What do(n't) you like about the healthcare reform bill? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

flstf · 03-22-2010, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Serious question to anyone here: Where does the Constitution grant authority to Congress to require every person to purchase a particular thing?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that this clause includes regulation of interstate commerce. I think the position of those in favor of this bill will be that healthcare is over 1/6th of US commerce and practiced between the States and therefore the activities can be regulated and taxed by the Federal Government.

Cimarron29414 · 03-22-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that this clause includes regulation of interstate commerce. I think the position of those in favor of this bill will be that healthcare is over 1/6th of US commerce and practiced between the States and therefore the activities can be regulated and taxed by the Federal Goverment.

They aren't taxing the use of healthcare across states. They are taxing you NOT using it. That's called a fine.

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

The biggest problem is that there is no reason to believe the cost of services will go down. Second biggest is that it disincentivizes medical professionals, which may reduce supply while increasing demand.

I had my own ideas for improving access and lowering costs but no one ever listens to me.

Let's assume that 32 million people are actually uninsured and have never received healthcare. Now they can go to the doctor because they are finally insured - there is now a 11-12% increase in demand on doctors and these patients are in the lowest paying, most fraudulent bracket of the paying spectrum.

If I'm a 60 to 65 year old doctor, I retire. So now, the remaining doctors have > 11-12% increase in patient load in the least paying bracket. The doctors become even more overworked, get to spend less time with each individual patient, and get paid less.

That does not seem like a recipe for improved quality of care - oh, except for those 32 million voters. "General Welfare", indeed.

flstf · 03-22-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

They aren't taxing the use of healthcare across states. They are taxing you NOT using it. That's called a fine.

So I guess the position of those against this bill will be that the federal government does not have the right to fine those involved in interstate activity?

Cimarron29414 · 03-22-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

So I guess the position of those against this bill will be that the federal government does not have the right to fine those involved in interstate activity?

Well, I can't speak for all of those against this bill. The argument which will be set before the courts is whether the Congress has Congressional authority to fine someone for NOT participating in one form of commerce.

rahl · 03-22-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

They aren't taxing the use of healthcare across states. They are taxing you NOT using it. That's called a fine.

---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

Let's assume that 32 million people are actually uninsured and have never received healthcare. Now they can go to the doctor because they are finally insured - there is now a 11-12% increase in demand on doctors and these patients are in the lowest paying, most fraudulent bracket of the paying spectrum.

If I'm a 60 to 65 year old doctor, I retire. So now, the remaining doctors have > 11-12% increase in patient load in the least paying bracket. The doctors become even more overworked, get to spend less time with each individual patient, and get paid less.

That does not seem like a recipe for improved quality of care - oh, except for those 32 million voters. "General Welfare", indeed.

So you believe that once the bill is signed, that all 32 million people will go to the doctor the following day? Collapsing the health care community?
What makes the 32 million the lowest paying and most fraudulent bracket by the way? They will have access to the same private insurance that you do now.

flstf · 03-22-2010, 01:28 PM

I dislike this forced buy-in requirement as much as you but I see nothing unconstitutional about it, especially considering past Supreme Court decisions. Perhaps we should amend the constitution.

dippin · 03-22-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Well, I can't speak for all of those against this bill. The argument which will be set before the courts is whether the Congress has Congressional authority to fine someone for NOT participating in one form of commerce.

The Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform, Part II: Congressional Power

Cimarron29414 · 03-22-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

So you believe that once the bill is signed, that all 32 million people will go to the doctor the following day? Collapsing the health care community?
What makes the 32 million the lowest paying and most fraudulent bracket by the way? They will have access to the same private insurance that you do now.

No, I don't believe that all 32 million will show up the next day. Any more than I believe the other 270 million all show up every other day because they ARE insured. Good Lord, man.

They are the lowest paying, most fraudulent bracket because they are medicare/medicaid.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

dippin,

I appreciate the link. Again, it's really up to the courts and not me.

edited: dippin, of the articles I scanned, the writer of your article takes the liberal point of view on every article he writes. He doesn't seem like an objective Constitutional scholar. Maybe it was just the ones that I saw...

dippin · 03-22-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

No, I don't believe that all 32 million will show up the next day. Any more than I believe the other 270 million all show up every other day because they ARE insured. Good Lord, man.

There are the lowest paying, most fraudulent bracket because they are medicare/medicaid.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

dippin,

I appreciate the link. Again, it's really up to the courts and not me.

edited: dippin, of the articles I scanned, the writer of your article takes the liberal point of view on every article he writes. He doesn't seem like an objective Constitutional scholar. Maybe it was just the ones that I saw...

The thing is that there is no "objective Constitutional scholar." People follow certain constitutional philosophies, and are generally consistent in following those philosophies. The issue is not whether he is liberal, it's whether the precedent backs him up.

Cimarron29414 · 03-22-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

The thing is that there is no "objective Constitutional scholar." People follow certain constitutional philosophies, and are generally consistent in following those philosophies. The issue is not whether he is liberal, it's whether the precedent backs him up.

Agreed, but if one were to go find a Jeffersonian scholar, they would provide ample case law supporting a 10th amendment position.

