What don't you like about the heathcare reform bill?

[Antares]

Hey guys,

I was watching the view on hulu a couple mins ago and basically barbara basically said she doesn't really know why people don't like it (specifically...liek what parts of the bill people are against)

Specifically what parts of the bill are you guys all against?

[Omgthatsme]

I think that there is nothing wrong with it.

[pageplant77]

I love the fact that congress FINALLY passed it. The bill has no flaws in it, every idea is perfect and will help many Americans........But, Obama's gonna have to raise taxes EVEN MORE just to finance the thing, 8 billion I think. I have no problem with Obama, but I just wish there was another way to pay for the thing.

[colderwease7]

um lets see here 1st you absoluly have to buy insurnce if you dont then you can be fined or jailed which im pretty sure is agaisnt the constitution to me its no longer a "free"country if you get jailed for not buying a "product"if you will BUT i will say that its NOT totally flawed the part i like is that you cant be denied insurence for pre excecting condition

[Antares]

Okay, I will try not to provide my own opinion in this thread because then it turns into a complete debate BUT I will link to some news sites that basically outline the bills.



Also, you won't be jailed for not buying it. It is only a fine (just wanted to clear that up since it is one of the misconceptions according to the above poster).




http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

and heres another one from a different source

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575137370275522704.html?mod=e2tw

[INFERNO]

One thing I don't like about it is that it involves the federal government taking control of student loans, which used to be done by private banks, so the government can decide how much to loan each student and that may not be enough money for the student. I also don't like this because it's got nothing to do with health care insurance yet it is in the bill anyways.

Also, as a patient, you'd get a different doctor each visit I think, which means that upon each visit, the doctor has to form a good rapport with the patient. If the patient sees the same doctor, then if this rapport is already established, certain things may be revealed or understood easier. On the other hand, it increases objectivity on the doctor's part, which is needed but when there is a personal matter, sometimes you'd want to see someone you know and have trust in.

[Shadoukun]

I think that there is nothing wrong with it.

This is what I hate about it.

[ltimm]

I'm pretty sure it's the person buying the insurence will pay less per year than the fine. So just buy it.

My gov't teacher says that the only reason people have a distrust in the government, is becuase they don't know how it works.

People say they don't like Congress. Yet, incumbents are re-elected about 90% of the time in both houses. If you don't like Congress then do something instead of just sitting there complaining.

Personally, I love Congress right now. Although, Democrats no longer have a super-majority :(, which saddens me. GO DEMOCRATS! and liberals

[Sapphire]

Also, as a patient, you'd get a different doctor each visit I think, which means that upon each visit, the doctor has to form a good rapport with the patient. If the patient sees the same doctor, then if this rapport is already established, certain things may be revealed or understood easier. On the other hand, it increases objectivity on the doctor's part, which is needed but when there is a personal matter, sometimes you'd want to see someone you know and have trust in.
Could it be that this is only when they go to hospital on isolated occasions (e.g. after a car crash, broken bones) and not for check-ups etc at the local doctors surgery or for on-going hospital treatment (e.g. chemotherapy)?

[Maverick]

I'm against everything. The claims that this healthcare bill is going to lower costs and benefit Americans is an outright fraud. If you want proof all you have to do is look at how the government has managed Medicare entitlements. All government budgetary projections of the program have exceeded and are going bankrupt.

Adding more Americans to the health insurance program will not lower costs and reduce the deficit. Inflated demand will never equal lower costs. The government has added yet another promise it will not be able to deliver. Just like the Medicare program this will be a complete disaster.

[Nickk XD]

The news crews and GOP have blown it out of proportion.

Not A LOT have been changed. Most people people will be effected very little and those who are effected will most likely be effected positively.

View the OBAMA Video (below). It is dead accurate and is delivered by Obama. Sometimes it may seem like taking it from the person who helped make it wouldn't be a good idea, but his video is accurate. I compared it to the specific facts available on their website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/22/what-change-looks

The above video wasn't what I was looking for. I watched a more detailed one earlier and will post it when I find it.

I am PRO REFORM.

[Antares]

I'm against everything. The claims that this healthcare bill is going to lower costs and benefit Americans is an outright fraud. If you want proof all you have to do is look at how the government has managed Medicare entitlements. All government budgetary projections of the program have exceeded and are going bankrupt.

Adding more Americans to the health insurance program will not lower costs and reduce the deficit. Inflated demand will never equal lower costs. The government has added yet another promise it will not be able to deliver. Just like the Medicare program this will be a complete disaster.

You're against 30 million people getting health insurance?
Reform that disallows bias on pre-existing conditions?
Against reform that basically makes all kids have health insurance?
Surely you cant be against everything.

[Nickk XD]

It's also a misconception that you can be fined or jailed.

They're going to reward those who get it, not punish those who don't.

[Raptor22]

Hey guys,

I was watching the view on hulu a couple mins ago and basically barbara basically said she doesn't really know why people don't like it (specifically...liek what parts of the bill people are against)

Specifically what parts of the bill are you guys all against?

The government cant even pay social security entitlements and is in the hole 37 trillion dollars to the American people with social security alone. Why do we need to give the American people more entitlements and bankrupt the government more?

Also by 2014 every American will be required to pay for healthcare, or be fined thousands of dollars. That really helps low income Americans...

The bill also includes Co-ops which will provide so much competition to the private sector that it will go out of business and everyone will be on the government plan.

People who are successful because of their own perseverance will be fined for having a better health plan than the Federal Government deems 'normal.'

The bill also includes a complete takeover of the student loan industry, why student loans are in a healthcare bill I have no idea.

The bill is also not enforced by the Health Department or the FDA as you would imagine, it is enforced by the IRS. Yes, the IRS. They are hiring 18,000 new agents just to search thru peoples health records and make sure they get fined if they cant afford healthcare in 2014.

Also the protections from government sponsored abortions did not go far enough, an executive order can be retracted at any time.

The bill also gives the federal government complete control over your health records and as an extension all of your other information.

The premise of the bill is good but all the extraneous shit is not...

[Maverick]

You're against 30 million people getting health insurance?
Reform that disallows bias on pre-existing conditions?
Against reform that basically makes all kids have health insurance?
Surely you cant be against everything.
30 million people getting health insurance is probably the worse part of this bill. While the intentions may be good for insuring people, it is the completely wrong way to go about it. The problem with today is that there is now an excess demand for insurance. Insurance didn't always used to be for everything. Before routine medical visits used to be paid for out of pocket at reasonable prices. Insurance was used for coverage for major medical procedures.

Entitlements will not lower costs. It did not work for Medicare and it won't work for healthcare. Spending is on an unsustainable path. I would have rather had the government take drastic action to reign in spending and its unfunded liabilities to a more sane course.

[dontknow2010]

What I don't like about it???

