http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act)
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22,0,2788293.story)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34781.html)
Whatever one thinks about it, it's a big (938 billion dollar) change in How Things Work. In addition, it was done on a strict party line-- no Republicans voted for it. The reconciliation bill has yet to be passed, however, which will contain modifications to this law, as well as eliminating subsidies to private lenders for educational loans. Thoughts?
Will be interesting to see what fallout there is politically in November. Also, what the final "bill" will look like after going back through the Senate for reconciliation.
I expected no GOP members would vote for it. I'm a bit surprised that Pelosi was able to pull it off. She may have more chutzpah/machiavellianism/whatever you want to call it than I give her credit for. I think the only reason this got passed was because Obama went 'back on the campaign trail', so to speak, to save the Dem's butts with their constituents. If he hadn't done that, I don't know that Pelosi would have had enough votes to do it. However, Obama needed this win as badly as Pelosi and Reid did. It remains to be seen how much this affects the elections in November. There's talk that Obama's former Senate seat might possibly go to the GOP even, though it's still too early to tell.
Eliminating subsidies to private lenders just sweetened the pot for the Dems, I think, but I'm not sure how much it affected the vote either way.
This became for me a much more personal issue. With my sister being diagnosed with cancer, the fact that her insurance company now can't drop her or raise her insurance rates to exorbitantly high levels makes me feel better about her being able to get the care she needs when she needs it down the road. It's going to be one less worry for the entire family.
I guess it's going to be a repeat, politically speaking.
Pelosi: Let's pass it first, then we will tell you, the people, what's in the bill. :D...
We the people: yahthanks :dozey:
The 'success' of the program several years downis going to be hinged upon how many people just pay the fine if it's cheaper if they can't afford insurance.
Will be interesting to see what fallout there is politically in November. Also, what the final "bill" will look like after going back through the Senate for reconciliation.
Ah yes. The fun begins. All the accusations, the fur flying. The media on both sides getting a rile up of each others dander. The bureaucracy and the long drawn out proceedings of all the cases that will be televised over the next several years.
We will pay for it now even though a number of the benefits don't start for 4 years.
Life goes on I guess.
Commence the whining in 3... 2... 1.
:hor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4xyA45HKo)
That is my only contribution to this :xp: Otherwise I'm here to referee the debate in a neutral capacity ;)
Pelosi: Let's pass it first, then we will tell you, the people, what's in the bill. :D...
I would have liked that version better than the one they actually used, “Let’s negotiate and get the other side’s input to come up with a bipartisan bill. However, instead the other side waters the bill down to nothing while using false scare tactics to make naive Americans believe Obama is going to set up death panels to kill them. They care nothing about American’s health care, they say they care about the economy, but refused to lift a finger to actually work on a problem that cost were becoming unsustainable for our economy, for our industry and “more importantly” for our citizens.
Still love how they say we are going to pay for those that can’t afford insurance under this plan. Do they really think we are that stupid? The ones with insurance now are paying for those without insurance. That is why I was billed for a one block ambulance ride $3,000.00. I can’t wait for the first lawsuit by my state to be filed, because I’ve already plan on using the can of worms that will open up to sue the state over requiring me to purchase apartment insurance and auto insurance.
I am one of the poll numbers that was against this bill, I believe it does not go far enough, but hopefully it is better than the same old same that the Republican's endorse. Let's all go back to the 1950's when America was great. At least for some Americans. :rolleyes:
I am one of the poll numbers that was against this bill, I believe it does not go far enough, but hopefully it is better than the same old same that the Republican endorse.
It's a start. Not a great one, but considering we had nothing before, we've taken a giant leap forward.
Yes, yes, we've already got the albatross of close to $100 Trillion of unfunded mandates hanging around our necks, what's a new entitlement program here or there. :rolleyes:
Can't add much serious (living in healthcare paradise aka Belgium) to this thread, but I hope this might be a start to a better system.
Where the whole USA can benifit from.
Yes, yes, we've already got the albatross of close to $100 Trillion of unfunded mandates hanging around our necks
Leave the Defense Budget out of this.
