Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[YSSMAN]

Will his personal health care plan cover him for the remainder of his years?

If not, then what will happen to poor old Pete?

Depends on who has the money, who's plan he is on, and what kind of plan it is. Since insurance companies are still a for-profit business, they will look to cut their losses when the outlook is bleak. "Lifetime Limits" and other nonsense are there so you don't become too big of a drag on their bottom line. Chances are that if he is on some kind of corporate-funded insurance plan, he'll be fine, regardless of how bleak his outlook is for the rest of his life. If this is your average plan paid for out of your own pocket, there is a pretty good chances he would see massively increased premiums, or his plan would be canceled. There are insurance "black lists" that would prevent him from buying coverage, or buying coverage that is anywhere near reasonable in price. Worse comes to worse, he may be able to get on Medicare, but that depends on condition as well.

The "worse overall healthcare outcome" statement is based on inequality of service - which is a good thing. Especially if you want innovation, which is something the US provides the rest of the world.

Just a thought: Isn't much of this innovation that we have a direct response to how (generally) unhealthy we all are here in the US? Somehow, that doesn't sit right with me.

Competition, then.

Just as a question Keef, have you shopped for insurance before? I've yet to see competitive offers anywhere I've looked.

 

[Duke]

You're still not getting the simple concept of collective insurance. You're not "paying for Paul", you're paying, through your taxes, for everyone's insurance, including your own, so that if either you, or Paul, become sick, you will receive health care.

And you're still not getting the simple concept that some people may not want to participate in that collective system.

Why is personal choice a hard concept to grasp?

 

[orimarc]

And you're still not getting the simple concept that some people may not want to participate in that collective system.

Why is personal choice a hard concept to grasp?

Ehem...as far as I know, here in my country, there's the public health care (explained with the "repairing CDs" exemple) AND there's private health care, too. Doesn't this bill let you choose if you want to "stay in private or go into public"?

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't have time to go into the complex ins and outs - treated objectively, rather than through slogans & 30 second sound bites, it is a very complicated subject. An interesting discussion from the New England Journal Of Medicine on the subject:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

and here:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/25/2461

There are a lot of statistics & counter-statistics thrown around. The thing that I find disturbing is the knee-jerk assumption put out by the right-wing (Fox news etc.) that any services offered by "private enterprise" are automatically bound to be far more efficient than those delivered through the government. I don't believe this to be necessarily the case. Overall, the Canadian population receives its health care more efficiently through a single-payer system, that is actually less tangled in administrative costs, duplication & waste than is the case in the U.S.

Ah, I see. You said delivery of health care, yet you are apparently actually discussing costs. That is why I was confused, as I have yet to hear a story of how an American citizen could not get access to health care, which is what it sounded like you were saying.

Those articles do address an important point, but they do not actually examine the regulatory processes in place in each country to see if there isn't more to it than what is on the face of it. Yes, the American system has some issues that lead to some unnecessary overhead, but those are all due to government intervention. For example, my insurance plan through work has to be bought by Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield out of New Jersey, because that is where the main corporate office is located. By law they cannot buy insurance out of state. But if I get treated in Kentucky it goes through Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. So, I get treated and Anthem has to file paperwork from the doctor, then pass it on to Horizon. If there are any questions on Horizon's end then it goes back through that process again. Even if I bought my insurance locally this same process would occur if I made the mistake of driving north into Indiana or Ohio to get sick.

Now, keep in mind, this overly convoluted process was put in place by the government. This is not some failure of private health care. Yet, this alone could count for a huge chunk of administrative costs. What would the effect be if government had not intervened to only allow insurance to be bought within your own state? Would your studies show the same discrepancies? I don't know because those studies are being overly simplistic. Nor do I know if Canada has price controls, although I have heard they do. If so, it means these studies aren't an equal comparison of the systems.

And that is just one issue with the current government contrived system we are working with in the US today. I could really get into the aspects of the costs and how government interference has created a lot of them, but I have already done that numerous times in this thread alone.

Maybe instead of "free" he should said "pre-paid by every tax-payer", so you don't have to pay when you are at the hospital. Let me put another example:

Let's say there's a "Repair disc" tax. It's a small one. You pay it and one day, suddenly, your copy of *insert game/DVD/music disc here* stops working. A cat has scratched it, pissed on it, and other things that end in -ed. You go to the public video game store, and say "I need my disc repaired!". The store clerk takes the disc, and 5 minutes later, you got your disc good as new, for "free".