Let me see... 1.) that the government is forcing you to buy/get health insurance or else the IRS is going to fine you (increasing the size of the IRS by 16,500 agents and using $10 billion dollars that come from taxpayers) 2.) The backroom deals that Nebraska and Louisiana recieved (and others that are hidden in those 2000+ pages) 3.) that the economically stable people (upper middle class) that can afford health insurance, will pay more taxes or their premiums will go even higher and 4.) even though about 60% of the population didn't like the bill Congress went against the will of the people and passed it anyway.

[Nickk XD]

I was wrong in my post about them not charging people but rewarding them. There are penalties, but they're reasonable.

Citizens will be required to have acceptable coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 (or up to 2.5 percent of income) in 2016. Families will pay half the amount for children, up to a cap of $2,250 per family. After 2016, penalties are indexed to Consumer Price Index.

Not sure what you mean by thousands of dollars...

I found the video link I wanted by the way: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/23/health.care.timeline/index.html


Also by 2014 every American will be required to pay for healthcare, or be fined thousands of dollars. That really helps low income Americans...

[dontknow2010]

I was wrong in my post about them not charging people but rewarding them. There are penalties, but they're reasonable.

Citizens will be required to have acceptable coverage or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 (or up to 2.5 percent of income) in 2016. Families will pay half the amount for children, up to a cap of $2,250 per family. After 2016, penalties are indexed to Consumer Price Index.


My government teacher said this just the way u said it...

[Antares]

Also by 2014 every American will be required to pay for healthcare, or be fined thousands of dollars. That really helps low income Americans...


It is not thousands. It is actually the figures that Nick pointed out.

And the low income americans will most likely be on the governments health insurance plan, so they wont pay anyways. It mostly targets the rich people that don't have insurance plans.

[Nickk XD]

Let's put this into perspective.

Whenever someone DOES NOT have health insurance and visit a doctor and they have an inability to pay, someone has to pay for their services. Most doctors eventually will stop seeing you; however, in the United States all public health clinics and hospitals must see you, regardless of your ability to pay. If you had insurance you could pay for it (with a minor co pay or maybe even without a copay at all).

Whenever your bills aren't paid to your health practitioner, someone pays. Ever hear of taxes?

Also, the people who do not have insurance wouldn't be able to get the "free preventative care" that this plan provides. If you get preventative care, you're less likely to even really need your insurance; however, if you don't have preventative care...you get sick. That means you'll be using tax dollars in the hospital and you won't be allowed to work (which hurts the economy)...

It is a large domino effect.

[CaptainObvious]

30 million people getting health insurance is probably the worse part of this bill. While the intentions may be good for insuring people, it is the completely wrong way to go about it. The problem with today is that there is now an excess demand for insurance. Insurance didn't always used to be for everything. Before routine medical visits used to be paid for out of pocket at reasonable prices. Insurance was used for coverage for major medical procedures.

Today's health care is not the health care of generations past. Our evolution from barbarism and crude procedures to the much more refined and effective things we do today has carried with it a very large inflation of costs. It's a completely ridiculous thing to argue that we have excess demand for insurance today. Or rather, possibly there may be excess demand if you take into account merely market forces and do not correct for the economic and social externalities of insuring more of your population. Are you suggesting we should ignore those in the analysis? That is a limited way to analyze the issue.

Entitlements will not lower costs. It did not work for Medicare and it won't work for healthcare. Spending is on an unsustainable path. I would have rather had the government take drastic action to reign in spending and its unfunded liabilities to a more sane course.

America's health care costs are massive. Reform can certainly lower them. This will probably not lower them, but it is histrionic to think that it will sink the budget, too. Plus, does your extreme view on spending extend to all spending? Should the massive military budget be slashed? Health care is a vital service whose inefficient model of provision is hurting America. It's not just an "entitlement".

[Sage]

I don't like the bill because they took out my death panels and government-sponsored infanticide.

[kingpinnn]

I love the fact that congress FINALLY passed it. The bill has no flaws in it, every idea is perfect and will help many Americans........But, Obama's gonna have to raise taxes EVEN MORE just to finance the thing, 8 billion I think. I have no problem with Obama, but I just wish there was another way to pay for the thing.

are you stupid!!! this is a government takeover of health care...it will cause the health care companies to go bankrupt and then when that happens the democrats will come in saying people need public option...that is their plan...there will be 16,500 jobs added to the IRS every month just to make sure people are doing what the government tells them. there will be committees that decide if you have adequate health insurance, if you are dying the government will tell you what medicine to take, there are over 500 billion dollars in new taxes...idk where you are getting the small number of 8 billion...the rich already pay most of our taxes so don't need any more, and if you tax the job creators then those people will have to cut jobs...and tell me one thing the government does well with the economy and then tell me if you trust them with your health care...the caused the recession with the sub-prime mortgage industry, not the banks...whenever the government gets involved with the economy they screw it up because they don't know what's going on. the main reason health care costs are rising is because the technology costs more, the DEA and FDA are heavily regulating the industry which decreases competition, and the superfluous suing causes the doctors to do so much preventive medicine to make sure they don't get sued that it drives the cost up...i welcome debate on this because i love proving people wrong...i know my facts, and my history...if you are for this bill you either don't know what it does or you don't know your facts and you don't know your history.

[Iron Man]

I don`t like the fact that you have to pay for it. I don`t have it right now because I can`t afford it. I think this bill had a lot of heart but it isn`t becoming fair. A lot of people are going to be broke because of it.

[dontknow2010]

I have no problem with Obama, but I just wish there was another way to pay for the thing.

Here's another way... giving our country away to China by borrowing more money from them and we don't want to do that.

[Sapphire]

Kingpinn, show me where the government have proposed that they will control health care provision.

From what I have seen of the Bill, it is clear that there are government health care plans and non-government health care plans. This can be seen by the assertion in the Bill that public health insurance will be available alongside private health insurance.

I'm also wondering how you figured this would bankrupt health care companies.
People are always going to need health care and ensuring that everyone has insurance is one way of paying for that health care.
How do you figure that is a bad thing financially for the providers of health care?

[kingpinnn]

Kingpinn, show me where the government have proposed that they will control health care provision.

From what I have seen of the Bill, it is clear that there are government health care plans and non-government health care plans. This can be seen by the assertion in the Bill that public health insurance will be available alongside private health insurance.

I'm also wondering how you figured this would bankrupt health care companies.
People are always going to need health care and ensuring that everyone has insurance is one way of paying for that health care.
How do you figure that is a bad thing financially for the providers of health care?

1) they will audit all self-insured individuals, and monitor all health insurance plans including those given by companies to make sue the meet government standards. the problem with the public option is that it is funded by the government and therefor has no cost control it can run the private sector out of business.