^^^Would it be relevant if we start a thread on our national debt?:)
@J7: OK serioulsy......lolwut?! Where'd THAT come from :rofl:
Still love how they say we are going to pay for those that can’t afford insurance under this plan. Do they really think we are that stupid? The ones with insurance now are paying for those without insurance. That is why I was billed for a one block ambulance ride $3,000.00. I can’t wait for the first lawsuit by my state to be filed, because I’ve already plan on using the can of worms that will open up to sue the state over requiring me to purchase apartment insurance and auto insurance.
Huh? Somehow I don't doubt the government will come after everyone for some kind of payment. It's the government and they pursue you for every little penny of taxes. This is obviously going into the total of our taxes. Why wouldn't they charge everyone? :confused:
And if they make people with insurance pay more, then that implies they're setting up the insurance companies to fall, because a later step would be to slip in something else at a later date with the growing discontent. So you have kinda lost me here...It eventually would become what you wanted it to be so I don't follow what you're unhappy with, except maybe that they just didn't do it soon enough, ala cart'e blan`che. Is this the case?
(and all you naysayers that are going to be accusing me of slippery slope, just stop for a second and think about it, especially considering the stated ultimate goal of some officials of this administration)
Leave the Defense Budget out of this.
I only wish that were the Defense Budget we were talking about. :xp: It's actually SS and MC for the baby boomers and beyond.
Trouble looms on the horizon:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=au5M0WphL81g&refer=worldwide)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYUeBnitz7nU)
@GTA--no need for slippery slope, Barney Frank candidly admitted that that's exactly what they were moving toward.
I wish I was a democrat in congress right now...I coulda made an ###-load by voting Nay and waiting to be paid off by Pelosi and pals.
I'm actually glad the bill passed. Why? Our system used to be subpar compared to other developed countries. Therefore, reform was needed. Now, it's more or less on par.
This needed to pass to, at least, put regulations on the insurance companies so they'd stop dropping anyone who needed to, you know, use their services. If being unable to pull the plug on their members when they get cancer ends up putting them out of business... so be it. As it stands almost nobody in this country has insurance because, when it really matter, the execs will pull it out from under you anyway.
I'm interested to see whats going to happen once this bill finally goes through and we can focus on more important matters, however. We should probably be squeezing companies to stop outsourcing their jobs for starters.
I wish I was a democrat in congress right now...I coulda made an ###-load by voting Nay and waiting to be paid off by Pelosi and pals.
:rolleyes:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1)
So, they still refuse to give up? One of the reasons why I've lost respect for these Republicans - they just refuse to accept they've been defeated.
We should probably be squeezing companies to stop outsourcing their jobs for starters.
Coming from you that's news to my ears b/c a year or so ago you had a very different attitude about it. IIRC something about how we need to keep business going strong, and not be isolationist. What finally changed your mind?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1)
So, they still refuse to give up? One of the reasons why I've lost respect for these Republicans - they just refuse to accept they've been defeated.
:rolleyes:
Wonder if you feel the same way about the the progressive dems who never gave up either in the face of many "defeats". Besides, why should they give up? This particular bill is highly questionable, debatably unconstitutional and the byproduct of a very sleazy process by very sleazy politicians. I've got to say that this congress under Pelosi has been the complete antithesis of the "most ethical" one she bragged about not too long ago. Interestingly, this bill also federalizes the school loan program. From the people who gave you the Fannie and Freddie debacle......
:unconstitutional Thank you for your learned opinion Chief Justice Roberts. :xp:
So far all the arguments I’ve seen saying that it is unconstitutional have precedence and have been upheld in prior decisions. The forced purchase of auto insurance has been going on at the state level since the 1970’s.
Since requirements to have auto insurance have not been found unconstitutional, I doubt requiring citizens to have health insurance is going to be found unconstitutional, either.
Coming from you that's news to my ears b/c a year or so ago you had a very different attitude about it. IIRC something about how we need to keep business going strong, and not be isolationist. What finally changed your mind?
I don't really think I changed my mind. Did I?
I don't think isolationist and business going strong are mutually exclusive or whatever. We outsource all our jobs... which leads to bad business and a lacking economy. Isolationist would be more, we make our own stuff but don't sell or buy from anything outside our borders. Least that is how I define them *shrugs*
debatably unconstitutional
Wat, when did this become unconstitutional? Hasn't all kinds of insurance been required for years?