I would contend that SCOTUS is looking forward to a 10th amendment case and that they are no friend to the other two branches right now. With a law of such magnitude, all the pumps are primed for a conclusive decision regarding modern federalism.

roachboy · 03-22-2010, 02:15 PM

seems to me that alot of the question of what folk think copasetic or the contrary about this bill comes down to a matter of framing.
in the rest of the world one or another form of universal health care was instituted as an aspect of the construction of the welfare state after world war 2, typically during periods of left political ascendancy. the main arguments in favor of it were:

access to basic health care is a fundamental human right. this is an ethical argument, both in itself (everyone should be treated with dignity) and in relative terms (capitalism produces enough material benefits such that they can and should be allocated to accord this dignity to everyone...and it empirically produces inequalities and worse, which the system can and should be called upon to address.)

it makes sense from a political and business viewpoint as well; it addresses an important political question because it extends the legitimacy of the existing order by incorporating people that capitalism tends to exclude. it allows for a smoother reproduction of the labor pool and for treating health insurance costs as an externality.

this decision to make health care available is poses a resource allocation question, but this should have been posed as also political, because it bloody well is political: the united states wastes more money on military expenditures than the next 10 countries behind it on the list put together. the united states obviously has the resources to do this; it simply up to now has chosen to emphasize death (military expenditures can be reduced to that, yes?) rather than quality of life as an overall political objective.

there were other arguments of course, but these are the main types that were advanced.
i will never understand why the obama administration was not more aggressive about making its case on ethical and political grounds. doing it would have pushed the ultra-right, which seem to be all that remains of the right now that the republican party is essentially in bed with the militia movement across the tea bagger coalition, into making arguments that would be crazy for them to make---like the uninsured should not be treated with the same dignity as others, that dignity correlates with income, that there are no human rights. and you've seen it---that asshat glenn beck and others arguing that social justice is code for communism, etc.

the constitutional questions are subsidiary to political questions, and even those quaint strict construction folk know this given that strict construction is itself a politics in which it is politically acceptable to toss around quaint outmoded terms like "objectivity" which of course means really "written from a viewpoint sympathetic to mine"---which is what "objectivity" has always meant--a rhetoric of neutrality masking political positions built into the arguments or viewpoint of a piece---which is why the notion is quaint.

so alot of this chaos, this noise from the right is an effect of there simply not having been adequately clear ethical and political arguments made from the outset. it think it's a problem. i never believed personally that the right was going to work in good faith to do something about health care---particularly not once they started acting as a tick sucking the money from the insurance industry et. al.

Martian · 03-22-2010, 02:32 PM

From Reuters:

Healthcare overhaul faces new challenges | Reuters

Healthcare Overhaul Faces New Challenges click to show

And CBC's coverage:

CBC News - World - Republicans vow to repeal health-care bill

Republicans Vow Health-Care Fight Will Continue click to show

So it seems the Republican party will fight this on all available fronts. I suppose that's not really a surprise.

If I were a resident of the US, I would be saying that this doesn't go nearly far enough. Turns out that publicly funded health-care is working out pretty well for the rest of the world.

I don't understand the objections here. Can someone who's opposed to the bill give a clear and concise summary of precisely what the negative impacts are going to be, and why? All I've seen so far is vague prophecies of doom with no root in the actual legislation being passed.

Cimarron29414 · 03-22-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

I don't understand the objections here. Can someone who's opposed to the bill give a clear and concise summary of precisely what the negative impacts are going to be, and why? All I've seen so far is vague prophecies of doom with no root in the actual legislation being passed.

There is nothing one could say to adequately satisfy you. It would simply restart the debate which has been fought for over a year, both here and in Congress. You know why we oppose it, you just don't agree - and that's fine.

dogzilla · 03-22-2010, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Well, if someone has food poisoning they won't be eating any food, and if they don't get treated they will likely dehydrate and die. If people have to choose between paying for their medical bills, because they can't get insurance, and paying the utilities I would think you'd want to fix the underlying problem so they can get back to payinf for said utilities.

Fixing healthcare would let people get healthy affordably and be able to buy groceries and pay utilities.

That's a pretty contrived example which, since the occasional e.coli breakout makes the national news for a few days, probably happens a handful of times in a week, if that. If the admen on TV or the people who claim that the only decent meal kids get is school hot lunch are to believed, then hunger is a much larger problem than the number of cases of food poisoning in the US. It doesn't explain why access to health care is a fundamental right and access to sufficient food is not.

Baraka_Guru · 03-22-2010, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

[...] it would have pushed the ultra-right, which seem to be all that remains of the right now that the republican party is essentially in bed with the militia movement across the tea bagger coalition, into making arguments that would be crazy for them to make---like the uninsured should not be treated with the same dignity as others, that dignity correlates with income, that there are no human rights. and you've seen it---that asshat glenn beck and others arguing that social justice is code for communism, etc.

the constitutional questions are subsidiary to political questions, and even those quaint strict construction folk know this given that strict construction is itself a politics in which it is politically acceptable to toss around quaint outmoded terms like "objectivity" which of course means really "written from a viewpoint sympathetic to mine"---which is what "objectivity" has always meant--a rhetoric of neutrality masking political positions built into the arguments or viewpoint of a piece---which is why the notion is quaint.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

— John Kenneth Galbraith

rahl · 03-22-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

What specifically do you have a problem with in this bill?

the fact that over 32 million people will now have coverage?
the fact that pre-ex's will be covered?
the fact that life time maximum pay outs are gone?
the fact that you can keep what you have if you like it or get something new?
the fact that it is budget nuetral?
what is it you don't like?

I've asked this question 3 times in 2 different threads now.
Can someone who is opposed to this bill please answer each one of the questions that I've posed please?

flstf · 03-22-2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

I don't understand the objections here. Can someone who's opposed to the bill give a clear and concise summary of precisely what the negative impacts are going to be, and why? All I've seen so far is vague prophecies of doom with no root in the actual legislation being passed.