2) it would bankrupt the companies by making them take very sick people that need very expensive treatments...they are going to cap how high rates can be set and therefor limiting how much revenue the insurance companies can make...this will lead to a deficit, and eventually bankruptcy.

3) there is not one thing the government can do that the private sector can't do better for less...if you decrease regulation then insurance companies can compete allowing for lower costs...people with pre-existing conditions can get medicaid, but right now medicaid sucks...we must reform medicare and Medicaid and social security, that is where people with pre-existing conditions will get help, or from charity.

[CaptainObvious]

3) there is not one thing the government can do that the private sector can't do better for less...

I'm going to respond to the rest of your morass of incorrect statements later, but this one is too ridiculous to let stand. There are many things the government can do better than the private sector. I'll give you a partial list:

Roads
Lighthouses
National Defense
Environmental Protection

and a myriad of other goods that are either nonrival and nonexcludable, or have significant associated positive externalities. The more you post, the more you reveal your apparent lack of actual economic education.

[kingpinnn]

I'm going to respond to the rest of your morass of incorrect statements later, but this one is too ridiculous to let stand. There are many things the government can do better than the private sector. I'll give you a partial list:

Roads
Lighthouses
National Defense
Environmental Protection

and a myriad of other goods that are either nonrival and nonexcludable, or have significant associated positive externalities. The more you post, the more you reveal your apparent lack of actual economic education.

sorry i didn't clarify...i meant thee is nothing the government does well in the economic sector, and there is nothing it does in the economy that the private sector does better...for example the sub-prime mortgage industry which was created by the government destroyed the housing market and caused the housing bubble that is ultimately responsible for the recession...and please, if you are going to call my arguments stupid them say why and make a good argument.

don't tell me i know nothing of the economy, the fact you think the government does well in the private sector shows the lack of intelligence you have concerning the economy and the lack of knowledge of history.


please dont double post-Regulus

[quartermaster]

I'm going to respond to the rest of your morass of incorrect statements later, but this one is too ridiculous to let stand. There are many things the government can do better than the private sector. I'll give you a partial list:

Roads
Lighthouses
Environmental Protection

Prove it.

I will concede national defense, only because a debate about PDAs would only end in headache.

You may pray to the temple of government action, but do not proceed to call something "ridiculous" because it exceeds your scope of comprehension.


and a myriad of other goods that are either nonrival

such as?


and nonexcludable,

such as?


or have significant associated positive externalities.

such as?


The more you post, the more you reveal your apparent lack of actual economic education.

Ah, economic education, what does that mean anyway? Someone who does not accept the limited scope of the Keynesian-Monetarist paradigm, as taught in American schools?

[Raptor22]

It is not thousands. It is actually the figures that Nick pointed out.

And the low income americans will most likely be on the governments health insurance plan, so they wont pay anyways. It mostly targets the rich people that don't have insurance plans.

Yes they will, the government plan is not free, its cheap. But cheap is still more expensive than not having insurance, and for someone who is 25 years old and healthy, why do they need to pay anything at all?

If rich people dont have insurance plans thats probably part of the reason they are rich in the first place. They didnt blow their money, the used it wisely and built wealth for themselves, but instead those people will be fined for the government. I just love how this nation is capitalist yet penalizes success and believes the government can do everything better than private sector competition. Its ludicrous...

I'm going to respond to the rest of your morass of incorrect statements later, but this one is too ridiculous to let stand. There are many things the government can do better than the private sector. I'll give you a partial list:

Roads
Which is why my town has been contracting out large road construction projects for years, at this rate they will dissolve the entire streets crew.
Lighthouses
Wow, lighthouses. Im sure the shipping companies would also become quite good at operating lighthouses considering their business kind of depends on them.
National Defense
Which is totally why we hire so many defense contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes the government is good at national defense, but there is room for the private sector.
Environmental Protection
Maybe because nobody in the private sector really cares...

and a myriad of other goods that are either nonrival and nonexcludable, or have significant associated positive externalities. The more you post, the more you reveal your apparent lack of actual economic education.

Responses in red.

[CaptainObvious]

...your responses were meaningless.

Road construction may be private, and that is totally reasonable; road ownership is what I was talking about. While some highways may be privately owned and tolled, normal roads are more or less an inevitably public good.

As for lighthouses, maybe shipping companies would help but maybe they'd just build a transponder or something. The point of a lighthouse is its provision of safety to everyone; what private company is willing to provide that kind of free service at a socially efficient level?

National defense, you completely miss the point again. There may be private defense contractors, but the government still marshals the national defense and employs such companies in at best limited support roles. You ever think the Intelligence Community could be implemented privately? Or missile defense of the nation? Don't think so.

And as for environmental protection, you completely prove my point.

Please go read up on the economics of public goods, you're clearly not grasping what I'm saying.

[Raptor22]

...your responses were meaningless.

Road construction may be private, and that is totally reasonable; road ownership is what I was talking about. While some highways may be privately owned and tolled, normal roads are more or less an inevitably public good.

There are many housing tracts that raise association dues for road construction and maintenance and are independent from their local municipality.

As for lighthouses, maybe shipping companies would help but maybe they'd just build a transponder or something. The point of a lighthouse is its provision of safety to everyone; what private company is willing to provide that kind of free service at a socially efficient level?

Well if a shipping company can do it better without the use of lighthouses, why do we need them? Eliminate waste and redundancies. Sure they look pretty but they also cost money...

National defense, you completely miss the point again. There may be private defense contractors, but the government still marshals the national defense and employs such companies in at best limited support roles. You ever think the Intelligence Community could be implemented privately? Or missile defense of the nation? Don't think so.

Yeah, I understand that. I agree with you even. However, just because the government plays a big role in a small part of our lives, that does not mean that they are welcome to play a big role in every part of our lives.

And as for environmental protection, you completely prove my point.

I'm with this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Please go read up on the economics of public goods, you're clearly not grasping what I'm saying.

Responses in red.

Competition always fosters development, elimination of competition always stagnates it....

[CaptainObvious]

Please do me the courtesy of actually quoting when you're responding; having to dig out your red text is an annoying waste of time.

There are many housing tracts that raise association dues for road construction and maintenance and are independent from their local municipality.

Did you actually not read what I wrote? I am not talking about road construction and maintenance. Do I have to say it a few more times for you? I'm talking about road ownership and operation.

Well if a shipping company can do it better without the use of lighthouses, why do we need them? Eliminate waste and redundancies. Sure they look pretty but they also cost money...

...you just precisely proved my point. Lighthouses are important because they provide safety to everyone who is on the water after dark. Because they are non-excludable and non-rivalrous, they are a perfect example of a public good. If you leave it to the private market to provide lighthouses, there will be too few lighthouses to reach utility optimality, as a result of non-inclusion of the exernalities associated.

I'm not arguing against the market here; these are very simple results that anyone who has gotten past intro microeconomics - which apparently does not include you - knows.

