Landmark Health Insurance Bill Passes House 1698
theodp writes "A hastily-crafted amendment imposing tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies helped pave the way for the House to approve the Democrats' bill to overhaul the nation's health insurance system. 'It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans,' said Rep. John Dingell. Rep. Candice Miller disagreed, calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding' bill. The 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation passed by a vote of 220-215 and moves on for Senate debate, which is expected to begin in several days."
Update — 11/08 at 13:45 GMT by SS: Changed vote totals above to reflect the actual bill vote. The 240-194 number was for the abortion restrictions amendment.
What's in it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not from the US, but isn't that the main bit of you guys' healthcare system that's most in need of fixing?
In my country, pre-existing conditions just mean that you can't claim anything for 12 months after joining. It doesn't affect premiums or anything, and no health insurance provider can reject your application.
So, I guess, welcome to the 20th century!
I think I can I think I can (Score:5, Insightful)
On behalf of rest of the civilized world (Score:2, Insightful)
I would like to offer our congratulations to US of A.
That said, I don't know why this is on /.. This has nothing to do with technology, geeks, etc... And everyone interested in this can read about this from every other news source in the world. I live in Finland and our massmedia caught this before Slashdot. In addition to that, this isn't even final yet (still needs to be signed by a lot of folks, if I understood correctly, so this still might not pass) so we will certainly be able to read about this numerous times more, even in /..
Every single argument that will appear in this comment section will be repeated in almost identical manner when the senate signs (or doesn't sign) the bill, etc...
Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail. It sounds like Massachusetts.
How would this get paid for, I wonder? It's written by the same people that brought you "Cash for Clunkers" and the "Stimulus Package", and we know what came of THEM.
The Senate isn't expecting to make a vote on their version until next year. Hopefully it will die a horrible death. This bill has no business at ALL being the Law of the Land.
Overheads (Score:1, Insightful)
1990 pages? Maybe this is a clue as to why health care is so expensive?
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:5, Insightful)
And why should your ability to produce enough for society be measured by how much money you have?
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the reasoning is that it benefits society as a whole.
Oh sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, countdown until this article gets over a 1,000 comments and only the top few become the ones actually read...
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:3, Insightful)
The final vote was a lot closer: 220 to 215. Which seems like a mid-20th century vote total. It really is quite remarkable that, in 2009, in the United States, there's still widespread debate and disagreement over the proposition that health care should not be rationed on the basis of ability to pay.
The reason that deciding who gets healthcare on the basis of ability to pay is that what when demand for medical services goes up, the best way to get more providers of medical services is to increase what they get paid. Under this law, how will they increase the number of medical providers?
Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:1, Insightful)
Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:4, Insightful)
What does Paris Hilton produce? I'm no communist, but the mere fact that she exists makes me think again.
Those aren't the same (Score:1, Insightful)
I am a webdeveloper. I know waitresses, construction workers, etc. who are getting paid a lot less than I am despite working longer days.
But if our society lost every webdeveloper, it would be no worse off than it would be if it lost every construction worker.
Your wage does not correlate with how necessary you are to our society. Nor does it correlate with how hard you work.
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's how society works.
Are you one of the investment bankers who caused stockmarkets to crash, housing costs to soar and then crash and burn leaving people homeless and cause huge ripple effects in the world wide economic markets leading to millions and millions of people losing their jobs, money and homes?
Congratulations, you have had such an impact on society, that you will be rewarded with insane bonuses. You are worth saving.
This is how freedom dies (Score:1, Insightful)
To thunderous applause.
I guess we're all in the crab bucket now.
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:1, Insightful)
That was the intent of money. The implicit assumption here is that money is gained where it isn't really 'earned.' Maybe this is actually the root cause of problems?
Re:On behalf of rest of the civilized world (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is not just a news site. That's its primary motivation. Its secondary existence is the discussion, and for some that's their primary reason for returning to
A Step Into the Dark Ages (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should someone who is sick, and hence can't produce anything for society not be allowed to get good quality health care that will lead to them being a productive member of society?
Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:5, Insightful)
How would this get paid for, I wonder? It's written by the same people that brought you "Cash for Clunkers" and the "Stimulus Package", and we know what came of THEM.
When it comes to this recession, the first stimulus package happened on George W. Bush's watch.
Also, Ronald Reagan passed a massive stimulus package as well. When inflation is factored in, it was larger than Obama's stimulus.
Even factoring in the Obama stimulus package, the vast majority of U.S. debt was accrued under the watch of Republican presidents.
Let's try to stay grounded in reality and realize that both dominant political parties in the U.S. spend too much. There is plenty of blame to go around. Partisan bickering is blinding Americans to the fact that the real problem is that the government is even allowed to spend money it doesn't have.
Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Calling something fascism doesn't make it so.
2. Social welfare is used basically to make nobody go dead broke and end up in so much debt they're better off killing themselves. The idea is that if you have somebody who is close to flat broke to pay him enough so he/she can find a new job, and no more than that. No guarantee if the thing you label as "social welfare" actually resembles this or if it's just a "everyone who earns less than 100k gets teh rest for free!!!" law.
Re:Those aren't the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Spot on! Consider garbage collectors; no other profession has had a larger impact on the health of society as a whole. Without them rampant cholera would actually be the least of our troubles.
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the markets work wonders for the medical practice.
Absolutely. After all, the poorest will all be dead. How's that for perfect information?
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, who is more likely to afford a heart transplant?
Without question, its the factory worker who puts cars together. Have you seen the UAW health care plans?
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:4, Insightful)
Not bloody likely. At least, not with this bill.
But thank you for the kind thoughts. Check in again a a decade or so, maybe we will have managed to drop to third world status by then and even Congress will realize that something drastic needs to be done.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is why Ayn Rand was a useless bitch. Take your broken pop philosophy somewhere else, please; the adults are trying to make things better.
If you're going to toss around words like "useless bitch" you really need something more to back it up than "the adults are trying to make things better." You can start by explaining how a multi-trillion dollar government program is going to make things better. Perhaps, you can cite the dozens or perhaps hundreds of other programs the government has run that efficiently made things better? You can also elaborate on exactly how trying to make health care/insurance a government mandated "right" doesn't effectively enslave those who provide such services?
In short, if all you've got are insults, you need to take your socialist government loving self somewhere else. Real adults take care of themselves and don't look to the government for handouts. Understood?
It's Not About Health, It's About Control (Score:1, Insightful)
Once the government is paying for your health care, they can pretty much mandate what you eat, what you smoke, what you drink, how long you live, etc. Hey, the repercussions of "bad" behavior are on their nickel, right? Government-sponsored health care pretty much covers control of the individual. The next step -- control of the corporation -- is accomplished through cap-and-trade and other such "green" and "environmental protection" legislation.
The problem is, it was supposed to be different in America. The government here was never supposed to be an entity apart from "We the People." We are, BY DESIGN, "not like the rest of the world." That is changing now, in leaps and bounds.
Threat level increase to orange (Score:1, Insightful)
For my wallet ...
Re:What's in it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it's group coverage for the whole country. Spreading the risk. You know, what insurance is supposed to do.
Most Americans who do have health insurance are ALSO part of a group plan, so they're in the same situation. The only difference is that your system excludes people who don't work for big companies from getting those group benefits. Oh, and yours most likely costs more anyway.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems the adults also know that you cannot rely on the private sector to provide for people. Capitalism isn't about compassion.
