I don't get why Obama doesn't Just Say it.

[Trakar]

oh, well now, that would be against freedom!!

The freedom to profit off of the misery and disability of others is one that should be curtailed and driven to extinction for the betterment of the society and the longterm mental health and character of the species.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level". If your income as adjusted above is $50,000 (meaning you probably actually make well above that) your maximum fine is $1,250. And I think it's actually capped at less than that, $750? Anyway, even if it's $1,250 do you think you could buy health insurance for $1,250 a year?

Yes, I think they will. Again, see the section on "Affordability". Remember, there are also employer mandates, so I think it's likely that the fine will be roughly equal to one or another insurance option.

At any rate, I'm glad to hear you admit you're wrong in saying that the plan caps the fine at $250.

ETA: Also, even if the fine is slightly less than the premium, the fine doesn't give you health insurance. If you go to the doctor, you've got a full uninsured bill to pay (or to ignore an potentially cause lots of problems).

Those countries do it in a variety of ways, but the mere existence of single-payer isn't one of them. In fact, many do it without a single-payer system.

Yes, I would agree that countries use a variety of ways to end up with universal healthcare and pay a lot less per capita than we do here in the U.S.

Does that allow insurers to sell across state lines?

I'm pretty sure it does. I'm pretty sure that's part of the anti-trust exemption that is being revoked. But I don't know. At any rate there definitely are provisions in the bill to allow for greater competition, which is in fact a cost-reducing measure.

Again, if you're saying this bill isn't the best way to reduce costs, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I disagree when you say that there is nothing in the bill that will reduce costs--especially if you consider the costs on a per capita basis.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the CBO says it will reduce deficits, which they apparently do, then I would ask for some arguments from those who claim it will not.

From what I've read, the CBO says it will result in a deficit reduction of about $104 billion over 10 years. Republicans keep citing the CBO as saying the bill has a $1.05 trillion price tag. I'm not so sure what that means.

ETA: And can anyone tell me why few of us were having a discussion like this over the price tag for the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Obviously, current proposals are carefully crafted to not upset too many parts of the health care industry all at once, and for this reason there will not be the kind of savings there could be if they simply adopted the health care system of any other advanced nation. But politics is the art of the possible.

Well said.

That's why I'm reluctantly in favor of this bill. As I've said, one effect will be to take discussion of a single payer system (or something similar) off the table pretty much forever. I think that's a darn shame. At the same time, though, it's a lot better than the status quo.

 

[mhaze]

....one effect will be to take discussion of a single payer system (or something similar) off the table pretty much forever. I think that's a darn shame....

Why? HR 575 (IIRC) set up a fund for "retraining" of some 2M employees in the insurance industries who would have been flat out of a job under the Utopian Single Payer Plan.

That's exactly what is needed in a economic depression, for the government to put 2M private sector workers out of work by fiat.

Brilliant!

(Oh, wait...I guess they don't count because they were not in a Union)?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In the last elections, the Democrats won big, and earned the right to impose their will on the American agenda.

Not so fast. We have this thing called the Constitution, which strictly specifies what powers and responsibilities belong to the federal government.

This health care scam is very, very far outside of anything that the Constitution allows the federal government to do; so short of amending the Constitution, no, they don't have any right whatsoever to do this, even if they did win the last election.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not so fast. We have this thing called the Constitution, which strictly specifies what powers and responsibilities belong to the federal government.

This health care scam is very, very far outside of anything that the Constitution allows the federal government to do; so short of amending the Constitution, no, they don't have any right whatsoever to do this, even if they did win the last election.

What specific measure in the bill violates the Constitution and how?

I don't see any such Constitutional issue.

ETA: Is this more of that bogus idea that insurance reform will take away our freedoms?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why? HR 575 (IIRC) set up a fund for "retraining" of some 2M employees in the insurance industries who would have been flat out of a job under the Utopian Single Payer Plan.

I think you're getting confused. I said if we pass this health insurance reform bill (such as the bill that just passed the House), it will further entrench insurance as the way we do healthcare and take discussion of an actual single payer system off the table for the foreseeable future.

Now, if you want to discuss the pros and cons of a single payer plan, I'm happy to do that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The freedom to profit off of the misery and disability of others is one that should be curtailed and driven to extinction for the betterment of the society and the longterm mental health and character of the species.

This has to be one of the stupidest things that has yet been said in this thread.

You're talking about businesses which provided services intended to help prevent and mitigate “the misery and disability of others”.

I work for a company that produces very good food products. People need food more than they need health care. My company makes and sells food. And you know what? We make a profit by so doing. We make a very good profit. Isn't that awful?

Is my company's right to “profit from the hunger and starvation of others” something that similarly should be “curtailed and driven to extinction”?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not so fast. We have this thing called the Constitution, which strictly specifies what powers and responsibilities belong to the federal government.

This health care scam is very, very far outside of anything that the Constitution allows the federal government to do; so short of amending the Constitution, no, they don't have any right whatsoever to do this, even if they did win the last election.

What specific measure in the bill violates the Constitution and how?

I don't see any such Constitutional issue.

ETA: Is this more of that bogus idea that insurance reform will take away our freedoms?

For starters, it very blatantly violates the Tenth Amendment. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has only those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that comes anywhere close to authorizing the federal government to take over the health care industry.

 

[Cleon]

For starters, it very blatantly violates the Tenth Amendment. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has only those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that comes anywhere close to authorizing the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Since no part of the bill actually involves the federal government taking over the health care industry, this objection is nonsense.

 

[mhaze]

I think you're getting confused. I said if we pass this health insurance reform bill (such as the bill that just passed the House), it will further entrench insurance as the way we do healthcare and take discussion of an actual single payer system off the table for the foreseeable future.....