Prove it.

I will concede national defense, only because a debate about PDAs would only end in headache.

You concede national defense not because it would end in a headache but because it would end in a loss of the argument. The PDA concept is one that lives legitimately only in the minds of those who are entirely unable or unwilling to grasp the practical obstacles that make such idealized competition in every industry not workable in real life. Though I suppose maybe you conflate the two, and that might be reasonable.

As for "prove it", since I am in fact responding to his assertion that there is nothing the government can do better than the private sector, the burden of proof is not upon me. Not that I would drag us off down that path anyways since it's a transparently useless attempt to defeat the argument by forcing examination of every axiom in a sort of argumentative war of attrition. In any case, if you'd like to discuss provision of goods with associated externalities at length, start a thread and I'll be happy to engage with you on the subject.

You may pray to the temple of government action, but do not proceed to call something "ridiculous" because it exceeds your scope of comprehension.

I dismiss his arguments - and do remember, I called a very specific set of things said by kingpinn ridiculous, I was making no broad statements - because they are ridiculous.

He asserted that the public option had no cost control. Factually, that has been false in every incarnation of a public option proposed this session of Congress. So that's ridiculous.

He further asserted that insurance companies would be bankrupted, which is equally ridiculous, and then the third assertion I've expanded on at length.

As for praying, the only person here who comes close to that level of blind devotion to ideology is you and your extreme devotion to the free market. Admirable in many circumstances and to be sought in a wide variety of areas, unfettered competition is not always superior.

Ah, economic education, what does that mean anyway? Someone who does not accept the limited scope of the Keynesian-Monetarist paradigm, as taught in American schools?

...wow. This sort of reinforces what I just said about you and blind devotion. We're talking microeconomics, in this particular sub-argument. Keynesian, Monetarist or any competing ideology are macroeconomic and entirely unrelated to what we are discussing here. But by all means, keep railing against the horrible status quo! You apparently enjoy it, at a serious cost to the relevancy of your argument.

sorry i didn't clarify...i meant thee is nothing the government does well in the economic sector, and there is nothing it does in the economy that the private sector does better...for example the sub-prime mortgage industry which was created by the government destroyed the housing market and caused the housing bubble that is ultimately responsible for the recession...and please, if you are going to call my arguments stupid them say why and make a good argument.

Your clarification makes your argument no less wrong than it was before. In fact it's worse, since your first sentence is directly contradictory (look at the bolded and italicized parts to see the contradiction). Assuming you meant that there is nothing that the government does that the private sector couldn't do better, I have already noted that that is an absurd statement in a number of cases of public goods. So, I already said why your argument is stupid.

Your other arguments are wrong for different reasons.

the problem with the public option is that it is funded by the government and therefor has no cost control it can run the private sector out of business.

This is flatly wrong. A public option, if implemented as planned in earlier versions of the bill, would be revenue-neutral by statute.

2) it would bankrupt the companies by making them take very sick people that need very expensive treatments...they are going to cap how high rates can be set and therefor limiting how much revenue the insurance companies can make...this will lead to a deficit, and eventually bankruptcy.

This one is wrong because insurance companies are among the most profitable companies in America. To claim that the increase in people they will be forced to cover will bankrupt them is ridiculous, even if you ignore the fact that the mandated expansion of their customer base - an expansion that will include a disproportionately large number of young, healthy people who currently might be more willing to opt for not having insurance to offset the newly covered sick people - will drive up revenues and profits in and of itself.

If you have projections that show otherwise, feel free to provide them.

don't tell me i know nothing of the economy, the fact you think the government does well in the private sector shows the lack of intelligence you have concerning the economy and the lack of knowledge of history.

I didn't tell you you knew "nothing" of the economy, but you apparently know little. Aside from the fact that I suspect your economic education is minimal - and feel free to correct me by sharing with us what education you have in microeconomic and/or macroeconomic theory, econometrics or related disciplines - you also entirely misidentify my argument. The government, generally, is inefficient in comparison to a well-functioning market. However, for some goods a well-functioning market requires either some amount of government intervention to deal with externalities, or outright government provision to reach a socially efficient market equilibrium. I do not propose that the government is always more efficient, or even that it is mostly or frequently more efficient. But it is undeniably sometimes so.

[Nickk XD]

Most people who don't have it (because they can't afford it) will be offered Medicaid by the US government for free.

I don`t like the fact that you have to pay for it. I don`t have it right now because I can`t afford it. I think this bill had a lot of heart but it isn`t becoming fair. A lot of people are going to be broke because of it.

[kingpinnn]

Most people who don't have it (because they can't afford it) will be offered Medicaid by the US government for free.

if you honestly think medicaid is free, then you are one of the stupidest people on VT...medicaid gets paid for by every taxpayer.

[Peace God]

I feel like i shouldn't be joining this debate because I have very little knowledge about our economy, the medical industry, or the bill itself for that matter.

However, as messed up some parts of the bill might seem I'm glad it was passed and I don’t think that universal healthcare is too much to ask for. I'm not that concerned about the economic repercussions, well because we are already in shit, why not waste more money on improving American lives?
Basically what I'm trying to say is… fuck the money, increasing the quality of life for all citizens should be our number one priority.

And maybe we would have more money if the gov't didn't waste trillions on killing people overseas(1 (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1868367,00.html),2 (http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/24/news/economy/cbo_testimony/index.htm)) or incarcerating 7 million American citizens(3 (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/02/record.prison.population/index.html),4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)), or maybe if the wealthiest 1% of the nation didnt own more than the bottom 85%~95% of the population... COMBINED!!!(5 (http://afgen.com/feudal2.html))

...but then again what do I know?

[Antares]

if you honestly think medicaid is free, then you are one of the stupidest people on VT...medicaid gets paid for by every taxpayer.

You full and well know what he was referring to.
Medicaid is free for the individual person up front and that is what he was trying to say. He knows that it is paid for by the government which is basically the taxpayers.
He is right about that and is not the stupidest person on VT just because he said something that is true.

[quartermaster]

You concede national defense not because it would end in a headache but because it would end in a loss of the argument.


Strong words, but no less incorrect. Tell me, my friend, how much research have you actually done on these PDAs? How many competing theories of the inner workings of these PDAs have you read and considered with a detached frame of reference? How much have you analyzed the functionality of a PDA arbiter? Rothbard's arguments, in particular, are not only intriguing but also plausible for a so-called "free-society."


The PDA concept is one that lives legitimately only in the minds of those who are entirely unable or unwilling to grasp the practical obstacles that make such idealized competition in every industry not workable in real life.

Again, more dribble unsupported by any actual analysis, or facts for that matter; you have no actual basis for such a statement. There are many obstacles that thinkers such as Rothbard explore and attempt to mitigate, but of course, you have placed yourself in the untenable position of not actually having done the suitable research to make such claims. There are "practical obstacles" to all things, but when you constrain your thinking from alternative possibilities or reject the existence of market mitigation, you create something of a false dichotomy; indeed, much of the arguments against PDAs are false dichotomies.