Understand?

So, I have effectively been paying for disc repairs with every pay check and I only got one? I've been ripped off. I would like out of this system. Why don't I have that choice?

Understand?

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Peter shouldn't have to pay for Paul. But what if Peter is a rich banker who has amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars, and Paul is a guy who used to work for GM but got laid off through no fault of his own. Paul suddenly gets swine flu. The treatment costs thousands of dollars. Paul's treatment is paid for with Peter's taxpayer dollars.

You have explained a moral reason why Peter should want to help Paul, but not given justification for forcing him to. I know, maybe if we had just forced Peter to buy Paul good shelter and healthy food Paul could have maintained a strong immune system and never gotten sick to begin with.

If you are concerned with basic life needs health care is not where you start.

ericdemoryGT, keef and all those other users who opposed this bill, let's say one of you got swine flu. The treatment would be covered by the Government. The very system you have condemned would've saved you from being condemned to the grave and becoming another swine flu statistic.

I have had a few co-workers get swine flu. They all got treated without the system I am condemning. I even got a vaccination. What is your point again?

Why have all other developed countries adopted a single-payer, universal health care system? There are certainly some disagreements about the details, but the professional consensus is that the US system delivers worse overall health care outcomes, in spite of investing considerably more money per capita than any other developed country.

As I pointed out in this post already, so much detail is ignored by those studies that it isn't even funny.

For example, do Americans often get stereotyped as overweight and unhealthy? According to a University of Michigan study our lifestyles are killing us more than anything. Before ABC News was a mouthpiece for Obama, and thus touting health care reform, they did a story on a study that said our lifestyles are driving up health care costs.

According to the study, Americans were more than 50 percent more likely to have high blood pressure or diabetes, almost twice as likely to have heart disease, and 2½ times more likely to have arthritis.

This added burden of disease has led to higher health costs overall. If the United States could improve its population's health to have the same levels of chronic illness as Europeans do, Americans would save between $1,200 and $1,750 per year each on medical bills, the researchers found.

All told, the higher rates of disease are costing Americans between $100 billion and $150 billion per year, or 13 percent to 19 percent of total health care spending for those age 50 and over.

None of that has to do with what kind of health care system we have in place. Maybe instead of running to the government asking then to force us to do something different we should explain to people that reducing cheeseburgers and jogging 10 minutes a day can reduce their costs by more than $1,000.

And comparing your studies to the ones I am linking, it appears that there is the primary factor in the cost discrepancy.

Ehem...as far as I know, here in my country, there's the public health care (explained with the "repairing CDs" exemple) AND there's private health care, too. Doesn't this bill let you choose if you want to "stay in private or go into public"?

Not exactly. Nothing in the proposals will provide the system like you have. At most it provides a system like we have now, but with a government run company as well. But see, some people in the US chose to not have any coverage. The bills force you to take coverage, no matter what.



------------------------------------------

Again, I can not stress two things to people in this thread enough.


1) Those opposed to these bills are just that, opposed to these bills. We are not saying that our system has no faults (very few would). It does, but no one in government wants to hear the other solutions to those faults because they remove government even more from the equation.

2) Read the actual proposed bills. The Kaiser Family Foundation has some simplified PDFs comparing the two without the legal jargon. These are not emulating a system remotely close to what Canada or anyone in Europe has. These are forcing people to buy into our current system, with a few additional reforms, and in one scenario having what is basically an expansion of Medicare as an extra option. If you think the current US system has problems then there is zero reason to support the current proposals, because it does not remove any of the systemic issues.

 

[DK]

Let's say I'm Peter, and you're Paul. I'm a nice guy. If I heard about your problem I might volunteer to help you out--it happens all the time. But I'll be damned if somebody is going to force me to pay for your broke ass. At that point I'll do what I can to avoid paying the tax simply out of spite. But if it was up to me, then yeah buddy, I'll help you out a little bit. You're the guy who built my Cadillac, after all.

Ah, but what if Paul is the Mr. Burns type of rich guy?

 

[Danoff]

Just a thought: Isn't much of this innovation that we have a direct response to how (generally) unhealthy we all are here in the US? Somehow, that doesn't sit right with me.

I don't know how much of it is in response to individual lifestyle choices. For example, I'm not sure how much healthcare innovation is driven by health problems caused by smoking or obesity. But I'm not sure why you care. If individuals are choosing to engage in those activities and others are willing to help them stay healthy while doing it - where do you get slighted? The only way I see you getting slighted is if your tax dollars are being used to fund some sort of public healthcare plan - which is part of the reason I am against a public plan.

