PDA

View Full Version : Health Care Bill Passed by the House, 219-212


Samuel Dravis
03-21-2010, 11:32 PM
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?

Totenkopf
03-22-2010, 12:43 AM
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.

Jae Onasi
03-22-2010, 01:06 AM
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.

Darth Avlectus
03-22-2010, 01:30 AM
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.

jrrtoken
03-22-2010, 06:22 AM
Commence the whining in 3... 2... 1.

:hor:

jonathan7
03-22-2010, 08:35 AM
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 ;)

mimartin
03-22-2010, 11:09 AM
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:

Jae Onasi
03-22-2010, 11:43 AM
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.

Totenkopf
03-22-2010, 12:13 PM
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:

Quanon
03-22-2010, 12:44 PM
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.

mimartin
03-22-2010, 12:55 PM
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.

Darth Avlectus
03-22-2010, 05:20 PM
^^^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 canít 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 canít wait for the first lawsuit by my state to be filed, because Iíve 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)

Totenkopf
03-22-2010, 06:37 PM
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.

urluckyday
03-22-2010, 09:00 PM
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.

Ping
03-22-2010, 09:07 PM
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.

True_Avery
03-22-2010, 09:18 PM
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:

Ping
03-22-2010, 09:33 PM
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.

Darth Avlectus
03-22-2010, 09:34 PM
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?

mimartin
03-22-2010, 10:03 PM
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.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0907/never-give-up-never-surrender-galaxy-quest-tim-allen-star-tr-demotivational-poster-1248602467.jpg

Totenkopf
03-22-2010, 10:19 PM
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......

mimartin
03-22-2010, 10:32 PM
: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.

Jae Onasi
03-22-2010, 10:42 PM
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.

True_Avery
03-22-2010, 11:00 PM
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?

Q
03-22-2010, 11:36 PM
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.

Liverandbacon
03-22-2010, 11:59 PM
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.

Q
03-23-2010, 12:22 AM
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.

mimartin
03-23-2010, 12:32 AM
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 ďDeath PanelsĒ? They really need to start reading something other than Sarah Palinís hand.

It would be difficult to repeal, just as any law is, but that alone does not make it unconstitutional. Donít 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.

Q
03-23-2010, 12:37 AM
I hope you're right. If you aren't, then we're one step closer to the oligarchy that both parties crave.

Jae Onasi
03-23-2010, 12:41 AM
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.

Q
03-23-2010, 12:45 AM
If you say so. Are you sure it's not buried in 1,017 pages of legalese?

Totenkopf
03-23-2010, 12:56 AM
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.

mimartin
03-23-2010, 01:01 AM
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.

Totenkopf
03-23-2010, 01:12 AM
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.

Q
03-23-2010, 01:35 AM
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

Darth Avlectus
03-23-2010, 03:12 AM
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.

Q
03-23-2010, 08:08 AM
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.

mimartin
03-23-2010, 09:06 AM
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. ;)

jrrtoken
03-23-2010, 09:16 AM
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.

Totenkopf
03-23-2010, 01:42 PM
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:

Jae Onasi
03-23-2010, 03:28 PM
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.

jrrtoken
03-23-2010, 03:56 PM
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.

mimartin
03-23-2010, 04:11 PM
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:

Q
03-23-2010, 05:31 PM
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?

Totenkopf
03-23-2010, 06:50 PM
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).

Darth Avlectus
03-23-2010, 06:50 PM
<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.

Totenkopf
03-23-2010, 09:14 PM
@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.

jrrtoken
03-23-2010, 09:25 PM
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...

Totenkopf
03-23-2010, 09:36 PM
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. ;)

Web Rider
03-24-2010, 01:14 PM
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.

Darth Avlectus
03-24-2010, 02:02 PM
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.

swphreak
03-24-2010, 02:25 PM
I really shouldn't say this considering my current insurance is going to run out, and getting insurance on my own will be difficult and expensive, but they should kill this bill with fire. If it was truly for the betterment of U.S. health care or its citizens, I'd be all for it, but it's full of so many backroom deals, I just don't trust it.

I also don't trust the government to be able to run health care any better than it is now. For example: military health care. All the retired military service members I've talked to will say that the government/military does a terrible job with health care. Why should we let them run our health care?

I really hope the adminstration and our representatives realize that we're not stupid and just drop this. They can try again with real reform, not some bloated piece of crap.

Web Rider
03-24-2010, 05:15 PM
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.

