergency.

As for those purple elephants, I think I saw them in Ontario back when I was a teenager, or it could have just been the acid that made that happen haha.

My current signature seems appropriate: "In order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand." (Eric Hoffer) It's the certainty that a universal system leads to socialism, communism, nazism, anarchism, hedonism, and antidisestablishmentarianism that makes their case so silly. Facts are either ignored or rationalized away in order to support a belief, a faith if you will.

Continuing along the theme of misinformation...If there's one thing the health care reform proposal won't be like, it's military health care. Even at the most liberal points of the debate, the focus has been on creating a system more like Canada's, not one more like Britain's. After a year of this I really shouldn't have to explain the difference, but I will (very generally) anyway: In Britain, the government provides the health care. In Canada, the government pays for the health care.

I'm not even sure Idyllic's comment was worth responding too, seeing as how it's not actually anything like the current health care bill. The 'government run healthcare' you're railing against is soooooo 2009.

silent_jay here's some numbers: this was done 1994 and 1998 (5 years)

You are right, not a high volume in comparison to those in the facilities in Canadian hospitals, however, most of those who came to American were, as I said, affluent and I would think a lot of these could be those who didn’t want to wait and had that money for immediate service.

I believe he would be considered affluent.

I am not making the assumption that you would see a proctologist if you were looking for a psychiatrist. That would be ludicrous, but even in the governmental run military health care system, if your PCM (Primary Care Physician) is out. You get the next available doctor.

My first primary care physician was an internal specialist, told him all my symptoms, came back in a month and he was gone. I ended up with a new doctor, just out of school who specialized in respiratory diseases and was rotating for experience. I had to start all over, it was never properly documented in my chart, and I had a three hour wait to see this guy.

In the end I had to be referred for x-rays, 2 weeks, mammogram, 3 weeks, specialist who then sent me to a surgeon for the lump in my bosom, to a surgeon, duh, why the wait, it was over two months to see a surgeon for possible breast cancer, and instead of discussing a needle biopsy, oh no, she said we need to cut, and take out the mass and some fat tissue around it too.

After my surgery, I got an infection because the new surgeon, who I found out later had only a handful of surgeries under her belt, left the sterile strips on, never told me to remove them, even after I returned to her. I developed a severe infection which lead to permanent disfigurement, I’ll never forget laying on that table in just her exam room as she quietly covered her mistake and stuck a 2 inch needle into my beast to drain the infection, no Novocain but at that point the pain from the infections pressure was so bad the needle felt good, I have to say though watching my “ultra tough” husband almost hit the floor was hilarious, needless to say, I never saw her again. By the way, it was a cyst, a stinken stupid bubble of fluid that had she stuck the fuckin needle into the first time would have popped and gone away, she wanted to cut.

Don’t get me started on when they hit my femoral nerve during a routine hysterectomy that left me partially paralyzed in my left leg for 6 month, I was told, it’s just an angry nerve, oh, that makes it better, thanks for the walker. So much. And I will never forget what they did to my son during his surgery at thirteen month. Oh, my God, even today I want to hunt that nurse and those doctors down and throttle them.
I tell you this garbage, my whining you may say, because, and here's the killer, You have no recourse, can’t sue the government, and if you complain, it goes into your permanent file and rides at the top of your chart and even before you walk through that door your judged.

No Thanks, Obama. Been there, done that.

And go ahead, ask me about Tricare- the government funded insurance…. hahahahaha.

How different can it be, government run is government run. They may provide it, they may pay for it, but in the end it will be us who pays, twice.

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as malpractice here in Canada? Tell that to the lawyers here who make a living on such things. I don't think it's much different from other health care systems.

Isn't health care in the U.S. currently more costly per capita than in Canada?

I already mentioned him, all Canadians on the forum knew Danny Williams name was coming up.

Well what would you like them to do? Send you home until your doc is around? Then watch the complaints then, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, either way you'll complain.
Where does it say 'most' are affluent? You seem to think saying 'most were' makes it so, but really it doesn't, you showed Danny Williams, thats it, and we all knew that was going to be mentioned. You use vague words like 'most', 'alot', and think that's how it is, it's like making a comment about 'most Americans', I could say it, but even I know it isn't true, as I don't know a think about most Americans.

Again you have zero experience with our system, yet think you know it inside and out, it's quite comical really.

Baraka: yes, nearly double.

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapsho...s/figure-1.gif

Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/ex-4.gif

The costs are also increasing faster than any other major country, relative to GDP, and has been for the past 30 years...

Percentage Point Change in Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 1980 to 2003; 1990 to 2003
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/Ex-6.gif

Hi Baraka_Guru, no I'm not suggesting that, re: litigation, I wouldn't know. But as you said your health care system has been in place for a long time, long enough for people to stand up to your government and demand certain regulations. I am just afraid that it will take 100 years before this is all worked out and it is scary to think that in 20 to 25 years, I probably won't get that hip replacement.

I would like to see Americans a little less intimidated by this reform, before it is pushed through, that's really all, and considering all I have seen, and I'm talking about the venerable WRAMC, soon to be the WRNMC. It's really scary. Just the cafeteria is like a war zone of broken solders who are fighting so hard, and still seem to be just a number at the foot of their beds. I know the people who work at Walter Reed are trying, I've meet a lot of great people, but the system, it's scary, they are overworked, overwhelmed and under payed. If the government can't even handle these deserving people as well as they should be, what does that leave me to expect for the average Joe.

SecretMethod70, I would like to say we cost so much because we are just so damned good, but as posted before, nay. I don't know why we are so much more expensive, that doesn't change the matter of this Bill. I still think privatizing and competition are key to less expensive health care, the government can control those rotten pharmaceutical companies though, or else let Canada come in and help us out there.