Ehem...as far as I know, here in my country, there's the public health care (explained with the "repairing CDs" exemple) AND there's private health care, too. Doesn't this bill let you choose if you want to "stay in private or go into public"?

Cool, so you don't have to pay taxes to the public plan if you choose the private one right? Right? Because otherwise you don't have a point.

 

[YSSMAN]

But I'm not sure why you care.

I don't know if "care" is the right word. I'm just thinking in terms of how it could be in Europe based on them being (typically) more healthy than we are, and how that effects their cycles of innovation. I'm not even sure if it is something that could be easily measured. Just thinking out loud...

 

[Danoff]

I don't know if "care" is the right word. I'm just thinking in terms of how it could be in Europe based on them being (typically) more healthy than we are, and how that effects their cycles of innovation. I'm not even sure if it is something that could be easily measured. Just thinking out loud...

What many Americans are telling the healthcare industry is that living longer is not as important as living freer. They'd rather be able to have that cheeseburger, that soda, or relax on the couch instead of exercising and that they want the healthcare industry to provide them with a way to do that without compromising their health (as much). Now, granted, this is not the only signal that is being sent. Another signal that is being sent is that we need a cure for cancer, better artificial limbs/joints, a cure for Alzheimer's, and a ton of other things.

But I think it's a perfectly fine place for parts of the industry to focus. I like to eat fatty unhealthy foods just as much as the next person. If they could help me be able to do that with reduced consequences it would be very valuable to me. Likewise, if i could keep my shape and muscle tone without having to work out - that would be great too.

 

[Danoff]

For those of you under the mistaken impression that the US does not already have a socialist healthcare system.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703575004575043490639289022.html

 

[Keef]

People flock to the government programs in times of need because it's the easy, "cheap" way out. It's cheap for now at least. The taxes and inflation will eat at your pocketbook for the rest of your life though.

It's almost like the government planned this out.

 

[FoolKiller]

And here we go. The House Democrats are trying to find away to pass the healthcare bill without risking political exposure, aka their jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html

House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 16, 2010; A01

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Republicans quickly condemned the strategy, framing it as an effort to avoid responsibility for passing the legislation, and some suggested that Pelosi's plan would be unconstitutional.

There is more after this, but this explains the process.

What the hell are they doing if they feel the only safe way they can do this is to hide behind some sort of process? If you think you will lose your job, as a representative of voters in your district, by supporting this then maybe you aren't doing your job. Just a thought.

Cato had an interesting look at it:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010...senate-health-care-bill-without-voting-on-it/

If the House Enacts the Senate Health Care Bill without Voting on It…

Posted by Michael F. Cannon

…are we under any obligation to obey it? The answer may be no.

Democrats are considering a scheme that would “deem” the Senate health care bill to have passed the House if a separate event occurs (specifically: House passage of a budget reconciliation bill). That strategy has been named after its contriver, House Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says of this scheme: “I like it because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill” (emphasis added).

Not so fast, says former federal circuit court judge Michael McConnell in The Wall Street Journal:

Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

Democrats have already hidden 60 percent of the cost of the Senate bill, effected an obscenely partisan change in Massachusetts law to keep the bill moving, pledged more than a billion taxpayer dollars to buy votes for the bill, and packed the bill with an unconstitutional individual mandate and provisions that violate the First Amendment. It’s almost as if, to paraphrase comedian Lewis Black, Democrats spent a whole year, umm, desecrating the Constitution and at the last minute went, “Oh! Missed a spot!”

And these people want us to put our trust in government.

The primary issue in the case of challenging a law based on Constitutional grounds is that, as I understand it, you have to be charged in violation of the law first. So, no one can outright file a suit if this passes, but instead has to violate the mandate or a company has to not offer their employees required insurance. The issue there is that few individuals with the principled nature to take a stand have the personal financial means to both go without health insurance and afford a Constitutional attorney. And any company that can afford it and does try it is immediately that company that doesn't want to give their employees health benefits.

Hopefully Democrats won't be stupid enough to believe it when Pelosi tells them that they won't see a political backlash from this in November if they go this route. She has openly admitted in public what she is doing. I wouldn't be surprised if every town hall debate for Congressional seats has this issue brought up as one of the first questions, asking the incumbent if they voted for this deem and pass amendment, knowing it would pass the bill. If Republicans and opposed Democrats are smart they will all publicly announce how they weren't fooled by such tactics and did not vote for, so that every incumbent who tries to lie will be caught.