As I understand it in a nutshell the thinking is that people here are free to fail or succeed and the government has no business taking from the successful and giving to the failures no matter how they got that way. This goes for income or purchasing goods and services including healthcare.

rahl · 03-22-2010, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

That's a pretty contrived example which, since the occasional e.coli breakout makes the national news for a few days, probably happens a handful of times in a week, if that. If the admen on TV or the people who claim that the only decent meal kids get is school hot lunch are to believed, then hunger is a much larger problem than the number of cases of food poisoning in the US. It doesn't explain why access to health care is a fundamental right and access to sufficient food is not.

My post was fairly sarcastic, but there are already programs in place for people who need food.

flstf · 03-22-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

I've asked this question 3 times in 2 different threads now.
Can someone who is opposed to this bill please answer each one of the questions that I've posed please?

Originally Posted by rahl
What specifically do you have a problem with in this bill?

the fact that over 32 million people will now have coverage?
the fact that pre-ex's will be covered?
the fact that life time maximum pay outs are gone?
the fact that you can keep what you have if you like it or get something new?
the fact that it is budget nuetral?
what is it you don't like?

I'll play devil's advocate.
The first three require everyone to purchase insurance from the evil insurance companies.
If you work for a company that furnishes insurance, I don't think you can take that money and use it to go out on your own.
Many think that this plan is not revenue neutral especially when one includes the Doc fix and too generous Medicare reduction assumptions.

dogzilla · 03-22-2010, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

I've asked this question 3 times in 2 different threads now.
Can someone who is opposed to this bill please answer each one of the questions that I've posed please?

the fact that over 32 million people will now have coverage?

To the extent that coverage come out of my tax dollars, I object. The claim is this is covered by increased taxes on those earning over $200/$250K and by taxes on high cost insurance plans. Taxes on high cost insurance plans don't kick in until 2018. Over the last couple years, we've all seen how well government revenue projections can be counted on to be accurate. To the extent either of those fall short, the middle class taxpayer (me) gets to make up the difference.

the fact that pre-ex's will be covered?

If someone has a pre-existing condition because of a lifestyle choice, that's their problem, not mine. Somebody who has a pre-existing condition because of hereditary factors, probably ok.

the fact that life time maximum pay outs are gone?

That sounds an awful lot like expecting the insurance company write you a blank check for your medical care with no way to recoup their expenses. You get enough people and I don't care if you've got the entire world population in your insurance pool, you're still going to go broke. I kind of like the companies my 401K money is invested in to remain profitable, not bankrupt.

the fact that you can keep what you have if you like it or get something new?

That assumes my employer doesn't decide that it doesn't like the cost of health insurance plans any more, ditches the health care plan, pays the small penalty, and expects me to now pick up the cost of insurance, which I don't get any subsidy for.

the fact that it is budget nuetral?

That remains to be seen. See my comments about high cost insurance plans and assuming revenue streams for the next 10 years.

Rekna · 03-22-2010, 03:55 PM

So in your opinion what qualifies as a lifestyle choice?

Smoking?, Drinking?, being a driver? living in a new york? Choosing to have a baby? Moving into a bad neighborhood? It seems to be that the term lifestyle choice is pretty damn vague....

Charlatan · 03-22-2010, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

What makes health case a special human right? Even more important is food, and possibly utilities, and I've not read of any plans Obama has to interfere with the grocery business or the utility companies

The big secret in America is that you, as a nation, spend a lot less than other nations on your food bill. A lot less. This is because the US government is heavily involved in subsidizing your food industry (largely through corn and soy bean production).

A for ulitities... I don't know the answer to this but as I understand it (and I could be wrong), utilites are an essential service in the US. Can people have their power completely cut off, their access to fresh water, what about heat in the winter? All of these can be cut off in other parts of the world.

With regards to food, it wasn't Obama that set the particular food plan in motion... it was Nixon (not to say there wasn't a plan to keep food cheap prior to him it's just that with Nixon it was reformed to create the system you have today).

On top of this, you also have a little thing called food stamps (though I will admit, I don't know how that works).

dogzilla · 03-22-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

So in your opinion what qualifies as a lifestyle choice?

Smoking?, Drinking?, being a driver? living in a new york? Choosing to have a baby? Moving into a bad neighborhood? It seems to be that the term lifestyle choice is pretty damn vague....

Obesity, smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc. Basically choices that you made that are generally recognized as having a high correlation to health problems and where the health problems are preventable if you did not make those choices.

dippin · 03-22-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Obesity, smoking, drugs, alcohol, etc. Basically choices that you made that are generally recognized as having a high correlation to health problems and where the health problems are preventable if you did not make those choices.

The issue is, of course, that while those cause certain diseases, it is impossible to know if they were specific culprit for any single case. We simply don't know the specific threshold where these things cause the diseases.

Having a BMI over 25 or 30 can lead to a higher chance of heart attacks, but we simply don't know whether that specific heart attack was caused by obesity, genetics, stress, etc.

So unless you eliminate everyone who ever did something unhealthy, you have no way of doing this. Being sunburned as a kid increases the risk for skin cancer, but whether or not skin cancer was caused specifically by that time someone got sunburned as a kid is impossible to tell.

roachboy · 03-22-2010, 05:05 PM

one thing i do not understand is this idea that seems to be shared amongst more conservative folk that others only respond to coercion or pressure from outside--so that people will all smoke or all drink or all be overweight unless there is some outside Penalty that kicks in to punish them for doing it. you see it all the time---this nonsense about "lifestyle choices" above works on that assumption. so you'd think that folk with this condescending christian notion of other people--not themselves of course--oppose universal health care because it removes some fictive "moral hazard"

following that logic, you'd think that places with universal health care would have obesity rates higher than the united states.
but strangely the opposite is the case.
so how does that work exactly?