As for "prove it", since I am in fact responding to his assertion that there is nothing the government can do better than the private sector, the burden of proof is not upon me.

Quite right, but as you have evidently figured out, it was much less an actual attempt at making you "prove it," as it was an apparent challenge to your claim; such claims cannot, by rule, be “proven.”


In any case, if you'd like to discuss provision of goods with associated externalities at length, start a thread and I'll be happy to engage with you on the subject.

No, I much prefer to hijack threads and use them to meet my own ends.


As for praying, the only person here who comes close to that level of blind devotion to ideology is you and your extreme devotion to the free market.


Blind devotion? You can garner no such examples of "blind devotion," as I thoroughly explain why I believe what I do. I believe in the free-market insofar as I see it as the best means to our ends as a human race. If there is a system that works "better" or wields "better" results, as I see it, I would support such a system, but the facts have shown that the free-market is the best system, so far discovered, to ensure prosperity. Again, there is no blind devotion involved with supporting a system that has shown to wield the best results. It is consequentialism, my friend, not dogmatic loyalty as many statists engage in.

The only things I am "blindly" devoted to is the nonaggression axiom and the campaign to limit coercion wherever possible; the movements towards, what I argue, a more "free" society of voluntarism. I admit to such "blind" devotion, as it is a moral stance of what is "good" and "just," which can never be supported with sound postulates (but, instead, warrants), however, you will find no such devotion in my advocacy of the free-market, which is strictly consequentialist in my endorsement.


...wow. This sort of reinforces what I just said about you and blind devotion.


Again, do explain, because your original lines of reasoning in regards to such "devotion" are deficient, to say the least.


We're talking microeconomics, in this particular sub-argument. Keynesian, Monetarist or any competing ideology are macroeconomic and entirely unrelated to what we are discussing here. But by all means, keep railing against the horrible status quo! You apparently enjoy it, at a serious cost to the relevancy of your argument.


haha, this is laughable! You should be well aware that the different schools of economic thought have different axiomatic approaches to microeconomic theory. A member of the Austrian school would never approach microeconomics the same way a Keynesian would, whereas a Monetarist would use the same "template" as a Keynesian, but that is not to say he would come up with the same conclusion(s). Moreover, there are different microeconomic theories (such as the theory of cardinal utility) that are not even accepted by all schools of thought. My argument is no less effective because of your folly in reasoning.

Lastly, it would be prudent to examine your post to truly assess the relevancy of my response:


There are many things the government can do better than the private sector. I'll give you a partial list:

Roads
Lighthouses
National Defense
Environmental Protection

and a myriad of other goods that are either nonrival and nonexcludable, or have significant associated positive externalities. The more you post, the more you reveal your apparent lack of actual economic education.



As I understand it, your last sentence (which is the one I addressed) was in response to what goods and services the government is more apt at supplying. Such an argument, such as lighthouses are better supplied by the government, encompasses the analysis of many competing schools of economic thought, in regards to microeconomic theory. Moreover, these schools would have different axioms for why such a statement regarding lighthouses, roads etc. may or may not be true; or more accurately, what result public or private ownership of a good would have on overall usefulness, efficiency etc. Indeed, even in framing the scope of your argument, you can see that my post is most apropos.

[Nickk XD]

Ok everyone...I'm responding to the most ridiculous posts I've found. I hope I respond clearly, if not...ask me to clarify. By the way, no one is following this health care reform more than me. I'll start by a very short, personal story.

My mom was recently dropped by her insurance company because she got a condition...it wasn't even a verified condition...just a potential condition. The doctor told her she had pre-diabetes type 2. This meant it could happen if she didn't do so massive changes. She did those changes and the tests came back that she was doing really well and that she didn't need any further treatment. Well, let's go back to the day the doctor ordered tests that said she had Pre-diabetes type 2. THAT day, when the doctor reported the information for billing to her insurance company (which was like Aflack or something similar through her employer) she was dropped IMMEDIATELY. They wouldn't even pay for that existing bill for the original lab tests, which totaled $235.90. She provided them proof about 6 months later that her condition improved. She got doctor's notes and everything. They still refuse to reinstate her insurance (which includes my insurance and my father's...as we're all on the same plan). We tried to go to another company and the company that dropped us reported to them that she had an "existing condition" and so every provider we have tried to get insurance through has denied us, as long as we keep my mom on the plan. With the Obama Administration's Plan, as early as this December, we will be able to get our same insurance back without any fear of being dropped.

OK...the Obama Healthcare Reform plan is NOT controlling private insurance companies as you may think. He set a list of guidelines they must follow. You must follow rules at school, don't you? They are basically a set of standards. If they fail to follow them, they're penalized. Private businesses, like the one I work for, will qualify for affordable health care because of tax cuts.

Several economists have said that the health care reform plan could actually improve the economy. Healthy Employees make for a healthy business. If they can see the doctor to avoid problems, then they can work and the employer won't have to pay someone else to work for them.

For all of you doubting the good legitimate system known as Medicaid, it is free...with some limitations. Don't you think it is fair that the wealthy Americans pay for the insurance of the poorer Americans? The amount they charge is insignificant to anyone's paycheck. If every American gave $1.00 per pay check...wow, we'd have $600,000 or so per month. Medicaid is an insurance for the poorer population while Medicare is simply for the older. We don't have an actual system that charges people on their taxes nor pay check that pays for medicaid...actually. There is no "medicaid tax". There is a "medicare" tax...but that goes for the older people...so...where are we actually charging the common people for medicaid...I'm actually not quite sure.

Oh, by the way Mr. Kingpinnn...if you don't truly know what you're talking about...you should go away. That would be significantly helpful to me and all of the other users.

I didn't manage to respond to every dumb post in this thread like I wanted to, but I basically reiterated the FACTS. I'll continue to review this post for new posts and correct them with the legit TRUE information...because right now this thread has formulated a lot of BS.

[Nickk XD]

This statement is BS...the government will not become a communist state and control every little aspect of insurance.

I do agree that the bill does have flaws, but what bill does not? I'm not sure if I know of anything that has no flaws.

are you stupid!!! this is a government takeover of health care...it will cause the health care companies to go bankrupt and then when that happens the democrats will come in saying people need public option...that is their plan...there will be 16,500 jobs added to the IRS every month just to make sure people are doing what the government tells them. there will be committees that decide if you have adequate health insurance, if you are dying the government will tell you what medicine to take, there are over 500 billion dollars in new taxes...idk where you are getting the small number of 8 billion...the rich already pay most of our taxes so don't need any more, and if you tax the job creators then those people will have to cut jobs...and tell me one thing the government does well with the economy and then tell me if you trust them with your health care...the caused the recession with the sub-prime mortgage industry, not the banks...whenever the government gets involved with the economy they screw it up because they don't know what's going on. the main reason health care costs are rising is because the technology costs more, the DEA and FDA are heavily regulating the industry which decreases competition, and the superfluous suing causes the doctors to do so much preventive medicine to make sure they don't get sued that it drives the cost up...i welcome debate on this because i love proving people wrong...i know my facts, and my history...if you are for this bill you either don't know what it does or you don't know your facts and you don't know your history.