Then that's the problem, isn't it? What was their alternative and why haven't they been pushing it more.

I don't think my OP was fundamentally inaccurate if the GOP isn't doing anything to talk about and educate the people on their alternative. All I hear is how they oppose and have people ready to fight the constitutionality of the bill if it is passed through reconciliation.

Cimarron, I am not trying to bash the GOP. I just think they are committing political suicide by NOT pushing their alternative.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

I just stated my opinion and what my observations are from talking to friends and people I know. My OP is nothing more than that.

As for the Dems being fucked if they don't pass it. If the polls are right, I think it's the complete opposite, especially when the taxes go up, people are being told what they can and cannot eat or do (via taxation), and so on. And if people have to wait 4 years for this to take effect...lol.... yeah.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Perhaps. But I would rather wait and find a workable solution that is actually put out for people to read and a Congress that is allowed to debate and take the time to find answers, than be ramrodded and "we'll change it as we go".

I can also say this from personal experience. Our female house guest who is on medicaid was able to have her tubes tied (primarily mandated to), and has since had 3 infections due to the hospital and doctors not taking time and effort to make sure the job has been done right. The treatment she got before was next to nothing, the treatment during was shoddy at best and since has been horrendous.

My wife, who had good insurance when she got hers tied, received great medical care BEFORE DURING and AFTER.

Both were treated at the same hospital.

The lesson I learned is that private insurance made a huge difference. Medicaid and taxpayers paying paid far more for the shoddy treatment than we did for my wife's. IF this is an example of the future of medical treatment... FUCK THAT.

However, we need to overhaul and change this so that ALL PEOPLE GET THE SAME MEDICAL CARE regardless of ability to pay or not. I do not see it in this bill that will be passed with "reconciliation". Nor, are the GOP proposing anything that is worthy to even discuss.

If the Dems want to make Health Care their legacy, than do so with a bill that BETTERS the system and HELPS EVERYONE EQUALLY. Don't just pass something to pass something and say "we changed it". Because "we changed it" could mean nothing more than "we made it worse".

Yup, the Dem bill sucks, it just sucks less than what we have now, and sucks MUCH less than the non-existent alternative that the Republicans haven't proposed. But, you know why it sucks and isn't as good as it could be? Give you a clue...

That may be true. But the Dems are truly f'ing themselves. "We changed the system, by making it worse and raising taxes on what you eat and do" DOES NOT NOR WILL EVER equal "we studied the systems overseas, looked at what works here and developed a plan that we believe will work for EVERYONE, and the best part is it will not cost anymore than you already pay, and give you the same treatment you'd get with private insurance. We maximized out of pocket to below 15% of your income, we implemented ways to make sure if you get sick, your family won't lose everything because of bills."

It's just sad that even Dems ramming it through know it is a horrendous bill, but believe they can change it once it's passed. THAT WON'T HAPPEN. They should take their time and make sure the bill they pass is THE BEST BILL POSSIBLE. They are refusing to do that for sake of "we changed it", and the vast majority of them and the president, don't even know what all is in the bill. And as for public knowledge.... that's laughable. If it were the best they could do and it was something they were truly proud of then why not allow debate, why not let the people read it, why not stand up proudly and say "WE DID THIS"?

Instead, they slink and ram rod and make excuses.... to me that's pathetic and tells me they KNOW they can do better for the people but REFUSE TO.

So what's so bad about this bill, exactly? It isn't nearly what I wanted, or what progressives wanted, but it's still way better than the status quo. As far as I can tell, the Republican party has no alternative at all - their entire strategy and goal is to obstruct.

Here's the good stuff in the current bill:

o Subsidies to buy health insurance for lower income people
o Insurance exchanges which *may* lubricate the market a little bit.
o No more recission, exclusion for pre-existing conditions, or lifetime limits.
o Insurance must cover preventative care.
o No more medicare 'donut hole'
o Medicaid for 'pretty much' all of the poor.

Some stuff I'm not comfortable with:
o Individual mandate
o No employer mandate

I'd have preferred single payer, or at least 'public option' - although I have serious doubts about the viability of the public option idea.

Failing that, I think we should just get rid of the employer-based system (or rather, the incentives for it), and let people shop for their own insurance. If we're going to be all 'free market', have an actual market.

I think it needs to be underscored again. In Britain the government runs health care. In Canada the government pays for healthcare. It makes a HUGE difference.

In Canada, it is doctors that make the call on what treatment I need. Not an insurance company. Not the government. If I don't like the diagnosis from the doctor I am seeing, I can go see another doctor. The only thing the government decides is what they are going to cover. What they do cover is offered universally.

As for "affluent" types heading out of the country... Stats that I have seen suggest that this practice occurs with people who do not want to wait for elective or non-emergency surgeries. For example, a knee replacement surgery might take 3 to 6 months before it can be scheduled. Someone who has the money and doesn't want to wait, will go elsewhere. There are issues in the Canadian system with access to MRI and CT scans in more remote areas. Either they need to travel to access the equipment or they have to wait to get access to something that is increasingly local. This is a problem shared by remote places in the US as well.

I am always amused by the misinformation that floats around in the US when it comes to the Canadian system. Especially when it comes from folks like Idyllic who otherwise appear to be well informed and reasonable.

The best anecdote I can provide is the example of my father in law. He is what one would consider affluent (not massively so but he has no worries when it comes to finances). A few years ago he had some heart problems and had to get a valve replaced. He was diagnosed on a Thursday and was in recovery by the following Monday night. Urgent is urgent and is treated appropriately. He paid $0 for this treatment.

I truly dislike the individual mandate, I think threatening people with fines and imprisonment is going too far.