Charlatan · 03-22-2010, 05:08 PM

America's obesity epidemic is linked to its food policy (cheaper food at any cost) and not its health care policies.

roachboy · 03-22-2010, 05:14 PM

well, it's linked to alot of things--industrial food production, the subsidy system, the ways in which industrial food is marketed both directly (adverts) and indirectly (sold to, say, public schools)---and ignorance about the consequences of industrial food and diet/nutrition in general. other stuff too---but of these two, you could say that the lack of adequate information about industrial food is a matter of both the educational and health care system. i think more about the french system than any other tho---because basic health care is free across the board, it makes sense for the state to be proactive about nutrition information (among other things) in order to try to influence folk to live more healthy lifestyles in the longer run as a cost-control move. so there's alot of information available about it. i've lived in france more than any other country outside the us so it's my alternate reference point.

pan6467 · 03-22-2010, 07:36 PM

Watch this. It takes page numbers, lines and all and TELLS you exactly what is wrong with this bill from the bill ITSELF.

Tell me and show me where these items this video quotes is NOT in the bill.

YouTube - Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200 - Key Points

SecretMethod70 · 03-22-2010, 08:06 PM

Kind of getting tired of the unnecessarily large and all-caps inflammatory language. It stopped being amusing awhile ago, and does nothing to add to discussion here.

Baraka_Guru · 03-22-2010, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Watch this. It takes page numbers, lines and all and TELLS you exactly what is wrong with this bill from the bill ITSELF.

Tell me and show me where these items this video quotes is NOT in the bill.

Um, how about it taking things out of context (sometimes almost completely) and "translating" much (most?) of it into some kind of conservospeak?

Most of these aren't direct quotations, and they contain embellishments. Some of it is simply misleading and propagandist.

It's not stating what exactly is wrong; it's stating things wrongly. And it's called fearmongering.

No wonder so many people are confused, with shit like this floating around for months leading up to this.

pan6467 · 03-22-2010, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Um, how about it taking things out of context and "translating" much (most?) of it into some kind of conservospeak?

Most of these aren't direct quotations, and they contain embellishments.

It's not stating what exactly is wrong; it's stating things wrongly. And it's called fearmongering.

No wonder so many people are confused, with shit like this floating around for months leading up to this.

Tell me how. Go to the page and lines it quotes and post them word for word. Until then, I'll believe the video.

After all every link I follow, every search I do... I cannot find this bill online ANYWHERE.

So there's the challenge, show me the lines quoted and then let ME decide.

---------- Post added at 12:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Kind of getting tired of the unnecessarily large and all-caps inflammatory language. It stopped being amusing awhile ago, and does nothing to add to discussion here.

Taken care of but this could have been handled with a PM.

Baraka_Guru · 03-22-2010, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Tell me how. Go to the page and lines it quotes and post them word for word. Until then, I'll believe the video.

After all every link I follow, every search I do... I cannot find this bill online ANYWHERE.

So there's the challenge, show me the lines quoted and then let ME decide.

http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf

Knock yourself out. That's the version referenced in the video.

It's difficult to post "out of contextization" here.

SecretMethod70 · 03-22-2010, 08:33 PM

As for the video, forgive me if I'm skeptical of a user who calls himself "1NationUnder1God3in1." The video says it is referring to H.R. 3200, which might be useful if it weren't for the fact that the bill the House passed is H.R. 3962. H.R. 3200 never even made it to a vote, and its last activity was Oct 14, 2009. But hey, pan, I'm glad you're making sure to get up-to-date information.

pan6467 · 03-22-2010, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf

Knock yourself out. That's the version referenced in the video.

It's difficult to post "out of contextization" here.

To be quite honest, I tried to research it and like I said I couldn't find it, even with links from people here. Now that it is passed, I don't care to find it.

And my challenge was not to show ANY context OTHER THAN the exact language written on the pages and lines the video quotes and letting ME decide what to believe.

I showed primarily what I have and some of the reasons why I find this the wrong bill and all about power.... now show me the true text and let me decide what it means.

Otherwise there isn't even debate. You simply say "out of context" but refuse to show how simply by posting the exact words from the pages and lines quoted. To me ANYONE can say "out of context" but if they don't show how then they have nothing to stand on but their beliefs and well, sorry my beliefs and seeing someone who actually did the work means more to me than "out of context".

SecretMethod70 · 03-22-2010, 08:37 PM

You'll note that the pdf the video links is also hosted on the website of one of the staunch Republican critics of the bill. Sorry if I don't trust her materials. If you're going to reference the bill, get it from a neutral website like GovTrack: H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) (Looking closely, this link is the updated version of the bill in October 2009, the video is based on an older version of the bill from July 2009 and that is the version they link to.)

But like I said, none of this matters because this isn't the bill that passed. It's not even the bill they've been discussing for 5 months now.

Baraka_Guru · 03-22-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

As for the video, forgive me if I'm skeptical of a user who calls himself "1NationUnder1God3in1." The video says it is referring to H.R. 3200, which might be useful if it weren't for the fact that the bill the House passed is H.R. 3962. H.R. 3200 never even made it to a vote, and its last activity was Oct 14, 2009. But hey, pan, I'm glad you're making sure to get up-to-date information.