[kingpinnn]

This statement is BS...the government will not become a communist state and control every little aspect of insurance.

I do agree that the bill does have flaws, but what bill does not? I'm not sure if I know of anything that has no flaws.

this bill is one big mistake, and it will allow the government to infiltrate almost every aspect of your medical life...tell me one thing the government does well in the economy. and then tell me if you trust them with your health insurance.

[kingpinnn]

It's a near-universal assumption of the healthcare debate that the current system is a market system and it is broken, and hence we should try a government system. The people who assume this aren't considering the last 100 years of healthcare policy. Government is deeply involved at all levels, from medical licensure and patents, to direct subsidies and provision, to employee mandates and insurance-pooling controls, at all levels.

It's been a steady path to medical serfdom all the way, under both parties, and this is precisely what accounts for most of the problems that people complain about. Meanwhile, the private dimensions of the healthcare system are what accounts for its merits.

So what are we doing? The very opposite of what we should be doing: more control instead of more freedom, more spending instead of less, more mandates instead of fewer. The logic of interventionism is taking over: problems are being addressed by more of what caused the problems. The sick patient is being given more poison with the claim that it is the cure.

go to mises institute

[Richthegamer99]

It run by the goverment and you have to buy it

[Nickk XD]

NO, you don't HAVE to buy anything. If you just do not want to, pay the government the annual premium for "lack of insurance" which has been quoted earlier in this thread.

Also, people who cannot afford insurance will be able to get free insurance.

LET'S FACE IT. It is LAW. It has been passed. It isn't going anywhere. They do not have the numbers to repeal it, yet. If it is repealed, it will be reinstated with MINOR changes.

This is the email I got from Obama For America this afternoon:

From Obama For America California Branch:

Nick --

Ever wanted a quick explanation of how health reform will benefit California to share with friends and family?

We made this one-of-a-kind customized video to do just that. Watch now. (http://my.barackobama.com/whatitmeans8?state=CA&[email protected])

Opponents of reform are already calling for its repeal -- and spreading outrageous lies about what it means for America.

We can't let them tear down public support for reform.Share this link with everyone you know so they can get the truth about how many people in their state will benefit from reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/WhatItMeans (http://my.barackobama.com/whatitmeans8?state=CA&[email protected])

Thanks,

Natalie

Natalie Foster
New Media Director

**The above video(s) and links apply specifically to California. Everyone who is an Obama For America supporter received an email CUSTOMIZED to how it would help their state, specifically. Most of the policies are the same for each state.

It run by the goverment and you have to buy it

[Richthegamer99]

you have to buy it or you will go to jail

[Nickk XD]

For heavens sake...NO YOU WILL NOT.

It is added to your taxes. People who do not pay taxes can go to jail...but that's because you have to pay taxes. The health care reform will not send people to jail.

People who do not pay taxes/do not file taxes will most likely qualify for free health care so they won't be responsible for any fees.

This is only the 5th time I've responded to a post just like this (was another one by you?)...please read the rest of the thread before posting.


you have to buy it or you will go to jail

[Richthegamer99]

there you go you have to buy it in your taxes

[dontknow2010]

you have to buy it or you will go to jail

As many people have said, you will not go to jail... it will only be a fee imposed by the IRS.



Also, people who cannot afford insurance will be able to get free insurance.


**The above video(s) and links apply specifically to California. Everyone who is an Obama For America supporter received an email CUSTOMIZED to how it would help their state, specifically. Most of the policies are the same for each state.


Its not really free as taxpayers contribute to Medicare/Medicaid so it's still coming out of people's pockets.

Watched the vid... nice.... but it didn't highlight all of the costs that the bill was going to bring to California (which is almost bankrupt). It should've shown both sides.

[Nickk XD]

You know what I mean. Free is defined by the people receiving is not paying.

The fees will not effect California's economy nor the debt. It's a federal thing.

The money the state has is not related to the money the U.S. does or doesn't have.

I hope Meg Whitman will become Governor this year...I kinda like her. She stands for good things. She has experience which is necessary to rebuild the state. She knows how to balance check books and do more things with less money (as companies, like eBay, try to do every day). I'm a solid democrat...but I would definitely support her, a Republican.


Its not really free as taxpayers contribute to Medicare/Medicaid so it's still coming out of people's pockets.

Watched the vid... nice.... but it didn't highlight all of the costs that the bill was going to bring to California (which is almost bankrupt). It should've shown both sides.

[Richthegamer99]

you will be fee and if you don't pay the fee becuase you don't want heathcare then you go to jail so you still have to buy it

[dontknow2010]

I hope Meg Whitman will become Governor this year...I kinda like her. She stands for good things. She has experience which is necessary to rebuild the state. She knows how to balance check books and do more things with less money (as companies, like eBay, try to do every day). I'm a solid democrat...but I would definitely support her, a Republican.

What a coincidence... me too. If she makes it to the general election in november (she probably will since the polls show she's beating Poizner) I'm voting for her (since I'm turning 18 this year). If she could do the same thing with eBay... then California will return to the great state it used to be :D and she's using her own money for her campaign... how sweet is that??? She isn't asking for money like the rest.

[Nickk XD]

You're driving me absolutely crazy.

You WILL pay the fee. Most people will already have healthcare and not be paying a fee. The percentage of people effected by this fee is currently set at about 2%...YOU WILL MOST LIKELY NOT BE EFFECTED.

Do you think it is fair that us, the tax payers, have to pay your medical bills because you don't have insurance? Most people that have outstanding medical bills NEVER pay them due to the extraordinary costs. I went to the doctor once without insurance and it totaled $233 just for talking with the doctor for 10 min...we were reviewing tests. Do you think it is fair that doctors that don't get paid can risk their jobs (because they may close if they don't make money because you don't pay medical bills)? Some doctors risk their jobs and still see patients without insurance. SOME doctors now even require insurance to be seen at all...


you will be fee and if you don't pay the fee becuase you don't want heathcare then you go to jail so you still have to buy it

[Richthegamer99]

IF i don't want heath care i didn't pay the fee so i go to jail YOU have to buy it or will will go to jail even it you don't use it you pay for it so that mean i buy heathcare for someone other then me like social secuity it a nother it going to go backruppet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u6cKd3WCIU

[Raptor22]

For heavens sake...NO YOU WILL NOT.