Not confused am I in only pointing out that even the Democrats working the bill refused to do what you think is so great, and put 2M people out of work.

No....confusion....here on my side....

And as for you....

Since no part of the bill actually involves the federal government taking over the health care industry, this objection is nonsense.

So being required to pay a fine to the federal government if you do not get their health care scheme is constitutional?

You might want to look up the discussions on that one before answering.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For starters, it very blatantly violates the Tenth Amendment. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has only those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that comes anywhere close to authorizing the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Yeah, that would matter, maybe, if there were a government takeover of the health care industry. Seriously, do you see language in the bill that will turn the hospitals and doctor practices over to the ownership of the government?

So what else do you have?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not confused am I in only pointing out that even the Democrats working the bill refused to do what you think is so great, and put 2M people out of work.

No....confusion....here on my side....

Again, you quoted my text, so I assume you mean your comment to be a response to my point. Yes, I think you are confused.

My point was that a negative of the bill the House just passed, IMO, is that it would further entrench insurance in our health care system and take a major reform like a single payer system off the table. Do you have anything to say about my point?

ETA:

So being required to pay a fine to the federal government if you do not get their health care scheme is constitutional?

What part of the Constitution do you think forbids the government from imposing fines? Or is there some other legal theory?

BTW, I noticed that you mischaracterized the universal insurance mandate. The way you worded it, if you don't buy a plan from the "public option" then you have to pay a fine. That's simply not true.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Personally, I'd prefer full on national healthcare, but then I happen to think that the VA medical system is one of the better healthcare systems on the planet. But statistics and personal experience can be deceiving, I guess. But, I'm not alone in that assessment - VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction

You want full national healthcare as in you want the government to take over all hospitals and clinics?? That's an honest question -- because that's what your link about the VA implies. The satisfaction survey in your link compares care at VA clinics and hospitals to private-sector clinics and hospitals. That's far more radical than I think anyone has proposed.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, I think they will. Again, see the section on "Affordability".

Why would that be a rational decision? Pay the $1,250 rather than the $5,500, and you save $4,250 a year. And if you get sick, no problem! You can buy insurance then.

$5,500 Remember, there are also employer mandates, so I think it's likely that the fine will be roughly equal to one or another insurance option.

All employers, or just those employing above acertain number of people (it's actually a payroll of $500,000 or more)? What about contract workers? Part-time workers? Temps? Self-employed?

There's going to be a lot of people doing the math and realizing they're better off, way better off, by not buying insurance until they get sick. And this will not lower health insurance premiums, it will raise them as healthy people drop their coverage and only the sick buy it.

At any rate, I'm glad to hear you admit you're wrong in saying that the plan caps the fine at $250.

It's still far less than is necessary to induce compliance. In fact, the maximum tax penalty for failure to comply "shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year". So even if you pay the maximum penalty allowed you may still be paying less than you would in insurance premiums, if insurance premiums in your area exceed the national average.

ETA: Also, even if the fine is slightly less than the premium, the fine doesn't give you health insurance. If you go to the doctor, you've got a full uninsured bill to pay (or to ignore an potentially cause lots of problems).

All you need to do is sign up for a plan after you get sick/injured, and the mandate to cover pre-existing conditions guarantees you will be covered. In fact, why not start a company which automatically enrolls you in a health insurance plan of your choice when you show up in the ER, even if you're incapacitated? Nothing in this bill discourages this practice.

I'm pretty sure it does. I'm pretty sure that's part of the anti-trust exemption that is being revoked. But I don't know. At any rate there definitely are provisions in the bill to allow for greater competition, which is in fact a cost-reducing measure.

Which sections of the bill do this?

Again, if you're saying this bill isn't the best way to reduce costs, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I disagree when you say that there is nothing in the bill that will reduce costs--especially if you consider the costs on a per capita basis.

Time will trll, but I doubt it. I predict in 10 years time the US will still have the most costly, bloated, dysfunctional health delivery system in the Western world, and by a wide margin.

No, this prediction won't qualify for the $1 million.

 

[tyr_13]

Nationalism isn't a cover for shifting goalposts sir. It just makes it more shameless.

Shifting goalposts? You have some nerve to accuse me of that when I pointed out that the people being taxed are the same people that will get the help by posting about the federal income tax as if that were the only tax that exists?

All Americans pay taxes.

But you're right, if those poor people would just stop being poor this would all work out much better.

 

[corplinx]

All Americans pay taxes.

Municipal property taxes don't somehow mean you are paying your fair share of Federal taxes. Is this a case of ignorance or diversion though?

But you're right, if those poor people would just stop being poor this would all work out much better.

Didn't make such a claim. That's two corrections on you in this thread.

 

[332nd]

For starters, it very blatantly violates the Tenth Amendment. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has only those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that comes anywhere close to authorizing the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Where in the bill does it say they are going to take over the health care industry?

 

[tyr_13]

Municipal property taxes don't somehow mean you are paying your fair share of Federal taxes. Is this a case of ignorance or diversion though?

First, I didn't say, "All Americans pay Federal income taxes," so, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Second, who are you to say what someone's fair share? Why don't you post up these thoughts on the thread specifically about this topic?

Didn't make such a claim. That's two corrections on you in this thread.

It is the argument that you're making. Poor people shouldn't get government benefits because they are too poor to pay the Federal income taxes. They can't pay those taxes because they are poor. Therefore, your argument boils down to the poor being poor as the problem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why would that be a rational decision? Pay the $1,250 rather than the $5,500, and you save $4,250 a year. And if you get sick, no problem! You can buy insurance then.

Ah. . so you're not ready to say you were wrong when you claimed the fine is limited to $250?

So where are you getting these numbers from?

And just to remind you, your claim was that there is nothing in the bill that would reduce costs. I listed several measures in the bill aimed at reducing costs.