Of course not, but there's always a fine line between a small useless government and a small effective government. Small and useless is just as bad a big and useless...only cheaper and more pointless.

jrrtoken
03-24-2010, 06:55 PM
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.Yes. However, the incidence of UHC is greater in countries that are ranked progressively higher on the HDI, therefore providing a correlation between economic growth, standard of living, etc... the very principles that are found within developed nations.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.No. de·vel·oped

: having a relatively high level of industrialization and standard of living <a developed country>I think it's quite easy to discern between a nation like the UK and, say, Somalia, so developed isn't quite as subjective by definition as you think. "Modern and industrialized" can also be subjective, sure, but the terms are most certainly attributed to "developed country".

Jae Onasi
03-24-2010, 07:13 PM
We have one of the best health nationalized plans in Medicare--if you're 65 or older, or on Social Security Disability. It works well for us doctors, works pretty well for hospitals, and it's at least semi-understandable, unlike many insurance companies' policies (which love obfuscation--if you make a single mistake on the claim form, they don't have to pay! Woohoo for them!) However, the fund has been underpaid, and that's why it's going broke.

A lot of GOPers forget we have gov't run health care in Medicare (or conveniently ignore it), and it does a darn good job. I think it's the model we should have gone with (just extended to everyone, and taxes raised accordingly to cover it), but it didn't happen that way.

Darth Avlectus
03-24-2010, 08:17 PM
Of course not, but there's always a fine line between a small useless government and a small effective government.
Exactly. This is what most of us want. Plus on our side or at least neutral enough that we the people remain the effective working 3rd pillar of the triad, instead of like a squirrel between 2 hogs fighting over a steak like it has been.

Still...you know the saying: want in one hand, **** in the other and see which gets full fastest. :¨:

Small and useless is just as bad a big and useless...only cheaper and more pointless. At least it's easier to clean up the mess. *shrugs*

Rake
03-24-2010, 11:50 PM
Exactly. This is what most of us want. Plus on our side or at least neutral enough that we the people remain the effective working 3rd pillar of the triad, instead of like a squirrel between 2 hogs fighting over a steak like it has been.

Still...you know the saying: want in one hand, **** in the other and see which gets full fastest. :¬:


If I remember correctly, weren't the 1860s-1890s a period of relatively unmoving, small government. If I also remember correctly, that period was plagued by corruption, poverty, and corporate dominance; which in turn, led to the progressive era that (for the most part) led to some great reform that we still have today.

We got to debate the healthcare bill in German (lol), was a fun class, hope it's for the best.

Jae Onasi
03-25-2010, 01:12 AM
If I remember correctly, weren't the 1860s-1890s a period of relatively unmoving, small government. If I also remember correctly, that period was plagued by corruption, poverty, and corporate dominance; which in turn, led to the progressive era that (for the most part) led to some great reform that we still have today.

We got to debate the healthcare bill in German (lol), was a fun class, hope it's for the best.

The 1860's saw the Civil War and Reconstruction, so it wasn't unmoving or small at that point, though compared to today it was pretty tiny.

Totenkopf
03-25-2010, 01:26 AM
I don't think in the entire history of the US, the government has ever "shrunk", regardless of who's in power.

So, naturally, we should just sit by and let it get ever larger, right? Frankly, I'd rather have a "small" and useless govt than a large and useless one. At least they'd be less in my way. A federal govt that limited itself to negotiating foreign treaties, providing for America's national defense interests and focusing on America's infrastructure would be fine in my book.

A lot of GOPers forget we have gov't run health care in Medicare (or conveniently ignore it), and it does a darn good job. I think it's the model we should have gone with (just extended to everyone, and taxes raised accordingly to cover it), but it didn't happen that way.

No, I've not forgotten that. They also run the healthcare for the vets and Indian reservations. Problem w/Medicare is that, however well run you feel it is, we're fast coming to the point where we can't really afford it. Perhaps instead of hiring 16k+ agents for the IRS to monitor our HC payments, they should hire them to ferret out all the fraud currently in the MC system. There are too few people there as it is. The problem with this bill (and they are legion) is that it seeks not to fix the system but to make it anew. Hence their use of transform in their rhetoric pre-election. Kind of like fixing a house by tearing it down and erecting a new one in it's place.

Rake
03-25-2010, 02:22 AM
The 1860's saw the Civil War and Reconstruction, so it wasn't unmoving or small at that point, though compared to today it was pretty tiny.

Sorry, should have been a little more specific, meant more 1880s to the late 90s, with Mckinley, Harrison, Cleveland, etc... If memory serves me though, the period was characterized by general noninterference on the part of government.

No, I've not forgotten that. They also run the healthcare for the vets and Indian reservations. Problem w/Medicare is that, however well run you feel it is, we're fast coming to the point where we can't really afford it. Perhaps instead of hiring 16k+ agents for the IRS to monitor our HC payments, they should hire them to ferret out all the fraud currently in the MC system. There are too few people there as it is. The problem with this bill (and they are legion) is that it seeks not to fix the system but to make it anew. Hence their use of transform in their rhetoric pre-election. Kind of like fixing a house by tearing it down and erecting a new one in it's place.

