Universal Health Care...

[grimtaash 0]

So, I've now been drinking for the better part of 20 hours, and I came up with a question. Can someone sue the government over the constitutionality of them forcing us to buy health insurance? Hope they don't decide I can't drink anymore cuz it's too costly for them

[hblask 1]

So, I've now been drinking for the better part of 20 hours, and I came up with a question. Can someone sue the government over the constitutionality of them forcing us to buy health insurance? Hope they don't decide I can't drink anymore cuz it's too costly for them

I think this bill will definitely be challenged in court if it passes, but based on the precedent of the last 80 years there seems little chance it would get struck down. The SC rarely interferes with Congress' takeover of the economy.

[grimtaash 0]

I think this bill will definitely be challenged in court if it passes, but based on the precedent of the last 80 years there seems little chance it would get struck down. The SC rarely interferes with Congress' takeover of the economy.

Well, that's too bad.

[Dagata 0]

and cheers grim, time to down another one.

[nutzbuster 7]

Bi Partisan. uh huh....Pelosi..."Democrats voted for it and ONE republican....that makes it bi partisan, This is a great V I C T O R Y "The brain dead botoxed paralyzed zombette continues to breath her laughable flawed logic. Sooooooo beyond embarrassing. I also like the way she looks at this as a "victory". Nice choice of words there.I also enjoy how she expounds that now, all the pot smoking life losers still living in their parents basements would have access to their parents health care until age TWENTY SEVEN.blah blah blah.... and on we go into the toitlet

[85suited 0]

Elections have consequencesFor those that thought it would never matter who you voted for... Well know you know it does....Yes the 8 Bush years were not perfect, far from it... But this is headed in the wrong direction and fast

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

a lot of reps made a resounding decision this weekend to not have a job in the near future.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

a lot of reps made a resounding decision this weekend to not have a job in the near future.

Sure. Because voters will do the "right" thing when the time comes.Dream on.What is the over/under on the number of these pigs that actually get voted out?

[85suited 0]

Sure. Because voters will do the "right" thing when the time comes.Dream on.What is the over/under on the number of these pigs that actually get voted out?

15 of 31 Blue Dogs - how is that? BTW - what ever happened to Copernicus?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

15 of 31 Blue Dogs - how is that?

I'll bet the under. No faith in Voters.

BTW - what ever happened to Copernicus?

Good question:

Last Seen: May 26th, 2009 - 2:20 PM

[Jeepster80125 0]

I think someone said he lost a bet. If obama won he would stop posting or something.I can't explain why I think canebrain might know more.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I think someone said he lost a bet. If obama won he would stop posting or something.I can't explain why I think canebrain might know more.

He had a money bet with vb, but last I heard he never paid.

[Jeepster80125 0]