Even still, this 1NU1G3in1 guy "quotes": "HEALTHCARE RATIONING" where you will find lines referencing limitations to cost-sharing, conveniently leaving out the preceding "provision of quality health care and financial security, that— [...] does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on the coverage of covered health care items and services;" and other such items.

How are limitations on cost-sharing "healthcare rationing"? I can't say I'm completely familiar with how these thing work, but isn't this in reference to how much you pay as a co-payer?

Maybe I'm confused because of the video....

And this is just one example, by the way.

SecretMethod70 · 03-22-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I showed primarily what I have and some of the reasons why I find this the wrong bill and all about power.... now show me the true text and let me decide what it means.

Pan, why do you want us to do your work for you? Baraka pasted the link your own video gave for H.R. 3200. I pasted a different link to H.R. 3200. Do you not have Adobe Reader? More importantly, why do you get so outraged if you can't even be arsed to read the bill yourself or to even paste videos that refer to bills that are less than 5 months old?

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------

Baraka: Pretty sure you're reading that section correctly.

Charlatan · 03-22-2010, 08:48 PM

Wow Pan... you really have a lot of pent up anger still to get out.

I have to say, I started watching your attached video and thought... I don't believe that *any* US Administration could get away with passing something like this. It's CRAZY. It motivated me, a non-US citizen, to find the actual BILL and compare it to what was being said in your video...

Here is what I discovered:

Quote:

Page 22: is not a mandate to audit ALL employers who self insure. It is a study to examine a large group of insured and self-insured employers to ensure the efficiency of the system. Read the actual text of the Bill.

Page 29: Rationing. Please also read page 27 lines 10-12, “(3) does not impose and annual or lifetime limit on coverage of covered health care items and services. Page 29 is not about the services to be provided but about cost sharing and actuarials. Perhaps our insurance wonks can flesh this out, but it seems to be about something other than Health Care Rationing.

Page 30: health benefits committee: This is a private and public committee which will decide what benefits are to be covered under the health care plan. They will not be looking at individual cases but rather they will be deciding things like, Will plastic surgery be covered. What forms of dental surgery are covered? This is something your insurance company already does and does to their profit and your detriment. Bitch and moan about this all you wish but it would not be an efficient system if it just covered every crazy new fad (I am looking at you healing power crystals) that comes along. (See page 31 part five to see the ultimate make up and diversity of this committee).

Page 32: Again, this is precisely what I have stated above. It is not about limiting what health care you receive but rather what is covered under the plan. You are free to go and pay for things that are not covered (your cosmetic boob job is not likely covered). There are limits on any policy you sign up for. If you want additional coverage beyond what this plan covers there are plenty of add on plans out there to choose from. This is no different from what you have today, except that now everyone will have access to a minimum standard. To say you have NO CHOICE is hogwash.

Page 50: it does not say that Non-US citizens will be covered. Rather it is a clause that deals with discrimination (i.e. you cannot deny coverage). It says nothing all about citizenship. The interpretation is definitely skewing to the usual fears…

Page 58: it does not say that the government will have access to your real time finances. Rather it is a clause about the efficiency of this system and it says that it will strive to have real-time information about any person’s coverage. This may be achieved by a health card system. It does not say WILL, it clearly says MAY. I am sure this will be open for debate at a later point. The idea is to create a) savings through simplifying the current paperwork hell that exists and b) a clear and instant understand of what any users coverage is (given that there are multiple insurance coverage options out there any individual may have more or less coverage than someone else). Efficiency is a good thing. Again, this has nothing to do with your personal finance but everything to do with efficiencies in the health care system.

Page 59: The government will not have direct access to your bank account. This section continues to be about efficiency and offers methods that can be used to encourage this efficiency. One of which is the ability to transfer funds to your account. At present, anyone can transfer money into your account if you give them an account code. That doesn’t mean they have access to your account. When you do a refund on your debit card, does the store have access to your information? No. They are just transferring money to your account. When you get paid and your company does direct deposit, does your boss see what’s in your account? No. It should also be noted that it does not say you have to use direct electronic transfers. I am certain that you can also be issued a cheque if you want… but where is the efficiency in that?

Page 65: Acorn? Really? This is scraping the bottom of the fear-mongering barrel. Read the Bill. It is not about this. But man… it gave the producer of this piece a chance to rile people up with Acorn!

Page 72: This is about regulating how insurance companies can pool their services to that costs can be reduced by sharing risk. This is not about Government Control. This is about regulation of private organizations. Regulation is not a bad thing.

I don’t think I need to go on. I am just over 1:40 into this thing and when following along with the actual Bill it is clear to see that this video is not just a reinterpretation but a blatant attempt to skew what the Bill ACTUALLY says with lies, misdirection and bald faced fear mongering using the usual assortment of bugaboos.

Try it yourself. Find the Bill online and see what it says vs. what this video says.

pan6467 · 03-22-2010, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Wow Pan... you really have a lot of pent up anger still to get out.

I have to say, I started watching your attached video and thought... I don't believe that *any* US Administration could get away with passing something like this. It's CRAZY. It motivated me, a non-US citizen, to find the actual BILL and compare it to what was being said in your video...

Here is what I discovered:

I don’t think I need to go on. I am just over 1:40 into this thing and when following along with the actual Bill it is clear to see that this video is not just a reinterpretation but a blatant attempt to skew what the Bill ACTUALLY says with lies, misdirection and bald faced fear mongering using the usual assortment of bugaboos.