I don't really see how the healthcare bill is completely destroying the current system, it's simply adding a few more regulations and standards on private healthcare, as well as requiring all citizens to have healthcare. As to the abuse of Medicare; I really hope there is some type of solution in the future to minimize swindling, as I personally know quite a few "family friends" that make a fairly large income, afford 3 cars, and a more than comfortable home that receive lots of government assistance concerning health and basic necessities (i.e. food).

Web Rider
03-25-2010, 02:47 AM
So, naturally, we should just sit by and let it get ever larger, right? Frankly, I'd rather have a "small" and useless govt than a large and useless one. At least they'd be less in my way. A federal govt that limited itself to negotiating foreign treaties, providing for America's national defense interests and focusing on America's infrastructure would be fine in my book.

You clearly didn't read my previous post. Until you do, you can kindly not respond to me.

Darth Avlectus
03-25-2010, 04:37 AM
If I remember correctly, weren't the 1860s-1890s a period of relatively unmoving, small government. If I also remember correctly, that period was plagued by corruption, poverty, and corporate dominance; which in turn, led to the progressive era that (for the most part) led to some great reform that we still have today.
<snip>

Just because a perfect triad in power was at a slow time in our history, doesn't mean it'll necessarily land that way next time. The principle reason for why I am about the least amount of government, but still enough present to the point where it is actually effective is precisely because of the nature of human involvement, regardless of entity.

Basically I look at Corporations AND government much the same (at the end of my sword/gun/10 ft. pole); whoever wins it's an entity with a large amount of power to represent it; whereas the people (WE the people) are the ones that seem to lose out and the price is our liberties in the process because it is only us and our rights. Meanwhile everyone is disagreeing and tilting it in their own favor.

general noninterference on the part of government.
No. See that's not completely what I'm after. I'm after more of an equilibrium where there is just enough regulation to prevent catastrophic self destruction and it is designed to protect our liberties as well as keep the markets competitive. All the while it is not overly interfering with "normal operation" or sustainability. (I think many American officials in general have abandoned/betrayed this principle quite recently, which saddens me.)

From a pseudo engineering standpoint if governing mechanisms are over designed or the engine itself is too complicated, there are more things that can, do, and inevitably will go wrong. At best it stagnates. Conversely too simple and too little, the whole thing destroys itself. Either way you look at it: Murphy's law.

Problem here (as it seems) is that it's very difficult to achieve one way or the other. Nobody does or means just what they say. Plus we don't always agree as people how to go about that, whether that's best or not, to what degree, etc.

Seeing as how further discussion will detract from health care bill discussion I suggest we speak of this elsewhere if you wish to continue this discussion.

Totenkopf
03-25-2010, 04:52 AM
I don't really see how the healthcare bill is completely destroying the current system, it's simply adding a few more regulations and standards on private healthcare, as well as requiring all citizens to have healthcare. As to the abuse of Medicare; I really hope there is some type of solution in the future to minimize swindling, as I personally know quite a few "family friends" that make a fairly large income, afford 3 cars, and a more than comfortable home that receive lots of government assistance concerning health and basic necessities (i.e. food).

It's not completely destroying the system, that's pretty much in motion already. The US already has a burgeoning debt that is close to surpassing annual GDP and risks losing it's AAA credit rating. Congress now adds another entitlement program to the mix that it really can't afford. Top it off with this govt (Exec and Leg) being anti-business in its policies and rhetoric, and you don't have an environment conducive to the kind of growth you're going to need to extricate America from this crushing burden. I agree that there should be greater enforcement and investigation of current abuses as well as means testing for participation in govt programs. I recall several people in the past who have said that they would collect unemployment and then work under-the-table on top of that.




You clearly didn't read my previous post. Until you do, you can kindly not respond to me.

Of course not, but there's always a fine line between a small useless government and a small effective government. Small and useless is just as bad a big and useless...only cheaper and more pointless.

I don't think in the entire history of the US, the government has ever "shrunk", regardless of who's in power.

Actually I did. And while my question was rhetorical, it was one which you could chose to answer if you so wished. You chose instead to proffer a somewhat petulant reply. Whether govt has gotten smaller or not is somewhat moot, but also brings to mind the old saying about past performance not indicating future results. Also, possibly, that there's a first time for everything. In this case, I don't expect the govt to really get smaller than it was before this poorly conceived monstrosity was passed, but won't cry croodile tears if it ends up being a case of big govt leaping 2-3 steps forward and having to fall 1-2 back.

mimartin
03-25-2010, 11:09 AM
I'd be all for it, but it's full of so many backroom deals, I just don't trust it.This is actually an argument that I agree with, but I would also like to point out that backroom deals are nothing new to Washington or Congress. Despite some talking heads saying this is the first time in history a bill has been passed in such a matter, they have.