7 Potential Problems with a senate healthcare bill:Health Care: Not Close to OverPosted by Michael D. TannerThe fat lady hasn’t even started to warm up yet.The narrow 220-215 victory in the House on Saturday night was a step forward on the road to a government takeover of the health care system. But as close and dramatic as that vote was, that was the easy part. The Senate must still pass its version of reform—which will not be the bill that just passed the House. Nancy Pelosi was, after all, able to lose the votes of 39 moderate Democrats. Harry Reid cannot afford to lose even one. A conference committee must reconcile the two vastly different versions. And then, Pelosi must hold together her 3 vote margin of victory (if it gets that far). Yet several House Democrats who voted for the bill on Saturday said they did so only to “advance the process.” Their vote is far from guaranteed on final passage. And, House liberals are almost certain to be disappointed by the more moderate bill that may emerge from the conference.Among the more contentious issues:Individual Mandate: This should’ve been low-hanging fruit. Democrats agreed on a mandate early in the process. But it became increasingly plain that a mandate would hit those with insurance as well as the uninsured — forcing people who are happy with their plan to switch to a different, possibly more expensive plan. With this mandate now being seen as a middle-class tax hike, qualms have developed. The House bill contains a strict mandate, with penalties of 2.5 percent of income backed up by up to five years in jail. The Senate Finance Committee, on the other hand, watered down the mandate’s penalties and delayed the mandates implementation.Employer Mandate: The House bill also contains an employer mandate, a requirement that all but the smallest employers provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty tax of up to 8 percent of payroll. The Senate, looking at unemployment rates over 10 percent, seems unlikely to include an employer mandate.The Public Option: The House included, if not a “robust” public option, at least a semi-robust one. But moderate Democrats in the Senate are clearly not on board. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) says that he will join a Republican filibuster if the public option is included. Harry Reid is trying various permutations: a trigger, an opt-in, an opt-out. But as of now there is not 60 votes for any variation.The Sheer Cost: Fiscal hawks like Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) say they will not support a bill that adds to the deficit or spends too much. But the house bill cost a minimum of $1.2 trillion.Taxes: The House plan to add a surtax on incomes of $500,000 or more a year has no support in the Senate. At the same time, the Senate plan to slap a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans is unacceptable to key Democratic constituencies like labor unions.Abortion: Conservative Democrats insisted on a strict prohibition on the use of government funds for abortion. The bill could not have passed without the inclusion of that provision. House liberal swallowed hard and voted for the bill, despite what they called “a poison pill” anyway with the expectation that it will be removed later. If the final bill includes the prohibition at least a couple liberals could defect. If it doesn’t, conservative Democrats won’t be on board.Immigration: The Senate Finance Committee included a provision barring illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance through the government-run Exchange. The House Hispanic Caucus says that if that provision is in the final bill, they will vote against it.As if these disagreements among Democrats wasn’t bad enough, public opinion is now turning against the bill.President Obama has called for a bill to be on his desk before Christmas—the latest in a series of deadline that are so far unmet. It is hard to see how Congress can meet this one either. The Senate has not yet received CBO scoring of its bill and is not prepared to even begin debate until next week at the earliest. That debate will last 3-4 weeks minimum, assuming there are 60 votes for cloture. That means, the bill cant’ go to conference committee until mid-December, even if everything breaks the way Harry Reid wants. Privately, Democrats are now suggesting late January, before the State of the Union address, is the best they can do.The fat lady can go back to sleep—this isn’t over yet.

[vbnautilus 48]

15 of 31 Blue Dogs - how is that? BTW - what ever happened to Copernicus?

He had a money bet with vb, but last I heard he never paid.

He eventually paid. Explained also that he had been having some bad health problems. He reappeared for a while to post in the hockey forum but still hasn't been seen around here since the election.

[85suited 0]

A top House Democrat said Monday she's "confident" that a conference committee will strip language in the House health bill on taxpayer funding for abortion. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats' chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-choice lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from going to subsidize abortions."I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there," Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. "And I think we're all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case."

[Jeepster80125 0]

Since it appears that forum liberals like mk and other obamacare backers aren't willing to tell anyone or state why it's such a great program.Here's a story from someone who supports obamacare. Confessions of an ObamaCare BackerA liberal explains the political calculus.The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

[CaneBrain 95]

The biggest problem with health care reform is that the "plan" of both parties sucks. A lot. But there is no third party to make that case loudly. We are experiencing the worst case scenario of the two party system......a country evenly divided and two parties run by the extreme elements of the party.And this is what we get.I also agree with Mr. Cassidy that some subterfuge is always an element of reform......but the proponents of the status quo are not above it either.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

I'd love to hear what you consider to be the plan of the republicans and why you think it's terrible. I mean that very honestly. I am still not sure what their actual plan is since they can't really get one introduced, but the main concepts talked about by most conservatives (tort reform, allowing increased interstate competition, equalizing the tax treatment of insurance, etc.) aimed at actually lowering healthcare costs were things I thought even you were on board with.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'd love to hear what you consider to be the plan of the republicans and why you think it's terrible. I mean that very honestly. I am still not sure what their actual plan is since they can't really get one introduced, but the main concepts talked about by most conservatives (tort reform, allowing increased interstate competition, equalizing the tax treatment of insurance, etc.) aimed at actually lowering healthcare costs were things I thought even you were on board with.