Try it yourself. Find the Bill online and see what it says vs. what this video says.

I appreciate this man. It's not hard. You can get pissy and start trying to personally attack or you can show where the differences lie and let the other decide for themselves once they see the actual text.

I also agree that the video is a scare tactic, however, if the true text of the bill CAN IN ANYWAY be legally interpreted as described by the video then there are issues that need to be resolved.

As for the bills HR3200 and HR3296 are relatively the same not much was changed. But if the bill numbers want someone to try to get others to believe the bill is almost totally different then so let them.

Yes, there is a lot of anger towards this bill. From the way they passed it and had to find support for it, to the way it wasn't readily available, to the contents and way they are handling this.

It is in no way good for this country. Even Reps. that voted for it say that. Some reps that voted for it admit they have no idea all that is in it. I find that somewhat foolish and it tells me they just wanted to pass something.

I also find it funny that Dems are more willing to attack and work on destroying someone and heighten concerns and paranoia and anger over the bill rather than stand up the bill proudly and show what they passed.

Wrong bill, wrong way to pass it, wrong way to support it and try to ease the public's worries.

SecretMethod70 · 03-22-2010, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I appreciate this man. It's not hard. You can get pissy and start trying to personally attack or you can show where the differences lie and let the other decide for themselves once they see the actual text.

You act like people have been hiding the bill(s) from you. Except, as all bills, they've been posted online. Then when you were given direct links to the bill in this discussion, and your own video told you exactly where to look, you wouldn't even take the time to click the link, instead demanding that someone do the work for you and post it here. It's nice that Charlatan did, but frankly I didn't have the time or patience to put that kind of time into it when I already knew the outcome. Why did I know the outcome? Because videos like the one you posted and similar e-mails have been making the rounds for a year now, and they're almost always wrong. I hate to break it to you pan, but you're not special (and neither are the rest of us). If you post a propaganda video that cites specific passages of something, you can't refuse to click a damn link to see those passages and act like other people are the ones keeping you in the dark.

Quote:

I also agree that the video is a scare tactic, however, if the true text of the bill CAN IN ANYWAY be legally interpreted as described by the video then there are issues that need to be resolved.

I'll save you the time, since again you apparently refuse to open Adobe Reader yourself: they can't.

Quote:

As for the bills HR3200 and HR3296 are relatively the same not much was changed. But if the bill numbers want someone to try to get others to believe the bill is almost totally different then so let them.

You know, I don't know exactly how different the bills are, but you know what I do know? You're equally lacking in knowledge. I didn't read either bill in its entirety, and you won't even open either bill in its entirety. The point was not that the bill that passed is entirely different, but that propaganda is bad enough on its own, but even worse when it's not even talking about the bill that's being considered. For all you or 1NationUnder1God3in1 know, the new bill could have changed all the sections your video references. Kind of pointless to be basing arguments on 5 month old bills, no matter how similar they may or may not be.

Quote:

It is in no way good for this country. Even Reps. that voted for it say that. Some reps that voted for it admit they have no idea all that is in it. I find that somewhat foolish and it tells me they just wanted to pass something.

Citation please. And, no, a representative saying they're not eager about this bill is not the same as a representative saying this bill is bad for America. Seeing as how we've already established you're a special voice expert for Dennis Kucinich, though, I don't expect you to understand that.

Quote:

I also find it funny that Dems are more willing to attack and work on destroying someone and heighten concerns and paranoia and anger over the bill rather than stand up the bill proudly and show what they passed.

Really? Like this link that is easily accessible from the House website and the first Google result for H.R. 3962? (Warning: that's a pdf file of the whole bill, I know how you hate to open those and look for yourself)