From what I see and have heard of the bill it is too much fucking legislation, red tape, threats, taxes and disorganized to truly do anything but screw up the system even more.

Your last line I agree wholeheartedly with, basically because I do not see anyone proposing what I believe to be the best feasible option and that is sliding scale with a maximum out of pocket. Get rid of employer based and have a full free market for insurance. It's better than what is offered.

GOP scare tactics aside, i just see this being a mess and the Dems regretting it in years to come. I also see this as an end to many many freedoms we enjoy and a health care system even with all its faults still the greatest in the world. people from all over the world (even from countries with universal health care) come to our great hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic.

Does something need to be done? Yes.

Is this the right bill to do it? NO, even some who are voting for it say that... so they are bribed, threatened (if you believe some Reps.), and coerced into it, thinking they will be able to "fix it" once passed. I find that a scary way of doing business.

It's like a car company saying "let's outsource our gas and brake systems and if something happens we'll "fix" it AFTER there are serious accidents and deaths caused by it."

We can get better. Our Congress can do better. Our President should demand better.... but instead everyone will get mediocre with the belief after needless deaths, threats, a government working to keep costs down so they tax freedoms into a cost prohibitive status for some (which IMHO is a loss of freedom), red tape and a system that will be a mess.

another common catchphrase in this debate.

the quality of health care provided in this country is arguably the best in the world. that's not what the bill is about. it's about access to the health care.

people from other countries aren't coming to America because their insurance systems are bad

And a reminder, too: as good as the U.S. system might be, it's damned expensive.

It's all about access at this point.

Here is what I want to know. I currently have a high deductible non-group plan, with an HSA, I turn 50 this year, and my wife has a pre-existing condition that has been excluded under our current policy. When can I cancel my current policy, go into one of the exchanges to get the same coverage Congress gets, at a lower cost, and get coverage for my wife's pre-existing condition. I am at an age where I need some of you young healthy people to help me out a bit, and I promise to cut back on the Big Mac's.

I agree, having the best and the people being able to receive it are 2 different things and people should be able to receive it regardless of their ability to pay.

However, my point was that this bill is NOT doing that. IMHO< this bill WILL widen the gap between classes and the lower classes will receive medical treatment less than what they can today.

I don't think we should lower our standards on medical treatment, but raise them and in doing so find ways to make that health care affordable to ALL, with as little governmental influence as possible.

Take a good look at our educational system. We had the best, no one could come close. The federal government got involved and now our schools are bankrupt and we are barely in the top 10 if at all. Our drop out rates are higher, our teen pregnancies, teen violence and so on. there are many factors but IMHO the past shows me the more the Federal government got involved the worse the education system became.

Another idea for health care, give every state so much money and allow them to figure ways to distribute it into the health system fairly. That way if say Ohio uses the money and makes health care a sliding scale and maximizes lifetime expenses while Michigan just uses the money to pay for the poor and has to continually find new tax monies... we can find what works and what doesn't and work out a national system. I don't believe just putting a national system in and expecting it to work and grow will either work nor grow. They did that to education, put forth a national standard and look what we have, bankrupt schools. Do we really want a bankrupt health care system?

If the American health care is so good and Canada's is so bad then why did Sarah Palin's family go to Canada for health care?

Everyone who I have talked to that have been through the Canadian or English health care systems rave about it.

Also I find it curious that no one is pointing out that the CBO predicts this bill will SAVE 1.2 TRILLION dollars over the next 20 years.

So we cover more people, we get better care, and it costs less. Why are people against this?

In my opinion if we don't pass this bill we should cancel medicare and watch all those crones scramble as they are upset that the government isn't providing them health care when they just railed against government health care for the last year.

I don't get why you think this will widen the gap, pan

I didn't realize that was an option. Okay.

Because we will have "private hospitals" and the best doctors that will only cater to the rich. Imagine a hospital like Cleveland Clinic deciding the new system isn't worth the effort and they go private, serving only those that have private insurance.

It'll end up more negative than the system is already. What is the government going to tell the Cleveland Clinic (and I use it ONLY as an example because it is in my backyard), that they HAVE to care for ANYONE walking in their doors? If that's the case, the very good hospitals are going to be very overwhelmed and unable by sheer volume unable to keep the service they are known for.

The disparity will grow for that reason. It will have no choice but to.

There is no public option in this bill, so everyone will still have "private insurance."

A small percentage of those 30+ million currently uninsured would become eligible for Medicaid.

But the vast majority, most of those working for small businesses would be able to purchase affordable insurance through the Insurance Exchange that would be created.....from the same private insurance companies that serve the large group (employer-based) market.

Pan....I really dont understand at all your point that this "bill WILL widen the gap between classes and the lower classes will receive medical treatment less than what they can today."

How does providing affordable, accessible private insurance TO 30+ million working people widen the gap?

---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

IMO, the "good stuff" is very good stuff and represents significant reform that, over time, will impact most Americans in a positive way by providing more extensive coverage and financial security (no more going bankrupt over a medical crisis).

The conundrum is that you cant get this good stuff w/o the bad stuff.....increasing the size of the pool through individual mandates.

I too would prefer a single payer system and dumping the employer-based system....but pragmatism prevails.

also, why would hospitals suddenly shut their doors to everyone but the very rich? THAT would be suicide (financially)

Just more nonsense like "death panels" and "government run"....the failure of Obama and the Democrats in Congress was not to debunk this crap forcefully and repeatedly right from the start.

i was listening for a minute to some faux news programming earlier---it was coming from behind my head as i was waiting in a checkout line so i wasn't paying attention. when i noticed that there was a steady blah blah blah happening, the rhetoric was all "rationing of care" and other stuff similar to the inverted logic in the op. when i looked on the way out of the store, it was some glenn beck show. i think someone else pointed this out earlier in the thread, and that may be why i was attending to it, but fox news does in fact have a very specific rhetoric for not quite talking about reality while pretending to do it. and it is the case you it is a recognizable rhetoric. paying attention to it for even a few minutes i started to feel like i was being hung upside down and all the blood was rushing to my head. most strange.

in the french system, for example, there is a mix of access to basic health care and manditory private insurance for more advanced care and based on that it is simply, empirically false that anything like the outcome pan describes is likely to happen here.