I think the Republican plan is basically to do nothing. Tort reform is a misnomer. The majority of medical malpractice suits are against the same 10-15% of doctors. The AMA should try to police its own a little more and worry about plaintiffs lawyers a little less.I think the other two things are cosmetic. They dont address the main problem: Health insurance companies are involved in every single health care transaction....and all they really are is a middle man who takes a cut. There is nothing evil or inherently wrong about running a health insurance company of course....it's a business that needs to take care of its employees and stockholders. I just dont see why we need them.I like the Libertarian approach discussed in another thread. Catastrophic gov't provided health care for all (which is great because then we could standardize/computerize ICUs which would lead to less mishaps and because then no American would ever go broke due to illness nor would any American be denied potential life saving treatment.....all things I believe should be goals). Every thing else you are on your own. No more huge deductions out of your paycheck. No forced comprehensive coverage. For routine things, it would just be you and your doctor. No more padded bills and unnecessary tests....patients would have a financial interest in finding a doctor who charges in a fair, rational manner.

[Sal Paradise 57]

I think the other two things are cosmetic. They dont address the main problem: Health insurance companies are involved in every single health care transaction....and all they really are is a middle man who takes a cut. There is nothing evil or inherently wrong about running a health insurance company of course....it's a business that needs to take care of its employees and stockholders. I just dont see why we need them.

this problem is addressed by the other component of the republican plan: creating more incentives for health savings accounts. it makes the consumer responsible for all purchases of smaller medical services (regular doctor visits, medication, lancing genital warts, the usual stuff), while providing the catastrophic insurance for cancer and stuff that cause bankruptcies. when people have to use their own money to buy medical services instead of just paying the 30 dollar deductible and being on their way, they'll be forced to shop around, find better deals, and this obviously leads to competition and lower prices.keeping it as an insurance while allowing for the savings accounts to be tax free encourages people to actually have them (meaning they'll have the catastrophic insurance part) instead of just paying out of pocket.

[CaneBrain 95]

this problem is addressed by the other component of the republican plan: creating more incentives for health savings accounts. it makes the consumer responsible for all purchases of smaller medical services (regular doctor visits, medication, lancing genital warts, the usual stuff), while providing the catastrophic insurance for cancer and stuff that cause bankruptcies.

I have never heard a GOPer say catastrophic care for all. If you direct me to who said that when, I would love to see it. Because that has always been my main problem with the GOP on healthcare....they dont seem remotely interested in covering everyone.lancing genital warts. priceless.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Since it appears that forum liberals like mk and other obamacare backers aren't willing to tell anyone or state why it's such a great program.

to be fair, MK hated talking politics in here, especially once this last election heated up and rarely did, and now, we rarely see him even in the sick thread, so he's not dodging anyone, he just has bigger fish to fry then to beat his head against a concrete wall.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

the tort reform is absolutely necessary. uncapped or ridiculously high caps on damages are something doctors have to insure against. it's those premiums that drive up what they then have to charge for services. you can't just say "get rid of the bad doctors" because good and bad doctors get sued constantly for no reason in this country, and civil court judges are all over the sane-insane spectrum when it comes to awarding damanges / assigning fault.The second two things aren't cosmetic at all, they're just a different way of addressing the cost of insurance that doesn't involve the government getting involved in insuring people. I suspect we could even find middle ground there because if we went to a HCS account / catastrophic plan (something i'm super on board with), i'd be ok with some limited subsidies to help people afford the catastropic coverage.

[hblask 1]

This is an article about the Republican's latest proposals:http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wa...0,2750338.story

[hblask 1]

I have never heard a GOPer say catastrophic care for all. If you direct me to who said that when, I would love to see it. Because that has always been my main problem with the GOP on healthcare....they dont seem remotely interested in covering everyone.

The reason they don't say to cover everyone is because the federal government sucks at helping people. Creating a federal bureaucracy to help people is like slashing your tires to increase gas mileage -- it'll probably have the opposite effect.I could see them creating some kind of regional health care information bank that states and communities can use to implement localized low-income support programs, but anything beyond that will just harm the people it was supposed to help.Remember housing projects? Yeah, keep the feds out of "caring" for us.