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:5, Insightful)
The logic here in the UK is that
a) You might be able to pay for it, but not when you are sick
b) People contribute to society in other ways than materially
c) Desperate people may be driven to commit crimes "I stole it to pay for my sick other/child's operation"
d) The disease might spread to _ME_
Re:Let's see.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Banning illegal aliens is shortsighted (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me repeat that. Whether they come to the ER without coverage or are enrolled in a government subsidized insurance program, you will pay. At least, in the latter case, they will contribute something and, perhaps, get some earlier care that will avoid expensive hospitalizations.
The bone-headed reflexive anti-immigrant nonsense that passes for debate in the US just saddens me. We really need to upgrade our educational system.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
My Issue Is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't sound like they will.
So this new bill leaves 4% uncovered - that's 4% of nearly 300 million people!
Whereas the healthcare systems of all other civilised nations leave no-one uncovered. Not even the tramps in the street.
NB UK NHS user here - Our system has its faults, but at least one of those isn't "Sorry, we can't give you that treatment because you can't afford it...so just hurry up and die."
-Nano.
Pushed just far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
The close vote is intentional. The leaders realize that this is a once in a generation opportunity to reform healthcare, so they're going to push that reform as far as they can. They could propose some really minor changes that everybody agrees with. They could propose some really radical changes that almost nobody agrees with. Or they could push the biggest change they could get without failing.
As for the party split, the Constitution does not entitle all political parties to equal happiness. In a time when reality has a liberal bias, the wishes of the electorate are reflected in the composition of the legislative bodies. Aside from their role in achieving a majority of votes in Congress, the Republicans are no more entitled to appeasement than are the Greens, Libertarians, or Communists.
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that have to do with taking care of people who happen to not have the money to pay for it themselves? If any one group has proven to be able to take care of themselves it's investment bankers.
Re:What's in it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what U.S citizen do to Canada now? and wasn't America built on immigrant labor?
Seems to me insurance company profits would be better spent on just providing health care.
What happened to the nice America that looked after all her children?
Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Which, as you surely know, is complete fiction.
The cash for clunkers program gave certain people a discount off of a new car (most of which were made by foreign companies, as it turns out), and cost the future taxpayers (who will have to pay for it, with interest to the Chinese) roughly $20,000 per car to administer. All of that (including the junking of thousands of useful vehicles that could have gone to people who cannot afford to buy brand new car, even with a discount, and for a very spikey, extremely temporary boost in sales that was more than made up for weeks later by the complete collapse of the same. It was an expensive, wasteful, absurd stunt that achieved nothing except to force a bunch of lower-middle-class tax payers who can't afford to buy new cars hand some fresh debt to their children so that other people could get a fake discount on a nice new vehicle.
Jobs were not saved or created. Money was not saved. The environment wasn't impacted in any meaningful way. All we have is the normalization of more government involvement in dealings between people who make something, and the people who buy it. All at the expense of everyone's grandchildren. No, they can't get anything right. And you know it.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress should test this first for 3 years (Score:1, Insightful)
I want to see Pelosi wait in line at a VA hospital for Psyhc care.
Healthcare in the US is f'd up but the gov is no answer. Remember Walter Reed? Take care of our GI's first before you move to the whole country. It is sad. We will have a tier'd system.
Politicans and the Rich will fly to the islands for care while we are stuck with the left overs.
If I was a sharp heart surgeon I would say f you to gov rates and set up shop in the Caymans and cater to Americans elite while the serfs get stuck in long lines and overworked left over docs.
Government is inept at solving problems like this.
Congratulations America... (Score:2, Insightful)
You just set fire to your own Constitution.
Congress can now assign itself any rights it wishes. Get ready for anything that might affect the health of the population to be regulated.
Infantile morons... (Score:1, Insightful)
The adults know that you can't fix the problems of a mostly government-controlled mess by making it fully government-controlled. Keynesians are infantile morons.
And recent events on the world's financial markets have demonstrated that the free market evangelists are right? They deserve that even more than the Keynesians do.
What does $1.2 Trillion get us?? (Score:1, Insightful)
I do not understand what $1.2 trillion is supposedly obtaining for us.
There's no public option, it's not going to cover signinificantly more people than the system already in place (96%, leaves about 28 million people uncovered right? It doesn't assist anyone in buying insurance that already has it, it does not actually buy insurance for that that don't have already (except maybe moving people off medicare/medicaid to some other method. The "reform" portions of the bill, as they are don't look like they'll cost the Gov anything, it's a mandate.
What does the $1.2 Trillion get us that we don't already have in some form or another?!?!
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes... and then that gets back to pre-existing conditions.
You don't get in a car accident and THEN buy insurance expecting them to cover it. You're supposed to have insurance BEFORE something happens.
All this (requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions) does is encourage people to wait.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, you need to get a grip. People who are ill are by definition less able than those around them. Why should it fall to them to help themselves? Do you actually just strive for the destruction of society? If so, there's a group of people in the Middle East who'd love to hear from you.
We have national healthcare in the UK, and, having had both parents working within it for 25 years apiece, it's not slavery. Are the police slaves? The fire department? Your logic is flawed.
Laukei
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:5, Insightful)
You can start by explaining how a multi-trillion dollar government program is going to make things better. Perhaps, you can cite the dozens or perhaps hundreds of other programs the government has run that efficiently made things better?
Sigh.
Has it occcurred to you that the argument implicit in your questions, the One Argument To Rule Them All (or, to use Ronald Reagan's words, "Government is the problem"), is not an argument at all? It's an idealogy. And one that's been gradually discredited since the 1980s, and especially so of late.
That said, the following quotation should address your questions about governemnts programs that run efficiently or make things better:
Credits to the orginal poster or writer.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:4, Insightful)
The adults know that you can't fix the problems of a mostly government-controlled mess by making it fully government-controlled. Keynesians are infantile morons.
1. America has a "free" market for health insurance/care
2. America pays more than most Western countries for health insurance/care
3. America gets worse results than most Western countries
4. Most States have one insurer that has >40% of the insurance market
I'd like to hear your theory on how the current free market de facto monopolies are "a mostly government-controlled mess".
And how those facts, taken together, do not suggest a failure of the current "free" and "competitive" market.
But if you're not actually going to explain your position, don't bother responding.
What part of recent events (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:5, Insightful)
"Except for every time Keynesian remedies have been tried, you mean?"
WTF?
"The first great depression, the Japanese lost decade, the second great depression that we're heading into right now..."
WTF cubed?
These are examples where Keynsian remedies WERE NOT tried (at first). During the first great depression Keynes has not even formulated keynsianism.
During the 'lost decade' Japan tried the 'fiscal conservatism' policy, by raising the interest rates and stopping the flow of money. So economy ground to a complete halt. Only after many years of low interest rates and various stimulus packages the Japanese economy started to grow again.
You simply don't understand economics.
Wanna to take bet that there will be the second great depression? Say, if in 2 years DOW falls below 7000 for period of more than 1 month then I'll give you 10 grams of gold (or its equivalent in the currency of your choice).
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:5, Insightful)
B) You probably don't understand that a healthy person will contribute more to society than an unhealthy one. In my country, there is some abuse of the medical system, but we are ok to have it. Because we all understand, that that is what it takes to have a population that is not afraid to go to a doctor at an early stage of an illness(to have the illness shortened). Out of that, there are more healthy people that contribute more and longer in form of taxes and other common wealth.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Under the old system there were only 8 million citizens (key word) that were not already covered by existing government programs (medicare, schip) or private insurance (typically provided by the employer). The 42 million number that keeps getting cited is pure propaganda, includes ten million illegal non-citizens, was derived from a mail-in postcard, and therefore highly inaccurate. The number was derived non-scientifically, and you can not trust it.