From what I've heard, requiring health insurance isn't the part that is unconstitutional. What I've heard about is a specific clause that would make it impossible to repeal this bill once it's passed into law.
That's unconstitutional (and illegal) as hell if true, and a huge loophole for the Republicans once they regain power.
Leave the Defense Budget out of this.
If only Congressmen, both Democrat and Republican, didn't spend so much of our defense budget on pet projects unwanted and unneeded by the military, we might have both a lower Defense budget, and a more effective, better protected fighting force.
But back OT: I'm curious to see how this turns out, and I can't honestly make a full judgment on this considering how much is still unknown about the bill. If the claims that it includes a clause forbidding its repeal are true, I will be pretty pissed off, but I'll hold all bile and rage in check until I find out for certain if that's true.
I'm not sure that it's in there, either, but, from what I've been hearing, it is why they've been so secretive about this bill's contents.
If it's true, then this bill has little or nothing to do with providing affordable health care.
From what I've heard, requiring health insurance isn't the part that is unconstitutional. What I've heard about is a specific clause that would make it impossible to repeal this bill once it's passed into law.
HAHAHAHA What part of fantasyland did the Republicans come up with that notation? The same one that created the term “Death Panels”? They really need to start reading something other than Sarah Palin’s hand.
It would be difficult to repeal, just as any law is, but that alone does not make it unconstitutional. Don’t these people even read enough history to know a Constitutional Amendment has been repealed? Or was that taken out of their textbooks? I suggest they look up the Eighteenth and Twenty-first Amendments.
I hope you're right. If you aren't, then we're one step closer to the oligarchy that both parties crave.
I'm not sure that it's in there, either, but, from what I've been hearing, it is why they've been so secretive about this bill's contents.
There's absolutely nothing secretive about this bill since it's public record. (
http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf) All 1,017 pages of it. The link even has a search function so you can find (or not find, depending) what you're looking for.
If you say so. Are you sure it's not buried in 1,017 pages of legalese?
So far all the arguments I’ve seen saying that it is unconstitutional have precedence and have been upheld in prior decisions. The forced purchase of auto insurance has been going on at the state level since the 1970’s.
The argument, as I've heard it is that the federal govt doesn't have that power. States are another issue entirely. :carms:
Also: It would be difficult to repeal, just as any law is, but that alone does not make it unconstitutional. Don’t these people even read enough history to know a Constitutional Amendment has been repealed?
True enough. Anything legal can always be overturned by the proper party at a later date (SC decisions, executive orders and laws/amendments....possibly even the first 10 if a Constitutional Convention were convened).
@TA--see above.
@Liver--If the claims that it includes a clause forbidding its repeal are true, I will be pretty pissed off, but I'll hold all bile and rage in check until I find out for certain if that's true. If true, that'd no doubt be rejected as currently unconstitutional.
@Jae--states require car operators/drivers to carry insurance. No car? No insurance. Should be interesting to see exactly what the minimum level of insurance coverage mandated by the feds will become.
There's absolutely nothing secretive about this bill since it's public record. (
http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf) All 1,017 pages of it. The link even has a search function so you can find (or not find, depending) what you're looking for.
Why should anyone one read it when it is so much more fun to say it is secret and make up what is in it? Plus it is a little too big to fit that on Palin's hand and there are multi-syllable words in it.
@Jae--states require car operators/drivers to carry insurance. No car? No insurance.Same goes for this. If you are dead the insurance is not required. No health? No health insurance.
Well, again, if the state wants to do that...... But seriously, spare the drivel about how this legislation is about helping "poor" people. It's nothing more than the govt wanting to increase it's power over everyone, veiled by claims of altruism and faux populism.
Why should anyone one read it when it is so much more fun to say it is secret and make up what is in it? Plus it is a little too big to fit that on Palin's hand and there are multi-syllable words in it.
Hey, I'm just repeating what I heard. No need to get all defensive and insulting while dropping Sarah Palin's name every other sentence. :p
I don't really think I changed my mind. Did I?
The impression I got was you were more for globalizing. Your attitude in general pointed more towards that we had to keep business going and this was the way to do that.
I don't think isolationist and business going strong are mutually exclusive or whatever. Ok. Good, because they're not. Least so far as I know.