Pan,

I'm with you on the great majority of the post. I do believe the Dems will suffer by cramming this thru. The reason really stems around the idea that the Bill will not materially change anything. I think the general public who regardless of which side you are on, will have expectations of reduced cost, or better access or some key point and ALL will be dissappointed.

I found this article which is quite long and looks at some of the "advanced" countries of the world and their approaches to healthcare. If you have time wander your way thru it. You'll find some very interesting tidbits and perspective that I think is really the key. Each country is unique in its approach, but at the end of the day there is no free lunch.

Most of the Canadians who post here extoll the virtues of their system. They would appear to be in the monority of their countrymen from the poll taken and quoted herein. It states that 59% have major concerns regarding the sytem and fell it is currently in need of major overhaul.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

Looking at most ratings, parts of Europe offer the "best" healthcare, but many of them will be and are seeing rationing and reductions in quality and services offered as the governments are decreasingly able to pay for or deliver said services. If you read it please note the references to compensation levels for thier physicians, it is scary. The point is if we in the US paid our physicians in the same manner we'll be seeing auto mechanics for cancer treament. They don't have to work with the engine running.

I am not in favor of the current bill, because I don't believe it addresses the core items that need reform. I also believe when people pull the "let's get it in place, then we'll fix it" ploy as is being done it is for all the wrong reasons, not to mention the FIX IT part is normally forgotten or purposely not followed up. This rush ( we have to have a vote by Easter ) to get "change" inacted is the precursor to unintended consequences and they are usually worse than the problem they were intended to solve.

Unfortunately our governmental system has no "quality" involved. In most business environments quality reads something like "done once, done right". In medicine I believe the hypocratic oath is something on the order of "do no harm". I have strong belief that this bill will do lots of harm. I am for reform, just not in this form.

How is providing 30+ million currently uninsured working Americans with affordable and accessible PRIVATE health insurance not a material change?

Or those nearly 200 million with employer-based insurance..how is ending the exclusions for pre-existing conditions or imposing a limit on out-of-pocket expenses so that no one will face bankruptcy as a result of a medical crisis not a material change?

Here is what will happen.

Under true emergency care most people do not have choice, they go to the closest available location. Those locations will be overloaded.

People who have some time (they would calculate it based on the expected wait time at the closest hospital, compared to the one of choice) and money (of course the mo'money, the mo'choice - including off-shore locations), they will charter med-jets, med-copters, or other forms of transportation that poor people typically can not afford or won't be covered. These new private medical facilities will be located in remote resort type locations far, far away from average working people. These new facilities will be privately run, for profit - business plans are being drawn up as we exchange information here.

And who pays for the "private insurance" for those that can't afford it? Are you telling me people working minimum wage or close to jobs because there are no high paying jobs, are going to have to shell out money they can't afford for insurance?

Explain to someone working part-time or for minimum wage that a portion of their paycheck HAS to go to insurance or they are fined and/or put into prison.

Then tell someone who is getting government assistance and has been promised by the Dems and Obama (implied promises and because many will not understand the law... much like those pushing it through) that they can't have treatment at the Cleveland Clinic because they don't have the insurance they need.

LOL no matter how you package it, this is going to be a mess, people are going to have high expectations and in the end, this is going to be political suicide for the Dems and Obama.

Pan....I dont think you understand the proposed Insurance Exchange and the fact that most of the 30+ million currently w/o health insurance are not poor...but average guys working for a small business who cannot afford insurance in the individual market.

With the Exchange having a very large risk pool to make it more affordable than it is now, those folks could sign-up for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Kaiser HMO, etc....or any of the PRIVATE companies that would COMPETE for these individuals by offering four levels of coverage, at varying costs.

If one of these folks comes to the Cleveland Clinic with a Blue Cross/Blue Shield card, why would he be treated differently than a "rich" person with the same card and same coverage?

And the people that CAN"T afford the insurance? How many millions are working for less than $10 an hour and are barely able to make it NOW, let alone add the cost of insurance to that? Who pays for them? You're going to tell those people who can barely live on what they make they HAVE to buy insurance they cannot afford or be fined or go to prison???? And if government does pay for them, then where does government draw the line on who they pay for and who they don't? And for those government pays for is that not pretty much going to be Medicare and Medicaid? And what of the "Cadillac Tax" for those who can afford better insurances?

What about those unemployed, the people who can't work but can't get disability because the SSI has denied them?

This is the WRONG BILL and the Dems are committing suicide by ramming it through the way they are. Passage of this will be a very sad day for the USA.

Pan,

You are on target. It is too bad we can not get Congress off of their talking points and really address concerns and questions.

As I understand the legislation, insurance companies will have a mandated medical pay-out ratio, but this also gives them a guaranteed profit margin - the risk will be taken out of the system for them and they will pass on costs to government and consumers. If pre-existing conditions are an issue an insurance company can simply stop accepting new applicants forcing those people to go into the exchanges. This adverse selection will force costs up in the exchanges or coverage will have to be sacrificed. Kucinich was right at first, this bill is a win for insurance companies. We either need to go all in with a single payer public option or go "free market", this hybrid is for the birds.

Again...I dont think you understand the bill.

Most of those currently uninsured are working...and most work for small businesses that do not offer insurance.