The Homestead Act of 1862. (Thankfully done by the Republicans)

The Servicemenís Readjustment Act of 1944 (The GI Bill by the Democrats)

Reaganís Tax Plan of the 1980s.(by conservative Democrats and Republicans)

The first two bills were (IMO) instrumental in forming the nation into what it is today by allowing the middle class to grow including homeownership and in the case of the GI Bill promoting higher education within families.

Web Rider
03-25-2010, 12:52 PM
So, naturally, we should just sit by and let it get ever larger, right? Frankly, I'd rather have a "small" and useless govt than a large and useless one. At least they'd be less in my way. A federal govt that limited itself to negotiating foreign treaties, providing for America's national defense interests and focusing on America's infrastructure would be fine in my book.


Actually I did. And while my question was rhetorical, it was one which you could chose to answer if you so wished. You chose instead to proffer a somewhat petulant reply. Whether govt has gotten smaller or not is somewhat moot, but also brings to mind the old saying about past performance not indicating future results. Also, possibly, that there's a first time for everything. In this case, I don't expect the govt to really get smaller than it was before this poorly conceived monstrosity was passed, but won't cry croodile tears if it ends up being a case of big govt leaping 2-3 steps forward and having to fall 1-2 back.

Your question wasn't "rhetorical" it was just asked by GTA and answered in the statement you quoted. And while you are right that what has happened in the past does not limit the future to only that, but it certainly stands to define it.

What I do think is that most people who want small government don't really take time to consider is how many things actually go in to "National Defense". EX: you can't defend your country from outside threats if your citizens don't know what 2x2 is.

Totenkopf
03-25-2010, 05:23 PM
No Dubya, you don't get to decide what is rhetorical and what's not. And we can see that public ed has been soooo much better than the private sector at educating people on the value of "2x2". Btw, what question do you refer to b/c GTA doesn't ask any prior to that post in the way you appear to be implying. Anyway, it doesn't really seem to be that big a problem, as most military recruits are smarter than the average citizen in the current era. So, what other social issues do you want to make a tenuous link to the military or a nebulously defined concept of "national security"?

Tommycat
03-29-2010, 12:49 PM
A lot of GOPers forget we have gov't run health care in Medicare (or conveniently ignore it), and it does a darn good job. I think it's the model we should have gone with (just extended to everyone, and taxes raised accordingly to cover it), but it didn't happen that way.
Actually this is part of the problem. We DO realize we have national health care. In fact expanding Medicare WAS one of the suggestions put forth by Republicans, though coverage of that was lacking. Many GOPers recognized this bill for what it is... So bloated with pork that it becomes darn near useless.

Very few GOPers think health care is fine as it is. We just had different ideas on how to fix it. A gigantic bill like this was not the answer. I mean heck large portions won't even take place for 4 years...

And keep in mind that the government does have a fully government run health care system... the VA. That works splendidly doesn't it? And they have a much higher claim denial rate than any insurance company.

I'm happy about the "pre-existing clause" thing, and that insurers can't drop you for things like cancer(seeing as how my girlfriend is a cancer survivor, and requires regular treatments etc), but that IS going to cause rates to rise(at least in the short term) because people who would otherwise be darn near uninsurable will get insurance(great for them, not so great for others who are already insured).

As for the unconstitutionality... I believe it's probably going to be deemed constitutional, though it's shady. As it is run by the IRS, it will be called a tax, which is allowed. It is not however anything like the automotive insurance requirement. Life is one of our inalienable rights. Driving a car is not a right. it is a privilege. It may be a necessity in some areas, but it is not a necessity in order to live in this country.

Of course there are other portions of the bill that COULD be deemed unconstitutional. For the same reasons as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were upheld. Essentially the right to privacy. Health care choices being fairly private and close to home. But we'll have to see. For now, we have health care on layaway for 4 years while they fight to see if it's constitutional... then if it isn't, well the government already has the money... yippee...

mimartin
03-29-2010, 12:56 PM
And they have a much higher claim denial rate than any insurance company.

I would like to see your evidence of this statement. Please keep in mind you wrote any insurance company.

Tommycat
03-29-2010, 01:41 PM
I would like to see your evidence of this statement. Please keep in mind you wrote any insurance company.

I'll have to look for it again, but you're probably right in that I should have qualified it with "on average" as there are some insurance companies that deny pretty much every claim regardless of validity. Though those should probably just be listed as insurance scams haha.