We outsource all our jobs... which leads to bad business and a lacking economy. Isolationist would be more, we make our own stuff but don't sell or buy from anything outside our borders. Least that is how I define them *shrugs*
If that to you is isolationist, then I never advocated that. Never once advocated we stop buying from other countries, just that (back in '08) as a strategic way we could roll out of the crash and get back up and running more quickly, we start making the jobs available in our country. The fundamentals of our economy is our people but they can't function if they don't have work to do. .....But I've derailed this thread enough.
Well, again, if the state wants to do that...... But seriously, spare the drivel about how this legislation is about helping "poor" people. It's nothing more than the govt wanting to increase it's power over everyone, veiled by claims of altruism and faux populism.
Precisely, which makes it just as much of a lame excuse as national security was for the Republicans. This time it's conscience that's being exploited instead of fear.
Disgusting.
No need to get all defensive and insulting while dropping Sarah Palin's name every other sentence. :p
I’m fighting fire with the same fire that is being dished out. :xp: I know that Palin isn’t relevant to the mainstream Republican party any more than Gore is relevant to the Democratic party, but that does not stop people from bringing him up. ;)
Apparently, the only way to convince particular individuals that this bill is for the advancement of humanity and common social justice is to have Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Guru Nanak, Krishna, and Bahaullah to publicly endorse this bill. Otherwise, it's still a massive :conspire: to enslave the American citizenry... by providing free, basic medical care? :indif:
Truly, if this the reasoning of some, then this would place Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Columbia as more industrialized and modern than the U.S.
Apparently, the only way to convince particular individuals that this bill is for the advancement of humanity and common social justice is to have Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Guru Nanak, Krishna, and Bahaullah to publicly endorse this bill. Otherwise, it's still a massive :conspire: to enslave the American citizenry... by providing free, basic medical care? :indif:
Truly, if this the reasoning of some, then this would place Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Columbia as more industrialized and modern than the U.S.
Providing "free" (it ain't free when financed by people's taxes) hc has nothing to do w/being either modern or industrialized. If providing "free" hc makes one beknighted and virtuous, then people like Castro are veritable saints. :rolleyes:
If you say so. Are you sure it's not buried in 1,017 pages of legalese?There's a search function in the pdf if you want to go look for it. ;)
@Totenkopf--it's pretty sad when you get affordable health care in Cuba but not in the US, yes.
We all pay for health care one way or another. We either pay for it through our taxes, or we pay through higher fees for insurance and higher costs at doctors and hospitals because they have to cover the costs of those who can't or won't pay. We also pay for the outrageous, ridiculous insurance company CEO's salaries while they cut people like my sister off so that their shareholders don't have a decrease in their revenues. At least with the costs spread out to everyone (since we all will likely utilize the health care system at some point), it makes it easier for everyone to get access to at least basic care.
Providing "free" (it ain't free when financed by people's taxes) hc has nothing to do w/being either modern or industrialized.Sorry, but when nearly* every nation that resides on the HDI's list of "developed" states has a universal health care system, that's obviously an indicator that they're doing something right. Even when nations stacked at the very bottom, such as Pakistan, have UHC, that's obviously indicative of modernity where there is little.
Guess who doesn't?
If providing "free" hc makes one beknighted and virtuous, then people like Castro are veritable saints. :rolleyes:So, by that logic, every individual who has championed humanity is to be compared with Stalin? Assuredly, alms-giving is nothing but a socialist rattrap.
Guess who doesn't?guess who does, Iraq and Afghanistan paid for by U.S. tax payers. Guess it is something the Republicans would only wish on their enemy. :rolleyes:
I can't help but be suspicious. Regardless of who was in power, when was the last time that Congress did anything in the interests of the people? Be honest.
Why is this time any different?
Sorry, but when nearly* every nation that resides on the HDI's list of "developed" states has a universal health care system, that's obviously an indicator that they're doing something right. Even when nations stacked at the very bottom, such as Pakistan, have UHC, that's obviously indicative of modernity where there is little.
First, modern has nothing to do with whether a govt provides a "free" hc plan or not. It certainly has nothing to do with industrialization. You're correct to put "developed" in parenthesis, as that is little more than a judgement call, not empirical fact. Nice try, I guess....
Guess who doesn't?
So, by that logic, every individual who has championed humanity is to be compared with Stalin? Assuredly, alms-giving is nothing but a socialist rattrap.