Some would be subsidized...up to 2X the poverty level to purchase PRIVATE insurance on the Exchange. Those above 2X would have access to more affordable insurance than is currently available.

It is not a perfect solution, but far better than what those 30+ million have now.

And for the rest of us....significant benefits....no more exclusions of preexisting conditions or rescission of coverage when facing a new medical crisis...a new limit on out-of-pocket expenses so no one faces bankruptcy as a result of a medical crisis...no cost for preventive treatments, including such things as colonoscopy and mammogram, etc.

This is a material change alright. You can't expand the pool of people getting access to medical care by this many and not expect there to be some limitation on access to medical staff. It's not like current medical staff has 5-10% free time that they can see these extra people.

It's also change in that you can't increase the number of people covered by medical care without increasing total cost. I've yet to see a government program actually reduce the cost of anything.

This is also a material change. You can't increase the cost of medical care by eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions and eliminating caps and then just assume that insurance companies are going to make it up out of their profits.

One way or another, I expect my out of pocket costs to go up. Whether the Democrats take the honest route and raise taxes or use some subterfuge to make me pay for this.

This whole argument that this bill is better than no bill is just nonsense. If the Democrats can't come up with a reasonable bill, then there should not be any bill.

This has nothing to do with increasing the gap. You might not like the mandate, but that is another subject.

You are assuming that everyone added to the plan will automatically require treatment all at once. Why would that be the case. A very large majority, as dc pointed out, are young healthy americans who do not feel the need for insurance. By adding them to the risk pool it will offset the risk that insurance companies will face taking on those with pre-ex's.

So we should just ignore those 30+ million because it might strain the system?

And there are numerous incentives in the bill to address it.

More of the "government program" rhetoric....it is more people covered by PRIVATE insurance...spreading the cost.

That is why there is a mandate along with a vastly larger pool to spread the costs.

Why is the argument that this bill is better than no bill nonsense? The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Also, the bill is quite explicit in what it will raise taxes on. Add to that an increased pool and the costs start getting in line. Finally, implicit in your post is that the 30 million uninsured don't alreay use doctors and facilities. In fact, they use these same doctors and facilities, but often when a condition has turned serious enough that they have to go to the ER.

First the question is if there really are 30+ million, without insurance, who WANT insurance and I believe this is highly questionable.

I was unemployed for 7 months then started my own business which I netted 40K last year and somehow I prioritized healthcare coverage for my family of 4. This really becomes a question of desire. I know a number of much younger (healthy) folks who absolutely do not want insurance period. Nor do they want to pay for every one elses insurance and I'm pretty sure they don't want a government mandate that they must spend their money this way.

The point is we have a percentage of Americans, probably much less than the 10% of the population media would have us believe, who want insurance. This is the problem and segment that we should be immediatly addressing.

Just a quick Math Exercise

For 30M folks (using your number) At $1200/ month buys a family of 4 roughly a $1000 deductible policy (for reference, more expensive better coverage than I carry). Lets assume 2.5 people per family unit (just for aurgument). If you do the math we can buy insurance on the open market for 17.3B$ annually. That leaves us (94B CBO for reform annually for the current plan - 17.3B (30mln folks coverage)=76.7 B / year to go fix the real problems. Starting to sound like our government "oh its only a couple 10's of Billions"
How do we do it, eliminate pre-existing conditions. Oversimplification, but if your primary goal is to provide access to all who want insurance, this is the first step. Premiums will likely rise across the board, but what's new about that?

I think it is more like 4X the poverty level.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/uplo...bill_final.pdf

There are about 25 million small businesses (employing anywhere from 1 to 200 people) in the US and a large majority (well over half) offer NO insurance to their employees.

You cant do it w/o a far larger risk pool...oversimplification.

The costs are already spread in the system, the question really has to do with will the new system be more efficient? The assumption is that emergency room care is the most expensive method of providing care and that if people have insurance emergency room usage will decline particularly in areas where a routine office visit would suffice and it assumes the system will not be over-burden. This is an assumption, an unknown, that has to be factored into the cost equation. The other assumption is that "private insurance" will really end up being the new means for the spread costs - it is very reasonable to believe that insurance companies will bear almost none of those new costs. They will be picked up by taxpayers and those paying premiums.

Cigna's, a health insuance company I follow, stock price was up 10% this week as the bill gains momentum and is expected to pass this weekend.

I stand corrected.

And I would have preferred the House version for funding....the surtax on those with income over $500k (or $1 million couple)....less than 1 percent of all taxpayers would be impacted.

And, the House end to anti-trust exemption for insurance companies would have been nice as well.

But you cant have everything...its called compromise.

IMO, the good...for those 30+ million uninsured and those of us currently w/employer-based insurance...far outweigh the bad.

To calculate what your subsidy will be:
Health Reform Subsidy Calculator -- Premium Assistance for Coverage in Exchanges/Gateways

To some extent, no. But be prepared to pay more when medical staff remains relatively constant and the number of patients increases.

The government program part of this is the well publicized subsidies to those at as much as 4x poverty level. Those subsidies are coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. Unless someone is disabled, I shouldn't be subsidizing their coverage. I also shouldn't be subsidizing their going to an ER instead of a doctor today, but that's another debate.

If you want to equate government subsidies with government run...thats fine. But it still doesnt make it a government run program when the providers will be private insurance companies.

The cost of those subsidies is coming from several sources...including cuts to Medicare Advantage providers that have been overcharging for years...to the tune of $150 billion as well as significant savings through technology investments over time (far more difficult to measure).

The $500 billion that would have been generated by the House version would have been better, IMO.

I gave an answer to the gap question in post #38.