Under the new system, families will be fined ~$2500 for not buying an insurance plan. The last thing a poor person or a laid-off person needs is another major bill. That's completely outrageous. Furthermore it takes away the freedom of choice. And what's next? Will Congress start fining people because they choose not to buy a hybrid car? Once the legal precedent is set, there's no limit to their power to control what we buy or don't buy.
I will not pay. Congress can shove that fine up its marble ass.
Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:5, Insightful)
When I hear comments about how it's not right that the government provides 'free' things I sometimes wonder what people are smoking. Look, health care is a necessity and because we have such an insanely high gini coefficient [wikipedia.org], without either employer or government help most households could simply not afford it. And yes people do DIE when they lack proper health care, its not just a matter of going to the ER. They will stabilize you but not provide long term treatment. Good luck getting chemotherapy if you don't have insurance.
It's easy to go about limited government if you are in the top 25% in terms of income in the population. But median family income is $50,000. That is not a lot. How is a household in the 35% percentile earning $33,000 supposed to fork out $13,400 a year? [nchc.org] And that figure is assuming that they get the same discount that a large business gets which for an individual is not going to happen.
Why don't the limited government crazies say the same thing about medicare? After all why should the government provide free services? The most f**ked up thing about it all is that those without insurance are expected to pay taxes (medicare tax) to provide other people with the very thing they lack.
And for those who love to go on about what the government should or should not do get this: Why do we spend over 4% of our GDP on defense and spend insane sums in Afghanistan and Iraq... ans: supposedly to protect our country. Now what does it mean to 'protect'. It means to prevent death and destruction. Well what is the point of spending $651.2 billion [wikipedia.org] to maybe prevent an attack when way more people are suffering and dieing because of lack of adequate health care?????
The whole issue is insane. The free market simply does not work in health care. And I am some one who is pro free market. But at some point you have wake up and smell the coffee.
Re:Don't forget ... privacy destroying (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck privacy between you and your health insurer. You have no expectation that your history of leaving open flames unattended be kept from your home insurer, or that your history of reckless driving be kept from your car insurer. If you have an expectation to bill $10K/month in healthcare expenses, I as a fellow premium-payer would expect you to kick a bit more in the pot than I do, since you are certain to pull more out.
Study 8 years to be a slave... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
How healthcare should be fixed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how I would fix the problems:
1.Eliminate company health plans (the providers of these plans have little to no incentive to offer any actual benefits to the employees as the companies cant change to someone better due to lock-in contracts and the huge costs of changing, nor can the employees generally switch without paying a lot more)
2.Give every citizen a certain amount of tax-free money they can use to buy health insurance. i.e. the first $x of their health insurance costs are tax free. This makes up for the loss of company health plans (which are generally tax free)
3.Make it super-easy for people to switch to another health provider anytime they choose without penalty (i.e. if they switch to a similar plan from a different provider, the new provider cant suddenly deny coverage for all your pre-existing conditions just because you switched providers)
4.All health care providers must charge the same amount for the same treatment no matter who is paying. If a hospital charges $2000 for a procedure to one person, they must charge the same $2000 to everyone who gets the procedure (no matter if its the government via medicare, a large health plan, a small insurance company, an individual paying out of pocket or whatever else). Obviously they can increase the price anytime they want but again they need to charge the same new price to everyone
5.Take away all incentives for doctors and hospitals and others to order "unnecessary" tests (including a reform of medical malpractice law so that lawyers cant argue "I sue the hospital for $$$$$ for failing to carry out when carrying out would have saved my clients life/heart/kidney/good looks/whatever")
6.Remove any laws and red tape that make it harder to start up a health fund. Making it easier to run one (and reducing the administrative costs) may encourage new players into the market who offer better value much the same as what companies like Jet Blue did for air travel)
7.Remove any rules/laws/etc that in any way restrict what health insurance companies are allowed to offer coverage for. If an insurance company wants to offer coverage for prescription glasses (for example), they should be allowed to do so.
8.Low income earners and the poor (who cant afford health insurance) would get subsidized cover. Not government run cover but money from the government paid to the individual to cover part or all of their health insurance costs
9.Health insurance companies would be banned from doing deals with specific hospitals or doctors (i.e. "you will only get coverage if you go to OUR hospital"). Further to this, companies that own health insurers would be prohibited from owning any operation involved in the provision of health care (e.g. hospitals, drug companies, medical equipment makers etc). Also, Health insurance companies would be banned from dictating treatment terms to doctors (i.e. if you want us to give coverage for this heart operation, you will do it the way we specify)
and 10.Health insurance companies would be required to disclose upfront how much they will pay on a given treatment before the treatment is carried out and they must pay up. No more cases of saying one thing before you go into hospital and then changing their mind and denying payment AFTER the patient has racked up the big medical bills.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
No shit.
It's "politically correct" to say the civil war was "about slavery" today. It is, however, nearly total bullshit.
The civil war happened because the North had been grumbling about wanting higher tariffs (in their mind, more $ to pay for an increasing budget) and wanting to implement them on the South's main agricultural products. The South saw that this was almost inevitable and wanted out when a President was elected without the electoral votes of a single Southern state.
The civil war was about economics pure and simple. Slavery, and decrees to abolish it, were simply a weapon used by the North for the purpose of psychological warfare via the creation of domestic troubles (loss of farm workers) for their opponents.
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. "Pre-eisting condition" means ANYTHING in your hisotry that may make you at higher risk.
Were you raped and put on anti-virals just in case, no coverage for the pre-existing condition of 'possible aids'.
Had some interesting test run in the past few years, no coverage for the unknown chance you pose.
Need glasses, no or higher coverage for your pre-existing eye condition of eye problems.
Diabetic, you are out of luck for your needed supplies.
Pre-existing condition is currently used as a blanket denial for anything they decide, in their own discretion, might pose a risk to their profits.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to do a bulleted rebuttal of the programs, but I will say that for any inefficiencies or problems, I cannot imagine life if they were controlled by private interests, which is what we are talking about; if healthcare is on the level of roads, schools, and mail, and should be at least available to anyone who needs it.
"Just off the top of my head. I don't know why many people so love the idea of being under the finger of faceless bureaucrats and Congresscritters"
Because it is at least marginally better than being under unelected CEOs and millions of nameless managers and directors, whose only goal in life is to suck more money out of the economy for their own gain.
"even pretend to let you have a say in what they do (see people like Rep Eric Massa (D-NY) who said he will vote for the health care bill even if his constituents don't support it)"
They elected a democrat, fully aware of what that would probably mean. Cry me a river.
"over having an elected business (you vote with your dollars)"
Yeah, I'll vote with my dollars when I have none, penniless because my job went over to China. I'll vote with my dollar when every choice in town is a member of the same cartel, just like ISPs, phone companies. I'll vote with my dollars when no one wants it, because of a condition that makes me "not worth" selling to. I'll vote with my dollars when my coverage is dropped because I wasn't quite as profitable as the guy next door, and profits had to be raised this quarter.
Yeah, my dollars may be powerful, but how about my voice instead? How about the other things the founders of the country gave me?
"with at least some ovresight (government, you, interest groups, etc)"
That is really the issue here, isn't it? The government putting in some oversight, and the fat cats not liking it one bit. So your argument is at best paradoxical; at worst, hypocritical.
"so you're giving me a free house, a $50-100k salary, a vehicle, etc too right?"