It is added to your taxes. People who do not pay taxes can go to jail...but that's because you have to pay taxes. The health care reform will not send people to jail.

People who do not pay taxes/do not file taxes will most likely qualify for free health care so they won't be responsible for any fees.

This is only the 5th time I've responded to a post just like this (was another one by you?)...please read the rest of the thread before posting.

Because we all love paying more fucking taxes. I work my ass off to make something for myself and my family and then uncle same extends a giant "FUCK YOU" and says that I have to buy Joe Budweiser trailer park loser and his eight fucked up bumpkin kids healthcare because Joe doesnt want to get off his ass and work. There is something inherently wrong with that. Especially when I wont even be paying for my own healthcare from the government because I get it from my job anyways....

Why do I have to pay for your's or anyone elses shit....?:what:

[dead]

IF i don't want heath care i didn't pay the fee so i go to jail YOU have to buy it or will will go to jail even it you don't use it you pay for it so that mean i buy heathcare for someone other then me like social secuity it a nother it going to go backruppet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u6cKd3WCIU

Certain areas already in this country you need to buy Health care.

Because we all love paying more fucking taxes. I work my ass off to make something for myself and my family and then uncle same extends a giant "FUCK YOU" and says that I have to buy Joe Budweiser trailer park loser and his eight fucked up bumpkin kids healthcare because Joe doesnt want to get off his ass and work. There is something inherently wrong with that. Especially when I wont even be paying for my own healthcare from the government because I get it from my job anyways....

Why do I have to pay for your's or anyone elses shit....?:what:

Thats not the reason why they have this bill. Healthcare Companies can Deny from covering you if you have a preexisting condition, For example Cancer, heart disorders, and plenty of other things aswell. Would you like that to happen to you?

[Nickk XD]

Because if everyone gives a little, everyone else gets a lot.

There will be a point in your life in which you will rely on the government for something (whether it be Medicare or social security) and that will be the point at which you say "thank god for taxes".

Because we all love paying more fucking taxes. I work my ass off to make something for myself and my family and then uncle same extends a giant "FUCK YOU" and says that I have to buy Joe Budweiser trailer park loser and his eight fucked up bumpkin kids healthcare because Joe doesnt want to get off his ass and work. There is something inherently wrong with that. Especially when I wont even be paying for my own healthcare from the government because I get it from my job anyways....

Why do I have to pay for your's or anyone elses shit....?:what:

Yep, Massachusetts comes to mind...there you already are on socialized medicine and you have to pay a penalty of you do not have it.

Everyone needs to think about the bigger picture. The bill covers much much more than just charging/forcing people for health care...

Certain areas already in this country you need to buy Health care.



Thats not the reason why they have this bill. Healthcare Companies can Deny from covering you if you have a preexisting condition, For example Cancer, heart disorders, and plenty of other things aswell. Would you like that to happen to you?

This time I received an email from Joe Biden (well, not directly FROM him, but from one of his secretaries who is in charge of Obama For America)...this is what the email says:

Nick --

Two weeks after it was signed into law, health insurance reform is still the talk of the town.

It's for a good reason: This was a historic accomplishment. But it wasn't easy. I remember what it's like to be a senator and take a tough stand on an issue -- confident that it's the best thing for your constituents, but equally sure that special interests will pour buckets of money into attacking you for it.

Your senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, did just that when they supported health reform. Now, we need to provide a line of defense money can't buy: the voices of real constituents speaking out and showing their support.

That's where you come in. Do you have three minutes to jot down a quick letter to your local newspaper? If you need ideas on what to say, you can watch a quick video Organizing for America put together about how reform will benefit California.

Click here to get started. (http://my.barackobama.com/SenateThank4?state=CA)

Believe me, senators and their staff read the letters page -- because they know just how influential it can be. Your letter could make a tremendous difference.

In my conversations with my old colleagues, I made it clear that this White House was prepared to back them up -- that no barrage of partisan attack ads would go unanswered. But to follow through, I'm going to need some help from folks like you.

This legislation will put Americans in control of their own health care, rein in insurance-company abuses, and give millions of Americans access to affordable health care for the first time.

Special interests know that in the coming months, all their lies about reform will be proven false. But that won't stop them from inventing new ones and spreading attack ads.

It's just the first step, but one letter from a constituent is worth a hundred paid advertisements. So please make sure your friends and neighbors understand the benefits this law will bring to ordinary Americans -- take three minutes and write a paragraph or two now:

http://my.barackobama.com/SenateThank (http://my.barackobama.com/SenateThank4?state=CA)

Thanks,

Vice President Joe Biden

P.S. -- Not only is Sen. Barbara Boxer facing special interest attacks, but an election looms this fall, and Republicans have pledged to repeal the reform we fought so hard for. We need Sen. Barbara Boxer in Washington -- will you pledge to volunteer for Sen. Barbara Boxer's re-election fight?

http://my.barackobama.com/YouFightWeFight (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/55c104a9/6c56a926/ecaab05c/118874cc/3926625217/VEsH/)


Just thought I'd keep you all up to date on what's going on in the democrats minds...thank god they have a great campaign.

[Richthegamer99]

Hey it MY money not their money THEY have NO right to take MY money

[Nickk XD]

Then when you're able to...move to another country with fewer taxes...doubt you will find one. The United States is one of the countries with the fewest taxes.

Try moving to Canada where the average citizen is paying about 60% of their pay check in taxes. That means that they work for January to June for the government...so basically for 5 months they work for the government.

In the United States, about 25-30% of our monthly checks are dedicated to taxes. That means you work about 2.5 months for the government.

Usually, once a country gets to 50% taxes, they rebel...not sure what's up with Canada...but they seem to be pretty happy and peaceful.


Hey it MY money not their money THEY have NO right to take MY money

[Richthegamer99]

Then when you're able to...move to another country with fewer taxes...doubt you will find one. The United States is one of the countries with the fewest taxes.

Try moving to Canada where the average citizen is paying about 60% of their pay check in taxes. That means that they work for January to June for the government...so basically for 5 months they work for the government.

In the United States, about 25-30% of our monthly checks are dedicated to taxes. That means you work about 2.5 months for the government.

Usually, once a country gets to 50% taxes, they rebel...not sure what's up with Canada...but they seem to be pretty happy and peaceful.


You just don't under stand it MY money MY money NOT the goverments
I worked for MY money and the goverment takes it away and plus way should i pay the goverment if there just going to blow it off for something useless

[dead]

You just don't under stand it MY money MY money NOT the goverments
I worked for MY money and the goverment takes it away and plus way should i pay the goverment if there just going to blow it off for something useless

Then Move outta the country. 'cause this how the system works here.

[Nickk XD]

Well, looking at your age, you probably don't have any "MY money" as you refer to it...