Apparently even the Democratic leadership doesn't think the bill is good enough, seeing how they are trying to force the bill thru with the 'deem and pass' charade, otherwise known as 'duck and cover'. If this was such a good bill, the Democrats should have no problem proudly voting for the bill.

As just one reason why this bill is far from acceptable, is this article

Cat urges rejection of health care bill - Peoria, IL - pjstar.com

With US businesses already having trouble competing in the global marketplace, the last thing they need is even more government mandates that increase their cost of doing business.

Yes, I do understand. You are going to have MILLIONS of people who work for under $10/hr forced to spend money they don't have, even with subsidies they'll have to pay money they cannot afford to.

And no, this is not about millions of 20 somethings all in great health not needing medical coverage. That maybe the majority but there are also MILLIONS who lost good paying jobs and are now working for under $10 and can't make it now and you are forcing a new expense onto them.

Plus, as soon as some of these MILLIONS get insurance they will flood in to get treatments they have needed but couldn't get because they didn't have insurance.

This bill is a fucking mess and is going to cost FAR FAR more than say a sliding scale.

The ONLY good thing is exclusions of pre-existing. BUT< I know from personal experience (with my sarcoidosis) that after 1 year the insurance company cannot hold ANY pre-existing condition against you. That was a bill Clinton got through.

Citation needed, pan

I dont think you do.

Those making under $10/hr would fall below the poverty level..and the bill expands Medicaid to 133% of the poverty level....so these folks will not be spending money they cannot afford.


I assume you're talking about HIPAA and it doesnt quite do what you suggest.

One immediate benefit of the current bill is that pre-existing conditions in children must be covered in any new policy. The full coverage of pre-existing conditions kicks in when the Exchanges are operational.

if there is a shortage of doctors early in the new plan, wouldn't more people go into medicine to fill the void? why the assumption that the # of doctors is completely static?

Wow. I don't even have to look at the poll to tell you that it is going to be skewed. It's coming from a libertarian think tank... The Cato Institute (and yes, I skimmed it and it is full of the usual conservative boogey men).

I don't think you will have any Canadians that are not concerned about the health care system in Canada. We all are concerned about tweaking it to make it better. I think if you were to ask Canadians if they wanted to scrap Universal health care... the overwhelming majority would say no. We have seen what private health care looks like and it isn't pretty.

As for no free lunch... you really don't get how it works. Of course there is no free lunch. The single payer system that Canada uses (actually it's closer to 10 payers as each province decides runs its own health care system, mandated by federal law). Health care is run by doctors and hospitals. It is paid for by the single government payer. Costs are kept low largely by reducing administration fees that are clogging the US system.

It is a fact that we pay less for health care per capita in Canada and offer 100% coverage.

Is it perfect? No. Is the US system perfect? Fuck no.

No system is perfect but cheaper and more efficient as ours is, seems to point in a good direction.

Frankly, I don't care what the US does. The only thing I care about is how your politicians and lobbiest keep dragging us into your shit storm, going even as far as trying to change our public policy.

Keep your f'n noses out of our health care. ;)

The bill includes expanded funding for the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs (that were not very well funded during the Bush years) to expand the health care workforce, particularly in those areas that are underserved (inner cities and rural communities)....along with funding for more health clinics in those areas

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------

From the article:

The biggest single problem noted is that the health bill would tax Medicare Part D. That, said Folley, would drive up costs enough it would "put at risk the coverage our current employees and retirees receive."

A tax on Medicare Part D?

I'd like to see a cite of the section of the bill that imposes that tax.

What the bill does, re: Medicare Part D is close the coverage gap or "doughnut hole" for Medicare beneficiaries. Currently, seniors who hit the gap must bear the full cost of their medications until they spend a certain amount, when coverage kicks back in. Under the new bill, seniors who hit the gap this year would get $250 to help cover the costs of their medications. Starting next year, they'd get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, with the cost borne by the drug industry.

Easy Simba! We are constantly bombarded about how we should adopt a Canadian system or a British system. My point is they work for those respective countries after many years of tweaking, but they are far from perfect. All systems have their warts and ours has a bunch, but adopting someone elses way of doing this is won't solve the issues of rising cost, and diminishihing quality and services.

Frankly I'm suprised we are that influential regarding Canadian healthcare policy when we are so f"d up with our own.

I fully intend to keep my F'ing nose out of Canadian health care if I possibly can. :thumbsup:

From what I've seen, it takes some 8-10 years to get your MD. I knew a couple guys who were just finishing up their residencies that were just turning 30 as they finished up.

Yes, I do. And there are doctors not taking Medicaid patients. In fact, most hopsitals around here won't take Medicaid patients UNLESS it is life or death in which case, by law, they have to.

No, when I found out I had Sarcoid, I had no insurance. I was lucky enough that my x-rays showed what looked like lung cancer and I HAD to have a biopsy since that would be life or death.

In 6 months, I had coverage (Anthem) and picked a doctor and went to him. I told him I had Sarcoid and he explained that for the first year of my insurance it would be considered a pre-existing condition and he would not be able to treat it. However, after that 1 year, the insurance by law had to cover it. He could treat anything else, except that. Thankfully, knock wood, other than some pain in my lungs and the fact I smoke, there is no problem with the sarcoid.

Here's the wiki page that even shows that pre-existing is presently covered after a maximum 1 year.

Pre-existing condition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They also have the proposed terms on pre-existing and they actually look worse than what we have now. (With the exception of including domestic violence as a non pre-existing). Hell, in some cases they won't take effect for 4 years.

And they allow premiums to be raised because of the pre-existing conditions. Which, if you are going for true reform, pre-existing should not exist at all. If people have a disease or health problem and lose their job and get new insurance that condition should still be treated regardless.BUT it won't be.

I like what I have. 1 year no treatment afterward treatment as necessary.