03-22-2010, 02:15 PM	#51 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	seems to me that alot of the question of what folk think copasetic or the contrary about this bill comes down to a matter of framing. in the rest of the world one or another form of universal health care was instituted as an aspect of the construction of the welfare state after world war 2, typically during periods of left political ascendancy. the main arguments in favor of it were: access to basic health care is a fundamental human right. this is an ethical argument, both in itself (everyone should be treated with dignity) and in relative terms (capitalism produces enough material benefits such that they can and should be allocated to accord this dignity to everyone...and it empirically produces inequalities and worse, which the system can and should be called upon to address.) it makes sense from a political and business viewpoint as well; it addresses an important political question because it extends the legitimacy of the existing order by incorporating people that capitalism tends to exclude. it allows for a smoother reproduction of the labor pool and for treating health insurance costs as an externality. this decision to make health care available is poses a resource allocation question, but this should have been posed as also political, because it bloody well is political: the united states wastes more money on military expenditures than the next 10 countries behind it on the list put together. the united states obviously has the resources to do this; it simply up to now has chosen to emphasize death (military expenditures can be reduced to that, yes?) rather than quality of life as an overall political objective. there were other arguments of course, but these are the main types that were advanced. i will never understand why the obama administration was not more aggressive about making its case on ethical and political grounds. doing it would have pushed the ultra-right, which seem to be all that remains of the right now that the republican party is essentially in bed with the militia movement across the tea bagger coalition, into making arguments that would be crazy for them to make---like the uninsured should not be treated with the same dignity as others, that dignity correlates with income, that there are no human rights. and you've seen it---that asshat glenn beck and others arguing that social justice is code for communism, etc. the constitutional questions are subsidiary to political questions, and even those quaint strict construction folk know this given that strict construction is itself a politics in which it is politically acceptable to toss around quaint outmoded terms like "objectivity" which of course means really "written from a viewpoint sympathetic to mine"---which is what "objectivity" has always meant--a rhetoric of neutrality masking political positions built into the arguments or viewpoint of a piece---which is why the notion is quaint. so alot of this chaos, this noise from the right is an effect of there simply not having been adequately clear ethical and political arguments made from the outset. it think it's a problem. i never believed personally that the right was going to work in good faith to do something about health care---particularly not once they started acting as a tick sucking the money from the insurance industry et. al. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-22-2010, 02:32 PM	#52 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	From Reuters: Healthcare overhaul faces new challenges \| Reuters Healthcare Overhaul Faces New Challenges click to show (Reuters) - Republicans vowed to fight back on Monday after Congress passed President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul, while a dozen U.S. states promised new legal challenges and health stocks rose. The narrow vote for final passage in the House of Representatives late on Sunday capped a year-long political struggle that consumed Congress and dented Obama's approval ratings, but the biggest health policy changes in four decades still face a variety of hurdles. Republican attorneys general in at least 12 states said they would file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the overhaul and contending it infringed on state sovereignty. Health stocks rose as investors were relieved to finally have certainty about the healthcare battle and pleased at the prospect of more business from 32 million newly insured Americans. The Morgan Stanley Healthcare Payor index of health insurers was up 1.2 percent, outpacing the broader market, although large insurers WellPoint Inc and UnitedHealth Group dropped after rising in morning trading. The bill expands the government health plan for the poor, imposes new taxes on the wealthy and bars insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. The White House said Obama will sign the bill on Tuesday and travel to Iowa on Thursday to promote the overhaul. LONG-SOUGHT GOAL The approval fulfills a goal that had eluded many U.S. presidents for a century -- most recently Democrat Bill Clinton in 1994. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the legislation on Monday before sending the bill to the White House. Republican critics said the $940 billion legislation was a heavy-handed intrusion in the healthcare sector that will drive up costs, increase the budget deficit and reduce patients' choices. Republicans said they would fight a package of changes designed to improve the bill, which will be taken up in the Senate this week, and lead a charge to repeal the bill after reclaiming Congress from Democrats in November's elections. "We will challenge this all over America, and the will of the people will be heard," Republican Senator John McCain, who faces a conservative primary challenger in his home state of Arizona, said on the Senate floor. Republicans said they would challenge the changes to the overhaul on parliamentary points of order that, if upheld, could send the revisions back to the House. "Democrat leaders may have gotten their votes. They may have gotten their win. But today is a new day," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. At least 11 states, including Florida, Michigan and Alabama, plan to band together in a collective lawsuit claiming the reforms infringe on state powers. "If the president signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens," said Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican. The Republican attorney general of Virginia plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond challenging the overhaul's mandate to force people to buy insurance. Several constitutional scholars cast doubt on the prospects for success of the Republican lawsuits. "Congress has clear authority to pass this type of legislation," said Mark Rosen of Chicago-Kent College of Law. Democratic Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, one of the states involved in the joint lawsuit, called it "nothing more than political grandstanding." The healthcare revamp, Obama's top domestic priority, would usher in the biggest changes in the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system since the 1965 creation of the government-run Medicare health program for the elderly and disabled. It would require most Americans to have health coverage, give subsidies to help lower-income workers pay for coverage and create state-based exchanges where the uninsured can compare and shop for plans. Major provisions such as the exchanges and subsidies would not kick in until 2014, but many of the insurance reforms like barring companies from dropping coverage for the sick will begin in the first year. Hailed as a historic change in U.S. health policy, the bill passed by Congress left some Americans confused and others disappointed. But some saw it as a good start. "By anybody's measure we desperately needed something in place. Is it perfect? No," said George Fleming, a career transition coach in Phoenix. "Bottom line is, I'm delighted we've got step one in place. What I think we're going to see in the next couple of months is ideas to refine it." (Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Lewis Krauskopf, Michael Connor, Karen Pierog, David Morgan and Tim Gaynor; Editing by Anthony Boadle and Chris Wilson) And CBC's coverage: CBC News - World - Republicans vow to repeal health-care bill Republicans Vow Health-Care Fight Will Continue click to show The new bill that redefines U.S. health-care coverage will be repealed if it becomes law, some prominent Republicans predicted Monday, a day before President Barack Obama is expected to make it so. House Democratic leaders signed the bill Monday as a matter of procedure. Obama is expected to sign the bill to make it law in a special ceremony Tuesday, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said Monday afternoon. But jubilant Democrats have not heard the last of the debate, Senator John McCain of Arizona said Monday, adding he was repulsed by "all this euphoria going on." McCain told ABC's Good Morning America that outside the Washington, D.C., area, "the American people are very angry" and don't like the bill. "We're going to repeal this," he pledged. Negativity could backfire, analyst says Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called the bill "unhealthy for America," said a campaign to repeal the act "begins today." The Republicans "will challenge it every place we can," and there will be reprisals at the polls, in Congress and in the courts, McCain said. But that strategy could backfire, suggests Stephen Hess, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The Republicans "may have overplayed their hand," Hess told CBC News. "The sort of 'Dr. No' image that they gave as a party is certainly not very positive or very attractive." The House of Representatives voted 219-212 in favour of the landmark legislation that has been debated on Capitol Hill for a year. It will make coverage possible for 32 million uninsured Americans and end discrimination by insurance companies against people with existing medical conditions. Every single Republican voted against it, as did 34 Democrats. Even if the bill is written into law on Tuesday, most of the reforms are still a long way away from being felt in the broader economy. Among the the legislation's more immediate impacts, within the calendar year 2010, seniors in the Medicare drug coverage gap will be mailed $250 rebate checks, and young adults moving from college to work will be able to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26. The plan's more ambitious aims — namely, to mandate that insurers must accept all applicants and won't be able to turn down people in poor health, or charge them more — are not scheduled to be rolled out until 2014. As will a plan to expand Medicaid to cover more low income people. Obama has pledged $5 billion to fund a pool to cover individuals who lose their coverage because they get sick, but those funds are likely to run out well before 2014 when the legislation mandating that comes into effect. Congressional analysts estimate the cost of the two bills combined will be $940 billion US over 10 years. However, the health-care reform will also trim about $138 billion from the federal deficit over the same period — through changes to Medicare and other programs, a reduction in subsidies and the taxing of high-cost insurance. The apparent cost of the reform was too much for Dave Canelli. "It's going to cost America a lot of money that we just can't afford," the New York resident told Reuters news agency Monday. "I think the country needs health-care reform, but I think this bill was bad." But for Benjamin Joy of Oregon the change is welcome. "The U.S., being the richest country in the world, should have something like this," Joy told Reuters. Companion package still needs passage Congress also approved a companion package to the bill by a 220-211 vote. That package makes a series of changes sought by House Democrats to the larger bill, which already passed the Senate. The fix-it bill will now go to the Senate, where debate is expected to begin as early as Tuesday. Senate Democrats hope to approve it unchanged and send it directly to Obama. Republicans intend to attempt parliamentary objections that could change the bill and require it to go back to the House. Meanwhile, up to a dozen individual states are also vowing to try to repeal the bill. Attorneys general in Florida and South Carolina, among others, say they'll file lawsuits claiming the bill passed by the House is unconstitutional and violates states' sovereign rights. Undaunted, Obama is scheduled to travel to Iowa on Thursday to begin selling the health care bill to regular Americans as they prepare to go the polls in mid-term elections in November. So it seems the Republican party will fight this on all available fronts. I suppose that's not really a surprise. If I were a resident of the US, I would be saying that this doesn't go nearly far enough. Turns out that publicly funded health-care is working out pretty well for the rest of the world. I don't understand the objections here. Can someone who's opposed to the bill give a clear and concise summary of precisely what the negative impacts are going to be, and why? All I've seen so far is vague prophecies of doom with no root in the actual legislation being passed. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