Ever hear of unemployment, social security? Probably; those are evil socialist systems designed to rob you of your hard earned money, too..
"where France has people rioting because they can't get jobs"
Right on topic.
"sick to get needed health services"
You mean like the vast majority of those with "pre-existing conditions" in the US? I'd say they are probably still better off than us!
"Didn't we fight a war to separate ourselves from Europe so that they couldn't dictate our way of life to us?"
There is the spirit! The not-made-here, blindly nationalistic spirit that permeates US politics. Because at one time we had a war with them, no matter what they do, we are superior and should do things even when they are proven to be wrong just to avoid being like them.
Is it any wonder why we are quickly headed towards third world status?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Isn't that what U.S citizen do to Canada now?
Uh... no. Canadian hospitals ask for ID, and if you wave a US license the hospital will refuse to serve you. The only exception is in cases of emergency (like a car accident), in which case the American will be handed a bill.
>>>wasn't America built on immigrant labor?
LEGAL immigrant labor. Illegals that were rejected at Ellis Island were sent back home. We have the right to control who enters our land, just the same as you can stop me from walking into your living room.
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear this theory a lot - that despite the fact that no other country in the world has figured out how to use the free market to provide health care for all - somehow we could, if only the government was not in the way. OK well how about this? Let's follow you deregulatory path for 20 years as an experiment and if we have significant numbers of Americans without adequate health care then you admit it was a failure and it's immediately back to some government based system for everyone. How about that?
By the way if you are earning $8 how are you going to afford health care without government help under any system?
Re:What's in it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Streamlining the payment process: I thought that 40 years of private industry handling this--y'know, competition--would have solved this! If you think there was resistance to the bill as it is, imagine what it would have been like if Congress had told private companies how to change their business processes.
Denying coverage: Thank you Republicans.
Tort reform: Whatever. This accounts for a teeny, tiny portion of health care costs. It's highlighted by right-wingers, but you could eliminate all unjust lawsuits and you'd be saving pennies.
It could have been so much better: True, but the opposition mob has been focused on stopping any change, and they're a loud and angry bunch.
Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:5, Insightful)
"under the watch of Republican presidents"
Repeat after me: "Congress is the only government branch that can raise money and spend it."
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. Tell you what, you let me know when the Amendment gets passed that allows for this sort of thing....
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:3, Insightful)
You are begging the question. "Health care for all" is your goal and you claim the right to do whatever is necessary to achieve it.
No. I will never agree that it is right to steal from one person in order to grant some kind of "right" to another person.
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:1, Insightful)
FTFY.
Re:This is how freedom dies (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, everyone likes the freedom to get sick and die at the whim of big business that desperately wants to find any way not to cover you when you need it.
The poor, of course, also don't deserve to live. They're free.
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Odd then that every other country in the developed world mananaged a UHC system with heavy government involvement that works fine, maybe it's that American exceptionalism I keep hearing so much about.
And it's hard to call Keynesians morons when their methods are being adopted world-wide to bail out the failures of capitalism. Even Reagan believed in Keynes.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of
Energy.
[Electricity was generated before there was a public monopoly. Most electric power is still generated by private companies. I own stock in many utility companies. You don't think government involvement degrades the efficient generation and delivery of power?]
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal
water utility.
[Local government is greatly preferred over federal government. Water was clean before government got involved.]
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated
channels
[What exactly has the FCC done for you?]
to see what the National Weather Service of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was
going to be like,
[These are very small government organizations linked to one of the legitimate functions of government - provide for the common defense]
using satellites designed, built, and launched by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[There are more private satellites than public. NASA doesn't design anything. Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed, and Boeing, and raytheon design and build satellites to meet Nasa specifications.]
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of
Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined
as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
[USDA is one of the most dysfunctional government agencies. It does not inspect a statistically significant amount of food, and it is horribly inefficient at regulating drugs.]
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept
accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
U.S. Naval Observatory, [provide for the common defense]
I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-approved automobile [what is better because it is "approved"?]
and set out to work on the roads build ...
by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation,
[Local and state are one thing. The federal highway system has been a mixed blessing]
possibly
stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency, [Think about that one for a moment]
using legal tender issued by the Federal
Reserve Bank. [for which a constitutional amendment was required and which was complicit in every financial scandal since inception.] On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be
sent out via the U.S. Postal Service [Shining example right there] and drop the kids off at the public
school. [Another shining example]
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:3, Insightful)
Without question, its the factory worker who puts cars together. Have you seen the UAW health care plans?
No, I haven't. I have no idea what health-care plans look like. I get ill, I go to my NHS GP. He/She if it's important will refer me to a specialist at a choice of local hospitals, or if I happen to be living in hotels across the other side of the country, a hospital near where I'm working.
I can't see why ability to pay/earn should make you more or less worthy or deserving of treatment. It's just a complete no brainer. No-one should be left untreated because they can't afford it.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:4, Insightful)
Clown comments like that are why libertarianism will always be a joke philosophy, confined entirely to Internet conspiracy theorists and anti-social hillbillies.
Remember all that Ron Paul crap that infested the Internet all the way up to the last election? You'd have thought the absolute trashing of their candidate would have silenced the Randroids, but they're back like a really stubborn weed.
Real adults realise the benefit of society and the welfare state over 'fuck you got mine' anarchy. Libertarians want to turn the US into Brazil, or Victorian England. Maybe they should re-open the workhouses, or is that too much government interference?
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with that is that in the US system, if you're unemployed, unless you're also independently wealthy, you almost certainly will not be able to afford to maintain your insurance premiums. Self insurance is insanely expensive, most employed people wouldn't be able to cover it.
This means that if John Smith is covered by his parents till hi finishes college, gets a job works hard and pays his premiums for 20 years, and then gets cancer and can't work(and therefor can't continue to make his insurance payments) he's screwed. If he passes that time limit and they're allowed to call it a pre-existing condition no HMO will cover him.
It's one thing to say you can't get in a car accident and then get insurance to cover it, that's perfectly fair. It's another to say that because you lost your job, or your husband or wife lost their job through no fault of their own that you're not going to be covered even if you paid premiums your whole life.
There are some pretty easy ways to solve patients rorting the system anyway. You can either make coverage mandatory and pay for it with taxes(which is what we do for our public health insurance here in Australia) or you can put a waiting period for hospital cover(which is what we do on our private insurance).
The US pays an absolutely extraordinary amount for health insurance, far more per capita than pretty much any other nation in the world. Which is pretty damned impressive when you consider how many people in the country are uninsured. If you took all that money that everyone is paying, and pumped it into a public system, like the one which pretty much every western nation in the world other than the US has and runs reasonably successfully, you could have a top notch system with great coverage for everyone without anyone paying one dime extra. You could probably distribute the costs better and get some better efficiency and offer a great system and cut the expenditures it costs an awful lot to run an HMO after all, not even counting profits.
That won't happen of course since the US is so desperately afraid of actually letting their government do anything actually productive with their tax dollars like actually offering halfway decent public services and would much rather pay for guns or bailing out wall street millionaires, but at the least this new system might not screw over people who just have bad luck.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>A) Health care is a right, that is logically derived from the right to live. And the lack of the right to kill yourself.
You have the right of life and the right of healthcare.
You have the right to drink and the right to smoke and the right to overeat.
You do NOT have the right to make your neighbors pay the bill to replace your diseased liver or lungs or fatty heart, anymore than you have the right to make them pay for your new Lexus or new TV. Pay your own damn bills.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:2, Insightful)
Health care in this country is about the best in the world.
That is a lie.