All this talk from Obama and the Dems about pre-existing and they really are not doing anything to improve it. Again, if anything they are making it worse, punishing those people like myself who have a disease and may or may not need treated for it. Raising our premiums for it is better?

Sorry, pan....but you are just incorrect.

HIPAA provided some very small improvements in coverage for pre-existing conditions in the group (large employer-based) plan.

From the wiki:

he Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Kassebaum-Kennedy Act) of 1996 (HIPAA) extended some minimal limits on pre-existing condition exclusions for all group health insurance plans—including the self-insured large group health insurance plans that cover half of those with employer-provided health insurance but are exempt from state insurance regulation

The HIPAA FAQ explains it better than the wiki.

Under HIPAA, a plan is allowed to look back only 6 months for a condition that was present before the start of coverage in a group health plan. Specifically, the law says that a preexisting condition exclusion can be imposed on a condition only if medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6 months prior to your enrollment date in the plan.

And, limits on excluding pre-existing conditions in the individual market is left to the states.

To suggest the bill "is not doing anything to improve it" or "making it worse" (wtf - please explain how you come to that conclusion) is just nonsense. It fixes both the group and individual markets in a significant and unambiguous way...and it starts with no more denying coverage of any preexisting conditions in children...in ALL new health plans starting 6 months after the bill is enacted.

Please tell me, how this, along with adding 30+ million (mostly young and healthy) will add to your premiums.

The only problem I have with this is that it doesn't hurt the insurance companies financially when Americans as a whole are really unhealthy and sick. And it doesn't put any incentives on people to become healthier in general.

Quite frankly, if you are making $7-$10/hr, but find enough money to buy alcohol and cigarettes, then you can pay for your health insurance, but if you make $15/hr and exercise and have a clean bill of health, that person statistically has less of a chance of needing costly care.

The ER and other emergency treatment will not change the current patient load at local hospitals. Unless people were suffering and dieing without seeing a doctor because they were worried about their bills having to be paid by the state. That is what the current plan is if you don't have insurance and are poor.

I don't think that the 'good' hospitals will get overrun in the long term. It might be pretty bad at first, but they will expand and train more doctors (or import them from overseas if it is allowed).

I don't want a Chevy, I don't want the government to own another private industry (insurance) which they eventually will when the insurance companies go broke because the people making 10+ an hour get tired of paying for the insurance of those making less.

I don't want to be mandated to buy anything, that is just out right Unconstitutional.

This Bill is not the Right One, and I am deeply disappointed with our President for what he is doing, for his adolescent behavior, like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because he isn't getting what he wants.
He needs to be sent to the House, oh, wait he was and he just bullied them over.

How does if feel to be bullied America.

Just keep sitting back and taking it and calling it change, yeah, change is coming, All the change you once had in your pocket, gone. And a weakened health care system to boot, how many people are going to want to Be Doctors when they get paid on a government based system. We are going to end up with a bunch of mediocre doctors who aren't working for themselves and their own recognition, the 'self' is what makes America great.

This Bill is the beginning of the removal of the 'self' which America was so proudly built upon.

I think you will find that many (most?) Constitutional scholars do not agree with the above.

At the most basic level, the mandate would be enforced through tax laws which is clearly within Congress’s power to tax.

The "unconstitutional" and "states rights" arguments make for interesting political theater, but lack legal merit.

Oh..and I dont feel bullied at all...perhaps just a bit annoyed with the endless rhetoric and fear mongering from the opposition, much of it not based on facts.

Idyllic do you own and drive a car? If you do you are already mandated to have insurance. Healthcare will be no different. It wasn't unconstitutional then and it isn't now.

The difference is that you can opt out of paying auto insurance by not owning a car. There will be no way I can legally opt out of having health insurance.

You can opt out by not having a job. Then you'd get it for free

So, you would opt out of going to the hospital if you became really sick?

And it can happen to anyone, even healthy people. My Ron Paul supporting, 20-something friend just had $90,000 in medical bills from getting meningitis. He lives just as healthy of a lifestyle that I do.

translation: make everyone give money to insurance companies, guaranteeing a profit, so the government can implement price controls to make health care just a little less expensive, guaranteeing a profit, and nearly everyone can have guaranteed medical care access, guaranteeing a profit.

do i have that right?

You can read more about the IL-legality of this in the Constitution itself.

Yes, but it was My Choice to Buy the car, no one forced it upon me, no one forced me to own a car. This "Health Care" Will be different, you will pay, they will make you pay, whether you want to or not. That's like forcing a blind person to buy a car just because everyone else has to.

Totally not the same as auto insurance. because you can drive a car without insurance, without a license, without anything as long as you don't get caught (I'm not saying that's right, just true, it's your choice), there is NO CHOICE here "regulated, mandated health insurance" they will know how much you owe, when you owe it, when you pay it, if you do or do not pay it and if you don't, they will take it form you one way or another, that's unconstitutional......

Great, just one more person i will have to pay for.

constitutional scholar is a useless term. Over the last 150 years I've seen 'scholars' define the constitution in such twisted and tortured ways that it's beyond belief. why do we keep referring such important issues to 'sholars'?

as i've stated many times, because of mainstream politicos worship of big government power, the power to tax has been broadened to such an extent that congress can now mandate that you plant roses or morning glories in your front yard. I hardly think that this kind of power was intended by the framers of the constitution.

Didn't realize the bill had you personally writing checks for every person using the system. Sorry about your luck....

And when you do get in a crash without insurance, you do have to pay a fine. And you have to cover all the damages. If you can not, then the taxpayers have to cover you (well insurance payers since we all pay the uninsured drivers fee). But in current hospitals, it's the taxpayers.