03-22-2010, 05:05 PM	#65 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one thing i do not understand is this idea that seems to be shared amongst more conservative folk that others only respond to coercion or pressure from outside--so that people will all smoke or all drink or all be overweight unless there is some outside Penalty that kicks in to punish them for doing it. you see it all the time---this nonsense about "lifestyle choices" above works on that assumption. so you'd think that folk with this condescending christian notion of other people--not themselves of course--oppose universal health care because it removes some fictive "moral hazard" following that logic, you'd think that places with universal health care would have obesity rates higher than the united states. but strangely the opposite is the case. so how does that work exactly? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-22-2010, 05:08 PM	#66 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	America's obesity epidemic is linked to its food policy (cheaper food at any cost) and not its health care policies. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-22-2010, 05:14 PM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, it's linked to alot of things--industrial food production, the subsidy system, the ways in which industrial food is marketed both directly (adverts) and indirectly (sold to, say, public schools)---and ignorance about the consequences of industrial food and diet/nutrition in general. other stuff too---but of these two, you could say that the lack of adequate information about industrial food is a matter of both the educational and health care system. i think more about the french system than any other tho---because basic health care is free across the board, it makes sense for the state to be proactive about nutrition information (among other things) in order to try to influence folk to live more healthy lifestyles in the longer run as a cost-control move. so there's alot of information available about it. i've lived in france more than any other country outside the us so it's my alternate reference point. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-22-2010, 01:28 PM	#46 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I dislike this forced buy-in requirement as much as you but I see nothing unconstitutional about it, especially considering past Supreme Court decisions. Perhaps we should amend the constitution.

03-22-2010, 03:55 PM	#61 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	So in your opinion what qualifies as a lifestyle choice? Smoking?, Drinking?, being a driver? living in a new york? Choosing to have a baby? Moving into a bad neighborhood? It seems to be that the term lifestyle choice is pretty damn vague....

03-22-2010, 08:06 PM	#69 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Kind of getting tired of the unnecessarily large and all-caps inflammatory language. It stopped being amusing awhile ago, and does nothing to add to discussion here. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-22-2010, 08:33 PM	#73 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	As for the video, forgive me if I'm skeptical of a user who calls himself "1NationUnder1God3in1." The video says it is referring to H.R. 3200, which might be useful if it weren't for the fact that the bill the House passed is H.R. 3962. H.R. 3200 never even made it to a vote, and its last activity was Oct 14, 2009. But hey, pan, I'm glad you're making sure to get up-to-date information. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-22-2010, 08:37 PM	#75 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	You'll note that the pdf the video links is also hosted on the website of one of the staunch Republican critics of the bill. Sorry if I don't trust her materials. If you're going to reference the bill, get it from a neutral website like GovTrack: H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) (Looking closely, this link is the updated version of the bill in October 2009, the video is based on an older version of the bill from July 2009 and that is the version they link to.) But like I said, none of this matters because this isn't the bill that passed. It's not even the bill they've been discussing for 5 months now. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 03-22-2010 at 08:48 PM..