Basically, anyone that votes for this, knowing full well it is also a vote for the healthcare bill, will be caught in a, "I voted against the war before I voted for it" moment. And then every Democrat will see the old John Kerry flip flops coming out again.


But anyway, I would like to remind all Democrats, and anyone that actually considers this a legitimate tactic on how a bill becomes a law with a lesson that many Americans were taught as children.

 

[Northstar]

If you have to resort to trickery to get something passed it's normally a sign that people don't want it. Someone should tell Pelosi that.


Edit: for the record, I was for the bill until they added tons of crap into it like the "no tax for certain states" thing.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I think the fundamental problem with this reform - and I'm operating on the assumption of universal coverage in an ideal situation where millions aren't demanding private service - is that one would be hypothetically "legally required to purchase insurance", followed by penalization if you don't. I'm not sure where the exemption distinctions would be drawn for the various income brackets, unemployed, those below 18, etc - but the generally accepted format in other countries is that you're not being told you have to buy health insurance.

The government provides it more passively elsewhere, and I think this is a big psychological obstacle that many Americans are displeased with. In Canada one is not 'forced to pay for' health insurance, it's 'provided'.*

*It's provided because a percentage of every dollar we spend on tax is allocated to funding healthcare. We aren't sent a monthly bill - we aren't mailed our dues and told to pay up or else. The federal sales tax on our goods forms the bulk of fudning, and then a portion of yearly income tax is also devoted to it, depending on income bracket.

It's effectively the same manner of collecting the cash for it, but a simpler incremental way. Since one is penalized if they don't file income tax anyway, it's moot (and excessively bureaucratized) to be threatened for 'not paying health insurance'.

And just so we're all clear - Canada's Healthcare isn't entirely subsidized.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think the fundamental problem with this reform - and I'm operating on the assumption of universal coverage in an ideal situation where millions aren't demanding private service - is that one would be hypothetically "legally required to purchase insurance", followed by penalization if you don't. I'm not sure where the exemption distinctions would be drawn for the various income brackets, unemployed, those below 18, etc

The exemption is if you make under a certain amount every year in income. So, it is plausible to work a high paying job for six months, bring in above the cut off line, and then be unemployed for six months and still have to buy it. That is how I read it at least, based on similar language used for other benefits programs and tax laws.

If you are under 18 then you are considered a minor and your parent or guardian is required to purchase health care for you. And there is a switch over time frame from 18-26 (I think that is the new age in this proposal) where you can still be covered by your parents. Of course, a teenager that declares independence does not receive an age exemption, because they told the government that they can care for themselves better than their parents could. At that point they are expected to behave as an adult and pay the same consequences, while still facing the same age restrictions as a teen living with their parents (such as drinking and smoking age restrictions).

- but the generally accepted format in other countries is that you're not being told you have to buy health insurance.

The government provides it more passively elsewhere, and I think this is a big psychological obstacle that many Americans are displeased with. In Canada one is not 'forced to pay for' health insurance, it's 'provided'.*

*It's provided because a percentage of every dollar we spend on tax is allocated to funding healthcare. We aren't sent a monthly bill - we aren't mailed our dues and told to pay up or else. The federal sales tax on our goods forms the bulk of fudning, and then a portion of yearly income tax is also devoted to it, depending on income bracket.

It's effectively the same manner of collecting the cash for it, but a simpler incremental way. Since one is penalized if they don't file income tax anyway, it's moot (and excessively bureaucratized) to be threatened for 'not paying health insurance'.

And just so we're all clear - Canada's Healthcare isn't entirely subsidized.

I know you are trying to establish a difference between being forced to buy a private good and receiving it as a benefit of paying taxes, but the simple fact is that this proposal is done this way because they knew if they attempted government provided, or socialized, health care that it wouldn't even get this far. The idea here is to make people who have coverage feel like they are doing the same thing, when the truth is the only difference between this and socialized health care is if the money coming out of my paycheck is labeled Federal Income Tax or Pre-tax Medical.

At the end of the day, whether this proposal or a system like Canada's were implemented I have still lost my right to decide that I want to spend that money somewhere else.