"The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is two-and-a-half times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland."
"Yet another study, cited in a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, looked at how well 19 developed countries succeeded in avoiding “preventable deaths,” such as those where a disease could be cured or forestalled. What Senator Shelby called “the best health care system” ranked in last place."
It's early, I'm lazy, but the facts match up. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html?em [nytimes.com]
Life expectancy does not necessarily equal quality of care. That is about the same as people who say country X has low gun crime with super strict gun laws, therefore we should enact the same! There are other variables to be considered as the poster below points out. If the quality of care here is so terrible, why do people come here for it? I didn't say care was the cheapest here, just that the quality is among the highest.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the health insurance exchanges are very similar to the federal health plans. All federal employees are given a choice of option and able to pick what benefits they consider most affordable. Everyone in federal government gets these options.
In addition, the government, being so large, has been able to negotiate terms like bans on "pre-existing conditions" out of many of the contracts, for the benefit of all federal employees.
So, basically, this health insurance bill gives we, the people, the same health insurance options they have. That all federal employees have. And it gives us their protections, and potentially a public option in states where the local monopoly or duopoly has control of the market.
How horrible.
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
The young college-aged British woman who had a family history of cervical cancer, and tried to get a PAP smear, would probably disagree with you. Why? Because at ages 21, 22, 23 they refused to give her the PAP screening for early detection/prevention.
A policy that has now changed because of that exact instance. Are you honestly saying that a US insurance provider would have provided her insurance? And that if they hadn't and this had happened, that their policy would have changed one iota? Shall we compare this one high-profile incident of a failure in a government-sponsored healthcare system against the hundreds of thousands of people who have been denied medical insurance in the US for exactly that reason? Do you honestly believe that the free-market would force insurance companies to insure people with a high-risk of cancer against cancer?
(according to MEP Daniel Hannan).
Daniel Hannan is a liar, then.
A government monopoly is no better than one run by Microsoft, Comcast, or Exxon. It still takes-away choice.
If you don't understand the difference, then there's no helping you.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:4, Insightful)
that's great, until you can't, or otherwise fail to. Then what?
Then we all have to deal with you, one way or another. Most of us have decided we're not ok with letting people die on the streets, or more accurately we have to deal with people who are faced with either dying on the streets OR doing other stuff that is unpleasant to others to avoid dying in the streets. Such as fraud, theft, murder, etc.
it would be great if, having failed to provide for yourself and all of your needs (including health care no one can afford), you just would decently wander off and shoot yourself in the head so as not to cause any more problems for anyone. Oddly though, that's not what people DO when they are faced with either bad luck or the results of their own bad decisions. No, they typically try to survive by any means necessary.
and if they fail, I am STILL not ok with watching them die in the streets. I guess I'm just one of those frail, lily-livered human beings, who thinks maybe the world is improved by reducing desperation as much as possible. There are downsides to that as well, but none as bad as the alternative.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's the rub, isn't it. Even the UK, with its hybrid system, shows far better universal results than the US. The US is pretty much a half a century behind the rest of the industrialized world, and yet what's the arguments I'm seeing here against it? Ayn Rand? Keynes was a moron? The Constitution is shredded? The rest of the First World is watching the US with their jaws on the ground.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
Huzzah! If the government taxes me and provides a service, I'm okay with that. (Single Payer.)
If the government says I must buy some service from a private company, then I am living in Gilliam's Brazil, and people should be shot.
The insurance companies have no right to exist, and no right to my money. People say that increasing pool size will bring down costs, but the insurance companies will just pocket the savings. There is no reason to believe that they would reduce cost to consumers because you remove the key defining force of the market. Business must entice buyers to the market with valuable goods and services. Once you make purchasing mandatory, businesses no longer have to compete with the competetive market force of 'Fuck You.'
Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:5, Insightful)
The only branch that can pass laws, too. So how does Obama always get mentioned with health care and economic stimulus?
Re:Socialized medicine vs. socialized insurance (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely - the go-mingling of private insurance and government mandate is...scary. We'll be forced to pay whatever the going rate is for medical treatment, indirectly, through billions and billions of dollars in subsidies to the insurance companies.
Seriously, would you people shut the fuck up? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing more annoying than the religious right is the whiny left, of which you seem to be a member. These are the people who blame the republicans for all their ills and do nothing but cry and whine about how they can't do anything. Oh shut up and hold the parties responsible to account. The republicans control jack and shit at the federal level any more. The President is a democrat, and a rather socialist democrat by all accounts. Well that accounts for the entire executive branch, since he has the power to appoint the people who run things. Now, in terms of making laws that's the House and Senate of course. In both cases the democrats have not just a majority, but a commanding majority. The house has 257 democrats, 178 republicans. That is a 59%/41% advantage. In the Senate it is even bigger 60%/40% which is a supermajority that can override filibusters.
So you have a situation where the republicans have no power to make laws at a federal level without a large amount of democrat support. The democrats on the other hand can pass legislation without even a single republican supporter, and can do so even if procedural tactics are used to attempt to block it,
Thus we are now in what would be called "Put up or shut up," time. But they aren't.
Well part of the reason they may not be is because of people like you that refuse to hold them to account. You bitch and whine about The Right(tm) causing problems and don't hold any democrats to account for this.
I swear that during Bush's terms the democrats got so used to doing nothing but bitching that they now just keep doing the same shit. Well bitching time is over. You've got the power, use it.
As usual, I think the Daily Show really nailed it http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority [thedailyshow.com].
Re:We rank 37th in infant mortality (Correction... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's Not About Health, It's About Control (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm Canadian, and while a lot of health care delivery is Provincially delivered, it's not that different up here. While we don't yet have a "fat" tax, per se, we do have high taxes on cigarettes. I'm in British Columbia, and drugs are covered to some percentage for seniors or those of low income. However there is a cap so that if I, for instance, were to get cancer or HIV, once my med costs hit a ceiling (I think for me it's something like $2000 or $3000 a year), the government would begin subsidizing me (there is also a provision for applying for disaster coverage if you have to take very expensive drugs for life-threatening conditions).
I'll say this about our system. It isn't perfect. There tend to be a lot more backlogs, particularly for the less medically-necessary procedures (ie. orthopedic surgeries). There is provisioning based on need. But when my wife got thyroid cancer in 2006 around the same time I lost my job, I didn't lose the house we had just bought. She was diagnosed in April of that year and had a thyroidectomy in June. She is alive and well three years later.
The system works, not always as well as I'd like, but I absolutely shiver at the thought of being in the US during that period.
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's Not About Health, It's About Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the government is paying for your health care, they can pretty much mandate what you eat, what you smoke, what you drink, how long you live, etc. Hey, the repercussions of "bad" behavior are on their nickel, right?
Funny you mention that. We have universal health care up here in Canada, and last time I checked, we can still buy cigarettes and unhealthy food, we can buy alcohol at a younger age than you can, and anything that is controlled as illegal (e.g. marijuana) is only illegal because of pressure the freedom-loving Americans.
- RG>
Re:What's in it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are bills so big and all encompassing?
Somebody should demand they be split up and be resubmitted as individual patches!
What has slipped under the radar... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your mere existence is now taxable.
People who like to claim that "there are no illegal aliens because people aren't illegal" are about to find their words ringing hollow in an especially perverse way.
You can be a monk meditating on a mountain somewhere for 5 years and be gang raped by the government's black and hispanic prison gangs for doing so.
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems the adults also know that you cannot rely on the private sector to provide for people. Capitalism isn't about compassion.