Where exactly in the constitution does it say it's illegal to mandate health insurance? And back to the having a choice about car insurance thing, you also have the choice not to work. If you choose not to work you won't have to pay for health insurance yourself.

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

I don't understand how you can say there are no constitutional scholars, but you seem to proclaim yourself one(though not with those exact words) you seem to think your view of the constitution is the only one that matters and people who's job it is to interprit the constitution are dead wrong.

then you have a problem. i've said this before, and it really is very simple should you choose to look at it that way. The constitution is written in plain and UNAMBIGUOUS words. it's only 'vague' when people wish to 'interpret' the wording in a way that they choose to suit them. constitutional scholar is nothing more than a term used to describe a person that reinterprets the constitution to suit an ideological perspective. that is all.

the exact wording and text AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN should be all you need to understand it. anyone else proclaiming otherwise is not interested in the vision of america, but their own vision of life.

well regulated militia

well

regulated

militia

Sorry bro, I know I can't change your mind on this since your a strict constructionist and all but you are quite clearly dead wrong. The infallable founding fathers didn't have a magic crystal ball to see into the future, or the problems we'd face in it. So the constitution needs to be changed from time to time to suit the current situations, when it doesn't need to be changed, really smart people(scholars) can make laws that are still well within the bounds of the constitutional language.

I won't waste my time or yours with any further posts regarding the constitution.

/thread jack

rahl and Derwood, respectively

Not to mention that over half of Americans questioned about whether they want this passed the way it is, said No. Just the sound "FEDERAL REGULATION of Health Insurance," what part of that sounds right.

What the hell is wrong with a well regulated military, Sometimes it seems people don’t realize what it takes to have freedom, to keep freedom. There are so many people out there who hate our way of life, who feel that the free speech you and I have, even here in this forum, is wrong. Who would take from you not just your money but your rights to the very expression of how you feel about your country, and yet here, not only is it offered to you, it is protected for you by people willing to die for it.

Even if my taxes didn’t go to pay for that protection, I would absolutely give it to them as they work so I may enjoy my freedom, however, I don’t know if everyone who will receive the benefit of my mandated funds for this health care, mind you health care that if they joined the military and fought for something would be free to them, will work in participation as an American, or at the minimum, just get a job. As it appears to me, people are already thinking, well I will just stop working and then I won't have to pay, how about the dole system mandated next, we can put electricity use coin boxes in people houses too.

Really, that sounds like a great idea, all able bodied people who cannot pay for the mandated insurance will be required to serve a certain period of time in the service of the U.S. Military as their payment, let’s see how many of the liberals change their minds on that one. I think it sounds very fair, they don’t have to go and fight, but they have to support the government in some form, dig ditches, build roads, but, they have to work. I would have no problem with my sons having to work to pay their own way, didn't most of us have to? I know I sure as hell did, nobody paid for me. Nobody paid to help my mom either as she struggled, this is bull-shit welfare promotion and again the lose of pride in the 'self'.

I have nothing against the military

Idyllic, you misunderstood Derwood's post. dksuddeth interprets the second amendment as being an individual right. Derwood's point was that the second amendment clearly states that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, either the constitution is written in plain, unambiguous language, and the right to bear arms is not an individual right, or the constitution requires interpretation. Derwood's point was that you can't have it both ways.

Regarding your other point, why do you think "FEDERAL REGULATION of Health Insurance" sounds inherently wrong? Why is it any more wrong than the multitude of other things the federal government regulates? Or, perhaps you're against all federal regulation?

The same parts as the FDA, SEC, EPA and every other organisation that keeps people safe that you aren't bitching about.

There's days that I would like to quit my job and just let the government support me, but I mostly like my job have too much self respect to take government handouts. Besides which, that won't work too well when the majority of the people in the US get fed up with government taxation and mandates and decide to let the government support them.

I'd much rather see an end put to the concept that the government has to solve everyone's personal problems by imposing mandates like this and a return to people accepting responsibility for their actions.

On the other hand, I'll be retired sometime in the next 10 years. Maybe I should just relax, enjoy all the free stuff the government is going to give me and let some other poor sap pay the bills.

Right, because 30 million people don't have insurance because they're lazy and irresponsible


I assume when you retire you will pull yourself up by your bootstraps and say no to all Social Security and Medicare offered by the evil federal gubment

At this point, I'm almost willing to take my chances. In the last 30 years I have been in the ER twice. Once because I stepped on a huge nail and punched a hole in my foot. Another time because I got hit by a car while riding my bike. I've been to the doctor twice other than routine checkups, once for Lyme disease and another time because I stressed my ankle doing some really heavy lifting and my wife was on my case to go to the doctor to have the swelling checked out. I could have covered the medical bills in each of those cases, and would probably still be ahead of the game compared to the $10K-$20K I've paid as my share of medical coverage in the last 10 years.

No one ever promised me that no matter what medical problem I had, I wouldn't have to worry about paying for it.

The thing is, dogzilla, you've just explained part of the reason why this concept of masses of people freeloading off the government is so ludicrous: it's simply not in our nature. People don't like having nothing to do. In fact, people who don't have jobs to do are much more likely to become depressed. There's also the fact that the government doesn't just give out money indefinitely and without requirements. Unless it's something like disability, there are limits to how long you can receive benefits, and requirements you must fulfill in order to keep receiving those benefits. Finally, on the subject of personal responsibility, government is not concerned with individuals but with society. Take unemployment benefits, for example: they are quite clearly an economic benefit to society. They help minimize the effect an individuals unemployment has on the other parts of society that individual interacts with. They also help keep that individual afloat long enough for them to find another job and reenter society. Do unemployment benefits harm the concept of personal responsibility? Maybe a little bit. But you know what? It doesn't matter, because governments are concerned with the whole, not the parts.