Not remotely the point. :rolleyes: State forced "alms-giving" (your term), though, is nothing but a socialist rattrap. Problem with the bill is that it was much more tortured and bloated than it needed to be, and if the goal was merely insurance reform, not a new govt entitlement program, all Big Govt had to do was write a reasonably simple bill that allowed insurance companies to compete (like auto insurance) across state lines and then to tell the insurance companies that they couldn't drop/exclude people b/c of preexisting conditions, etc.. As it is, we now have what is shaping up to be another byzantine fiscal nightmare. Nevermind the unwieldy bureaucracies and new IRS powers it will unfold and unleash. Or the fact that we are effectively broke.
Guess it is something the Republicans would only wish on their enemy. :rolleyes:
Better them than us (though it should be on their dime and not ours).
<brevity> Otherwise, it's still a massive :conspire: to enslave the American citizenry... by providing free, basic medical care? :indif:
Maybe not quite slavery, but a certain loathing of uncertainty while being beholden for what service/etc. is offered--sort of like writing a blank check.
Truly, if this the reasoning of some, then this would place Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Columbia as more industrialized and modern than the U.S.
Considering so many of our jobs have gone overseas and we are hurting for it...I suppose you could say that, in a certain manner of speaking.
@Jae--Well, basic may be about all the system will be able to afford, and even w/o insurance I can get that pretty cheaply as it is. Part of the reason health insurance is so damn expensive in some places is b/c of state allowed virtual monopolies. If NY and Jersey effectively had more than the 2-3 carriers or CA more than the 5-6, I'm guessing people wouldn't pay such ridiculous rates. Why people think govt sanctioned monopolies are acceptable, but not private ones, is mind boggling. Afterall, govt can regulate both and with the second it doesn't have a conflict of interest b/c it doesn't effectively own that system, it merely regulates it. Single payer, which is what many progressives and dems have openly admitted they're heading toward, will be govt run if (hopefully not when) we get it here. That said, I understand the sentiment that drives it in part b/c many/most people either have a friend/relative or know someone that has been in that situation. I just think it's misplaced faith in a bankrupt system.
First, modern has nothing to do with whether a govt provides a "free" hc plan or not. It certainly has nothing to do with industrialization.No, it does. The top 38 nations on the HDI are brimming with industrial output and contribute heavily to the global economy, while still providing their citizenry with more than adequate services and luxuries... hence the term "developed". Since ~97% of those developed nations provide UHC, then UHC would be deemed an attribute of a developed nation. Simple Boolean.You're correct to put "developed" in parenthesis, as that is little more than a judgement call, not empirical fact.It is subjective to extent, yes, but please look over the list (
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/) and tell me that the top 38 nations aren't considered "developed" in any sense.
<snip>This is nowhere close to being the perfect solution; far from it. There are still problems to be solved and discrepancies to be addressed. It will take years to get it "right", whatever "right" truly is, but for now, this bill is a step forward, albeit a shaky one. As far as larger government is concerned... tough. The government's power has waned and waxed over time, and will grow increasingly larger and smaller when the situation arises. So far, the U.S. hasn't deduced to an Orwellian autocracy, despite the ever-present fear and suspicion of some. I haven't worried yet, and I'm not going to worry in the future, franklyOr the fact that we are effectively broke.Yes, well, the US public has been in-debt since... well, forever, and I've never lost a pinch of sleep over it, so inherently, I don't really see the ginormous, eye-bulging problem at-hand...
No it doesn't, b/c there are more than 38 nations in the world and apparently many nonindustrialized and poorer countries offer "free" hc. You're merely conflating the terms. Besides, your argument was "modern and industrialized", not "developed". Shifting goalposts? Developed is a subjective term that doesn't require a system to have govt run healthcare to meet the requirement. Of course, neither does "modern and industrialized" either, frankly.
Frankly US debt was always manageable in the past b/c of its relative size to the economy. Just pray that foreiners feel we're to big to fail. As to govt size, if it shrinks and you don't get your percieved goodies in the end.....tough. ;)
As to govt size, if it shrinks...
I don't think in the entire history of the US, the government has ever "shrunk", regardless of who's in power.
Not shrunk in the ways we would need it to, or want for that matter. Doesn't mean we stop trying to do it, though.