Well thank god for our compassionate government and armed bureaucracies, which will now be able to jail people for 5 years for failure to buy health insurance.
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is mandated health care constitutional? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are trying to make it seem as if Congress has no power to do anything other than that which is explicitly granted in the Constitution, which is comically untrue.
So what the hell does the 10th Amendment mean, then?:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Virginia Resultion of 1798 [tenthamendmentcenter.com], written by James Madison (the main author of the Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights, including the 10th amendment) says:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Plus, the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 [tenthamendmentcenter.com] written by Thomas Jefferson says this:
"Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Except not at all, because "lunch" isn't a goddamn right, and you aren't enslaving anyone by requiring a service, because people choose to work in service industries. He's a troll.
Wait a minute.. food isn't a right, but bloody health care is? Are you high? If your logic is that health care is a right because you'll die without it then exactly why isn't food a right? Or a house?
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Then we all have to deal with you, one way or another. Most of us have decided we're not ok with letting people die on the streets, or more accurately we have to deal with people who are faced with either dying on the streets OR doing other stuff that is unpleasant to others to avoid dying in the streets. Such as fraud, theft, murder, etc.
That isn't the problem. The problem occurs when someone spends my money on a morale crusade and then takes away my freedom because of unintended consequences of that crusade. As I see it, if I'm trying to provide for myself, then I'm not being as much of a burden on other people as if I'm trying to mooch what I can from them.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't see how this bill is anything but a boon for insurers. What people fail to realize is that many Americans, especially the young and healthy, don't WANT health insurance. I know I don't. But I soon may be forced by the government to buy a product I don't want. Yeah, you can make the insurance companies take on those with preexisting conditions, but they'll just use it as a reason to jack up rates for everyone else. But yeah, if you're gonna fix healthcare, fix HEALTHCARE, don't just force everyone to buy products from those who are lining your pockets.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if you honestly find that your concern for corporate incomes trumps your compassion for your fellow human beings, I pity you . Health care is a right. If you think that people who provide for things that are rights are somehow enslaved by the fact that they're rights, you're out of your mind. People always choose what they do.
Fine, if health care is a right, what else is a "right"? Food? Cars? Homes? Internet? How far does it go? And yes, people choose what they do right now. However, once you start defining all these rights who's going to provide those services? If no one is willing to for the price the government will pay, shall we force them? That's where the enslavement comes in. If you say a service or good is a "right" then ultimately you are saying that you are in favor of providing that service by any means necessary. Follow your logic.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
The "states"? Oh my, and what are those states other than other form of government? They also tax and spend - they aren't at all the bastion of freedom.
Well, those running the Federal government have exposed themselves clearly now as tyrants, as there is no other description for a group of people that would throw people in jail for not buying stuff they want them to buy - no matter what it is.
So far, most state governments have not displayed this level of despotism. And please do not make some bogus claim about auto insurance. It's far different asking somebody to take some responsibility if the want to drive a car on public roads, it's quite another to require participation in some bureaucratic and/or corporate scheme because you are alive.
Re:Is mandated health care constitutional? (Score:3, Insightful)
You hide that "general welfare" part behind the Interstate Commerce clause in your sentence so well! It almost makes it seem like it has nothing to do with establishing laws that affect the general welfare of the people.
Sounds like a great catch-all. Government wants to buy everyone a TV? It's for the general welfare. Government wants to take over a car company? It's for the good of the people. 'General Welfare' does not give the government the right to just do whatever the hell it wants while citing that it's good for everyone.
If you actually read the constitution, you will note that the 'general welfare' clause is in the damn preamble.
Try reading the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The emphasis is mine. They are saying 'in order to do the following, we are establishing this constitution'.
When you talk about Section 8 of the constitution, you should look up the definition of 'general' and 'welfare'.
General: not confined by specialization or careful limitation
Welfare: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
In other words, their job is to make sure everyone has a chance to pursue fortune, happiness, well-being, prosperity, etc...
What they don't have a right to do is target a specific groups like the uninsured and force other specific groups to cough up the cash.
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the bill, as written, were signed into law by Obama tomorrow, it wouldn't take effect till 2013.
Given that four year delay, I'm not sure I really see that they needed to hurry the bill through. And yes, voting late Saturday evening is attempting to hurry the bill through - the House doesn't work weekends any more often than the rest of America.
Re:Just what the doctor ordered, socialism. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>And your point was?
I was just thinking the same thing about your post. Illegals hold a lot of jobs you say. But then you forget that our unemployment rate is above 10%. So wouldn't it be logical to remove the illegals, and hand those jobs to actual citizens? It would reduce unemployment below 5%.
As for my point, I have no objections to immigrants. My best friend came from China and is married to a lovely Japanese girl. I'm happy they are here, but they followed the proper procedure of filling-out a Visa. Anyone who does not follow that procedure should (IMHO) be jailed and deported, the same way you arrest an intruder you find in your living room. The intruder does not belong.
Re:37th because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that why American women are 11 times more likely to die in childbirth than a woman in Ireland? Too much giving birth while driving?
Re:Bill Itself: 220-215 (Score:3, Insightful)
And why should your ability to produce enough for society be measured by how much money you have?
What is the alternative?
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between a car and a human (Score:3, Insightful)
For a car, failing to buy gas or get an oil change won't increase the chance of an expensive accident. For a human, failing to get an EKG or an X-ray can leave that human at higher risk for a heart attack or metastatic cancer. So it's wise economics for a health insurer to pay for those little things when the insured might say "I feel fine. Why should I pay $200 for a silly test?" otherwise.
Also, the liability on a car is limited to the replacement cost. What's the replacement cost for your own body? The cost of health care over your entire life is so unpredictable that it's wise to pay into a pool of coverage even if it means that for most of your life you'll be paying for some other guy's health care. Because someday you might find yourself with an expensive chronic condition like diabetes that's not just a single catastrophic event and can't be fixed by just buying a new body.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020
I love how people bandy this sort of statement around like everyone will find it some a priori bad thing, it just shows that the user really does think that everyone thinks exactly like him, and never took the time out to consider that other have views different than his own. These people also, generally, believe their views just as much as the person making the statement, and generally have as long a list of evidence/opinion/etc... as to why they believe the opposite (i.e., they feel just as justified).
Its the same story as people on the right dismissing things (or worse, people) as "socialist", expecting me to feel some innate Joe McCarthy-esque reptilian dread, where my actually response is more along the lines of "so what, why is that bad?". Appearently I'm not a good American, I'd like a reason to oppose things, and not just some sound bite opposed to a 1 dimensional party slogan that some portion of the public hold to be gospel. Give the people REASONS why having a government option is bad. I personally don't think that the government handling something is in-itself a bad thing, that bit of doubleplus good conservative group-think never infected me. I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants, so I find it hard to buy that having the government in charge of something is a bad thing just because the government is involved. I'd rather be a reasonable citizen and take it on a case by case basis, even if it involves violating tenets that some portion of the population hold as sacred dogma.
To be honest, I'm more suspicious of all things that smell like dogma, or unflinching conviction of the truth of some proper-noun ideology, or mere idealism. Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.
To me I'm completely against the current health-care bills, since they don't go far enough. I don't really care about capitalism or socialism (both are nothing more than means towards and end, and not the ends itself), I don't think that insurance companies have the "right" to make money (or anyone, actually, profit is not a right, and should not be protected), I don't think I have the obligation to give them money either (hence my opposition of the current bill). If it served the greater good of individuals, I'd see all insurance companies die, gladly. If it increased the health of myself, and my country men, I'd support a government run option, if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed. I'd gladly trade the health of the people for the bottom line of some multi-billion dollar corporation.