There is one primary difference between this proposal and a true socialized system though. In this proposal I will be forced to give my money to those very same insurance companies that President Obama keeps telling me are the bad guys in this situation. The sad thing is that the people that fall for his rhetoric fail to recognize that he is basically saying we should support his plan in order to give our money to the greedy companies that are the cause of the problem.

 

[zepheadGT3]

As of now, i am against the healthcare bill... not because obama is a democrat or any of that BS, but because the nature and goal of the bill has been altered... what obama has done is sacrificed key parts of the bill in an attempt to be bipartisan, but in turn, has "watered down" the effectiveness of the bill... If obama really wanted this bill passed, he stop trying to cater to the republicans and just pass it... however there is too much turmoil taking place in the democrat party right now for the bill to pass even on democrats alone... which is a crying shame...

i wish there was an emoticon for disappointment...

 

[FoolKiller]

As of now, i am against the healthcare bill... not because obama is a democrat or any of that BS, but because the nature and goal of the bill has been altered... what obama has done is sacrificed key parts of the bill in an attempt to be bipartisan, but in turn, has "watered down" the effectiveness of the bill... If obama really wanted this bill passed, he stop trying to cater to the republicans and just pass it... however there is too much turmoil taking place in the democrat party right now for the bill to pass even on democrats alone... which is a crying shame...

i wish there was an emoticon for disappointment...

What has he watered down? It is the exact same Senate bill that passed earlier that is up for discussion, with some amendments on top of it that would make a few changes on minor points (although some feel the abortion issue isn't minor), but doesn't remove any of the main aspects like mandatory to buy (why?), minimum policy plan reforms, the co-op option, penalties for "Cadillac Plans" (you know, because you shouldn't have great health care, just good), and pre-existing coverage reform.

There isn't a major point missing, and for some reason those who support the plan don't actually want to debate those points. They let opponents to the plan say their piece and then have discussions and debates with each other over things like if and how much abortion funding this should cover, as if that is the main issue upsetting voters.

 

[Joel]

It's an absurd bill. Forcing someone to buy health care against their will is NOT going to help.

 

[Sam48]

Obama wants healthcare to pass not because it will benefit the American people, but because he has put so much time, effort, and hype into getting healthcare passed that if he doesn't get it passed it will completely ruin his credibility. It's about passing the bill in order to save his presidency, not help the American people. (Not that the bill would anyway)

 

[Nicksfix]

Ray Stevens sums it up best.

 

[Sam48]

Does anybody think the senate bill will pass today?

 

[Eric Demory]

Holy 🤬 in all name democratic 🤬 at all thing congress! The 🤬 bill passed in the 🤬 senate. 🤬🤬🤬🤬

 

[Lancia stratos]

Bush was the best, and will always be the best!

WHAT!!!!!?????

Because of him my mom lost her job. She worked in Liz claiborne for 8 years. Now because bush didn't seem too concerned, the factory closed down.

But THANKS TO OBAMA!, her unemployment benefits kept me from living in a gutter. She found a new job and now I can worry less.

I would like to see how you can say he is bad when your future president Sarah Palin reach out for the people when she had to write her tea party speech bits in her hand.

 

[hambone8611]

Sarah palin will never be president.

 

[Lancia stratos]

Sarah palin will never be president.

Praise the lord for that!

 

[Omnis]

WHAT!!!!!?????

Because of him my mom lost her job. She worked in Liz claiborne for 8 years. Now because bush didn't seem too concerned, the factory closed down.

But THANKS TO OBAMA!, her unemployment benefits kept me from living in a gutter. She found a new job and now I can worry less.

I would like to see how you can say he is bad when your future president Sarah Palin reach out for the people when she had to write her tea party speech bits in her hand.

Comrade Bush didn't save yo momma. Sob.

 

[Joey D]

So it passed huh? Isn't this just some big pay off to the insurance companies?

I really wish they would have done something good with this bill.

 

[McLaren]

So it passed huh? Isn't this just some big pay off to the insurance companies?

I really wish they would have done something good with this bill.

Except it's not, really. The bill doesn't go into effect until 2014, but your taxes & everything else are now effective, as of this moment.

So, we're basically being taxed & what not for something we won't have access to until 4 years from now.

 

[Famine]

See now, this is something I've never understood about politics. A 5% variance is not statistically significant in pretty much every field on Earth - but a 50.8% to 49.2% vote is enough to charge 30m people a thousand dollars a year for insurance?

 

[Touring Mars]

And 47.9% of the popular vote is better than 48.4%!

 

[Famine]

Indeed.