Though we must get rid of some FUD here. You realize that all of these evil socialist countries with public healthcare still have private doctors and insurance, right? The idea of a public plan, and private coverage are not mutually exclusive. You realize that having a private practice, or having independent insurance isn't illegal in the UK right? Hell, even if it was, who cares, as long as it works?
I'm not sure, though, that a decent, logical, comprehensive, and rational case has been made either way, though. As the bill stands, right now, I don't think it should pass, and yes, the liberal group-think annoys me as much, or more, than the libertarian/conservative flavor.
Also, so we should let that mere 8 million people suffer? Who cares, they are a minority. Seriously, its hard to make a case stating "but it only helps 8 million people", 8 million is a VERY large value of "only". Also, you should provide some evidence on how this is going to waste money on our umpteen million illegal immigrants, even while the bill (both versions) state explicitly that it only applies to citizens. Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.
Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why is this called "Obamacare" by the Republicans and Conservatives?
Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's not like Bush had a Republican congress for most of both terms, right? And he didn't make that speech where he told congress immediate action was vitally necessary in under seven days or the whole economy was threatened with total collapse, did he? So let's, by all means, rewrite history to make it all the Democrat's fault.
Re:Banning illegal aliens is shortsighted (Score:5, Insightful)
WRONG!!
Very few illegal immigrants are paid cash under the table. Most are paid in the same fashion as legal employees, and have taxes and social security withheld.
In fact, illegal immigrants are a net contributor to the social security fund, as many use fake social security numbers for which they will never be able to collect benefits:
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then deny the illegal aliens that to which they are not entitled. People dó have to identify at the hospital, don't they? Do not let the legit US population suffer.
I've been hit riding my bike, which does not require a license, and was rushed to the hospital. Once I was unconscious and another tyme I was in a coma. Now would you require me to identify myself in order to get medical care? How would I do that when I'm in a coma? Would you require people to always carry their papers, Papers please?
Either you haven't thought this through or you don't care.
I'm not and never have been a US resident, also and like most /.-ers I'm not an expert on insurance systems: what would you suggest should be done to have fixed the old system?
Allow people to go across state lines to buy insurance. Right now each state can say who can and can not sell insurance in that state, I can not go across a state line and buy insurance in another state which may have lower insurance premiums. In other words there is no competition. Another thing, in the US most people who have health insurance get it through their employers. Those employers get tax deductions for offering insurance. If I buy my own insurance I do not get those tax deductions though. So, there is no free market. Quite simply, if controlling health care costs is the goal then what will work is to allow a free market.
Falcon
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
Huzzah! If the government taxes me and provides a service, I'm okay with that. (Single Payer.)
If the government says I must buy some service from a private company, then I am living in Gilliam's Brazil, and people should be shot.
The insurance companies have no right to exist, and no right to my money. People say that increasing pool size will bring down costs, but the insurance companies will just pocket the savings. There is no reason to believe that they would reduce cost to consumers because you remove the key defining force of the market. Business must entice buyers to the market with valuable goods and services. Once you make purchasing mandatory, businesses no longer have to compete with the competetive market force of 'Fuck You.'
I agree with the sentiment, but I'm pretty sure you're already forced to buy a service from a private company.
Own a car? The liability part of car insurance required by law. And though some Canadian provinces manage auto insurance, I doubt your state does, forcing you to use a private company.
Re:How healthcare should be fixed (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if I decide to have my surgery in a hospital that has big screen TVs in every room and hot swimsuit models giving massages and sponge baths, that's OK, as long as the hospital charges everyone the same rate? And based on #9, the insurance company would have to pay?
This example is a little extreme, but who would essentially set the prices for various procedures? Arguably, one hospital could employ better doctors than another -- could they charge higher prices? Would an insurer be justified in requiring that the patient go to a more cost effective hospital? Would it matter based on the procedure -- setting a broken leg versus complicated brain surgery?
These are all tough questions. I don't think the current bill of "lets make everyone buy health insurance -- that'll fix everything" will actually solve any real problems.
I don't really know what the answer is. I do like your idea of divorcing health plans from employers. There's really no reason to get your health insurance through your job. Free, reliable health care for everybody seems like a great idea, but so does free cars, clothing, houses, and food. And I don't know how to deliver any of those things. The best I can do is Free Software, but that doesn't seem to translate very well into meat-space.
The free market sucks in many ways, especially for those who do not have money. But it does do a pretty decent job of motivating people without a lot of difficult to manage bureaucracy. Yes, there are problems, and yes, people get trampled upon. Those that argue "why shouldn't the poor get healthcare" could just as easily say "why shouldn't the poor get food?" Should we be pushing for "grocery store reform" so that food is handed out equally to everyone?
But if this health care insurance bill is what America wants, it is what America will get. I just hope that the Federal government doesn't collapse too badly, or that if it does, the result isn't too bloody.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism is the worst...except for everything else.
Even Churchill didn't dare to put "Capitalism" into this witty but meaningless sentence about democracy.
Re:What's in it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am an American living in Canada with a legal permit. I have been here 4 years working and paying taxes. I am completely ineligible for Provincial insurance. I pay for my own insurance (I am required by law) and I am extremely limited to who I can see. An American in Canada, with out insurance, would simply be turned away unless it was an extreme emergency situation. The inverse in not true. Canadians, who can afford it, go over the border for medical services that are difficult to come by in Canada.
The health services in Canada are not as good for the average Canadian as the health services in America are for the average American. It seams to me that most Canadians don't care as much about the quality of care as they do that everyone receives the same care. As long as those people are not new immigrants of excluded types.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ohip/eligibility.html [gov.on.ca]
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously don't understand the concept of insurance.
It is inefficient to provide something which everyone needs: basically, you could imagine that everyone would pay some sum so that in the event you need to get lunch, you would be reimbursed. This is an insurance. As you can see, in this case, pretty much everyone pays and receives the same amount. You only added administrative overhead.
In the case of health care, insurance means that in the event of some expensive treatment, you do not go bankrupt. There is administrative overhead, but it is overall worth it. Because the costs of bankruptcies/deaths to society is greater than the amount paid for insurance.
So no problem of consistency from the GPs part, just your deep ignorance of the economics of insurances.
Appearently I'm not a good American, (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right.
I'd like a reason to oppose things
How about the Constitution of the USA [usconstitution.net]? Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine? And remember if it does not give a power then government does not have that power, it is a document limiting what government can do.
Now if you believe the government should do something the Constitution provides a way for it to do that, via amending it [usconstitution.net]. Amazingly it has been amended 27 tymes already.
I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants,
First, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to build and maintain roads. It also gives the power to defend the people and nation. Next there is nothing in the Constitution preventing state and local government from providing all these other things. And generally they have been pretty good at it. Actually with the feds into so much it can dictate to states what they must do. No Child Left Behind ring a bell? If a school doesn't meet federal requirements it can lose funding. Now if the feds did not have as high of taxes as it does then states and local governments could raise their own taxes and spend it on what they want instead of the feds dictating to them. Another example is Real ID. The feds want to tell the states they either have an ID that meets federal guidelines or they lose road funding. That's what they did with the minimum drinking age.
Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.
Then apply that to government as well. I have never ever heard of businesses exterminating and massacring millions of people but governments have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, even the government of the US.
if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed.
You're assuming that the private path has been tried when in fact it has not been tried in more than 60 years. Instead government has been interfering with medicine and health care all this tyme.
Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.
You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.
Falcon
Re:What's in it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since government care is so damn wonderful, why is there a need for private car in the UK?
Nobody is saying that the NHS is perfect, or even wonderful. However, it is a good baseline for people that need it in an emergency or can't afford better. If you want more than that, you have the option to pay someone else to provide it. It's as simple as that.
And second, why did the college girl let herself be denied access to a PAP smear when the UK Health service said no? Why didn't she go get a PAP smear from the private option?
I don't know, I'm not responsible for her decisions and I don't know her personally. Maybe she couldn't pull together the £60 it would cost her to get one, or maybe she was incredibly stupid. So many possibilities.
Overall it sounds like the UK's not the promised paradise either.
That's because you'll infer your preferred conclusion from any data, even if it doesn't make sense. "Didn't think to go to a private hospital? That's the government's fault! I knew it wasn't a perfect system, even though nobody claimed it was!"
I'm pretty much done with arguing with you, because it's patently clear from your last few comments that you have no idea what you're arguing against and you have no willingness to find out. I could speculate as to why you're so invested in the current system, but as the answers range from somewhere between being paid to advocate for the insurance companies right the way down to the possibility that you'd rather other people die than you have to pay for health insurance, I don't really want to know the answer.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
I have five nice mod points I'd just love to use right now, but you will I've just got to reply to this...
The Federal Government exists only because it has the powers given to it by the legal contract between the states and itself. Without the constitution all those people sitting in Washington DC are just yet another toothless political activist organistion passing non-binding resolutions.
It's highly extraordinary and rather worrying that you regard demanding the US Federal Government limit itself to the legal powers that it was given and ALSO the restrictions that were placed upon it as nonsense just because historically it has ignored them (or more likely because you happen to like the current party in power - I wonder if you sang the same tune 5 years ago).
Your Federal Government also "gives you" extraordinary rendition, torture, military bases in every country in the world, the highest percentage of people in prison in the western world, undeclared wars, a rogue CIA, warrant-less wiretaps etc, etc, etc.
Perhaps if your Federal Government was forced to stay within the bounds of the very legal document that gives it ANY authority to exist at all your country and the rest of the world would be a hell of a lot better off.
Oh, but college kids get cheap loans via the Department Of Education so that makes it ok! The same entity that forced No Child Left Behind on every school in the country...
And if the Federal Government isn't bound by the law that creates it and gives it power over the people why should people be bound by it? Surely if it gets to choose, so does the individual.
Because it has all the guns, tanks and army you say? Then what's the difference between it and every other despotic regime that's held power over the people through the barrel of a gun rather than the rule of law?
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's in it? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are liberals in the party but not nearly as many as conservative media would lead you to believe.
In the United States, "conservative media" would have you believe that anything to the left of far-right extremism is socialism.
Re:Strikers Vow (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. Unless you have found a way to avoid getting any benefit, direct or indirect, from those things (ever used a car?).
Going to be obtuse, eh? I pay for the things I use with money I earned. That is what providing for oneself means.
Not unless you actually have sufficient amount of money set aside for any possible medical emergency. And somehow made it certain that you will immediately die if those costs will be exceeded. Otherwise you will incur costs on the rest of society, and therefore are absolutely not "self-insured".
So what? Why should I feel gratitude for losing freedom and getting robbed simply because some day I might use up more health care than I can pay for?
Re:I think I can I think I can (Score:3, Insightful)
A) Life is a responsibility, not a right. "Right to life" simply means no one can take your life away. But actually staying alive is your responsibility.
B) Actually a decent point, too bad science is forbidden in politics.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:2, Insightful)
No, because it is a state issue. States are completely within their rights to make such requirements.
This is my whole issue with this whole thing. Jefferson was strongly in favor of freedom of religion, while the state of Pennsylvania had required religion, thus the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law..." (emphasis added).
We are a republic, and we can clearly see through these various debates that there are people in this country who want to have taxpayer provided health care and there are those who do not want taxpayer provided health care. If we were to honor the democratic republic that was formed, we would recognize that this is perfectly fine for a union. Massachusetts can have its pristine state system and Texas can have anarchy or whatever.
My belief is that everyone we all will lose when D.C. takes things over, including the people in Massachusetts. There will be no one to complain to except a Representative and a Senator who care little about doing anything to repair any issues. Special interests will latch their suckers to the tax revenue pouring into the program and K Street will expand to J and L Streets.
Re:Business decisions (Score:3, Insightful)
Your point is valid, and applies to everything and anything — not just health insurance: "If the government X is as good as the private X but cheaper, what's the problem?"
The obvious problem is, it can not. It can only be "cheaper" if the taxpayer subsidizes it — our Medicare and Medicade spending (which only covers the old and the poor), for example [wikipedia.org], exceed the entire Department of Defense expenditures already.
Indeed! Dizzy with success of our:
who wouldn't be anxious to switch to government-provided health insurance? What could possibly go wrong? Next up — government provided food (can't be healthy without good nutrition, can you?), shelter (same), clothes — you name it... I grew up in a country, where the government claimed to provide everything — and it sucked. I move to the US, and what do I find? A bunch of idiots wishing to make the mistake, someone has already made for them!
And it is not like you haven't been warned by your own:
Re:Banning illegal aliens is shortsighted (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, he said it would end up costing us more money in the long run.
I don't pretend to understand the right's raging hard-on for mexicans, but I can appreciate that border security and immigration control are necessary components of a functioning government. That being said, going after them in a health care bill is inappropriate. Denying someone access to health care is reprehensible. Denying it to them out of spite, knowing full well that it will cost you more money, is obscene.
Good day to you, sir.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?
The Constitution doesn't lay out everything permissible in minute detail. It simply lays the ground rules, and gives the framework for the process. Somewhere in there it explicitly states that anything not specifically forbidden is left to our discretion. In other words, we are free to choose this path.
Section 8, Powers of Congress, begins:
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States....
It could be said that for our own benefit some of our pre or post-tax allocations must go towards insurance against conditions that undermine the welfare of the people, who after all are the raison-d'etre for the government to exist.
A healthy person is more capable of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness than one who suffers from a disease, and therefore it is in our collective interest that a universally-accessible system be in place to ensure our health.
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
So wouldn't it be logical to remove the illegals, and hand those jobs to actual citizens?
Yes -- just like the logical answer to the the problem of illegal drugs would be to remove the illegal drugs, so that people won't buy them anymore. And you can see how well that's worked out.
Unfortunately, the logical answer isn't always practical, or even possible.
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>wasn't America built on immigrant labor?
LEGAL immigrant labor. Illegals that were rejected at Ellis Island were sent back home.
No, illegal immigrants. The native American Indians didn't stamp the visas of any Europeans who came. The same Europeans who then massacred the native Americans, stole their land, then shoved those who lived onto small reservations.
Falcon
Re:What's in it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who does not follow that procedure should (IMHO) be jailed and deported, the same way you arrest an intruder you find in your living room. The intruder does not belong.
What American Indian tribe stamped your, or your relative's who immigrated here, visa?
Falcon
There goes everything (Score:3, Insightful)
There goes our chance as a nation to pay off our debt, there goes many private-sector jobs, there goes a lot of freedom and liberty from a nanny-state government. This is a sad-sad day. Instead of reforming healthcare with more government, why not look at tort-reform, getting rid of old and silly regulations in the industry, getting rid of the unfair tax credit towards companies providing health insurance, and many other things. Democrats are such a populist-kissing re-elect me at any cost party. It's really sad. And no, Republicans suck as well.