So really this doesn't apply to you.

When you learn about how governments work and how they're successful, then come back here and try to complain.

Until then, I'm not responding to further posts by you.

You just don't under stand it MY money MY money NOT the goverments
I worked for MY money and the goverment takes it away and plus way should i pay the goverment if there just going to blow it off for something useless

[kingpinnn]

Then Move outta the country. 'cause this how the system works here.

taxes are taxes, it is necessary to have taxes so the federal government can do what it is supposed to do, which is national defense, foreign policy, and most international affairs. it is not the federal government's job to tell people how to spend their money, and make them be an active participant in the economy. the Unites States has some of the highest taxes in the world, but we also have one of the most (sorry...used to have one of the most) capitalistic economies in the world which help us. with this health care bill, it will make people buy health insurance, if they don't they will pay a fine. the philosophy in this country was that if you don't like the system in one state, you can move to another, because each state, for the most part, had it's own economic system with the same base but with different details (new york and Texas for example), but because the federal government has expanded its role in society you can no longer just move to another state...if you want it different you must move out of the country which i find a ridiculous philosophy. the system you are thinking of is the system of the progressive agenda, not of the founding fathers and the agenda of the common people. Benjamin Franklin once said, "For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." i completely agree...you will see, if you look at other examples in other countries, and in history, that the more things you give to the poor, the more poor there will be. i know you are going to say we have a lot of poor people, but if you lookat the conditions of poor people in our country, and the conditions of poor people in other countries you can hardly say we have a lot of poverty people...a lot of our poverty live better than middle class in other areas.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Ok, I heard this from a teacher and I agree whole-heartedly with him. We as Americans are close to cracking the human genome. Well not really but lets say we do. If we leave that kind of info in the hands of the health insurance companies. We'd be fucked, and Im being serious. They'd be able to deny us coverage, before we were got sick! So for those who love the old system. Would you want the health insurance companies looking at you genetic material. And would you want them to deny you coverage, just because you might cost them money in the future? Think on that.

[Amnesiac]

I'm not fond of the fact that there's no public option, but if this is the best we can do for the time being it's better than nothing.

[kingpinnn]

Ok, I heard this from a teacher and I agree whole-heartedly with him. We as Americans are close to cracking the human genome. Well not really but lets say we do. If we leave that kind of info in the hands of the health insurance companies. We'd be fucked, and Im being serious. They'd be able to deny us coverage, before we were got sick! So for those who love the old system. Would you want the health insurance companies looking at you genetic material. And would you want them to deny you coverage, just because you might cost them money in the future? Think on that.

we cracked the human genome a while ago...the human genome will not tell an insurance company when you will get sick...



Ok, I heard this from a teacher and I agree whole-heartedly with him. We as Americans are close to cracking the human genome. Well not really but lets say we do.

wow, you're dumber than a bag of rocks.

[kingpinnn]

I'm not fond of the fact that there's no public option, but if this is the best we can do for the time being it's better than nothing.

you're absolutely right...we need one more thing to make the poor comfortable, and the public option will most definitely fail like medicaid and medicare are...it will just be another entitlement to bankrupt the fed.

[Nickk XD]

Medicaid and Medicare aren't failing...well medicaid isn't...medicare, not so sure about.

I've never been able to get Medicaid, MediCal as it is called in California, because of the amount of finances we have...but I know people who do...people who need it. They benefit from it daily.

Medicare has "doughnut holes" which means medicare pays up to a certain point, then stops, then once you pay so much...it picks back up again. That's what the Health Care bill fixes...NO MORE doughnut holes.

you're absolutely right...we need one more thing to make the poor comfortable, and the public option will most definitely fail like medicaid and medicare are...it will just be another entitlement to bankrupt the fed.

[Richthegamer99]

Then Move outta the country. 'cause this how the system works here.

i don't think i will move out of the country until they strat taking awayour consitution rights

Well, looking at your age, you probably don't have any "MY money" as you refer to it...

So really this doesn't apply to you.

When you learn about how governments work and how they're successful, then come back here and try to complain.

Until then, I'm not responding to further posts by you.

is that why my dad pays the income tax for all my bank acounts

[Nickk XD]

Money cannot be taxed twice.

Therefore, you do not claim banks on taxes.

You have incorrect information.

i don't think i will move out of the country until they strat taking awayour consitution rights



is that why my dad pays the income tax for all my bank acounts

[Richthegamer99]

Money cannot be taxed twice.

Therefore, you do not claim banks on taxes.

You have incorrect information.

What?? "banks on taxes" what do you mean

[Nickk XD]

You said your father pays the income tax for all your bank accounts...but you don't file taxes for bank accounts...

Also, people under 23 are "claimed" on taxes as dependents, so he'd get more money for you...but that it...he doesn't actually pay taxes for you.

What?? "banks on taxes" what do you mean

[Richthegamer99]

You said your father pays the income tax for all your bank accounts...but you don't file taxes for bank accounts...

Also, people under 23 are "claimed" on taxes as dependents, so he'd get more money for you...but that it...he doesn't actually pay taxes for you.

He pays taxes on the interest

[Perseus]

Ok, I heard this from a teacher and I agree whole-heartedly with him. We as Americans are close to cracking the human genome. Well not really but lets say we do. If we leave that kind of info in the hands of the health insurance companies. We'd be fucked, and Im being serious. They'd be able to deny us coverage, before we were got sick! So for those who love the old system. Would you want the health insurance companies looking at you genetic material. And would you want them to deny you coverage, just because you might cost them money in the future? Think on that.

It's illegal to deny someone coverage because of their genetics.

[Rutherford The Brave]

we cracked the human genome a while ago...the human genome will not tell an insurance company when you will get sick...





wow, you're dumber than a bag of rocks.

First off dun insult me, hypocracy is never good. Secondly, Some diseases are passed down in generations, how? G-E-N-E-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y. WOOOOW what a revelation. MS, is said to, ALS, is said too. I never meant it like trooper, but if you got said disease that was predicted, they could deny it when you became sick.

[Maverick]

wow, you're dumber than a bag of rocks.No need for that. We can debate on this site and still be respectful.

[kingpinnn]

First off dun insult me, hypocracy is never good. Secondly, Some diseases are passed down in generations, how? G-E-N-E-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y. WOOOOW what a revelation. MS, is said to, ALS, is said too. I never meant it like trooper, but if you got said disease that was predicted, they could deny it when you became sick.

that is called a preexisting condition

[kingpinnn]

Medicaid and Medicare aren't failing...well medicaid isn't...medicare, not so sure about.

I've never been able to get Medicaid, MediCal as it is called in California, because of the amount of finances we have...but I know people who do...people who need it. They benefit from it daily.

Medicare has "doughnut holes" which means medicare pays up to a certain point, then stops, then once you pay so much...it picks back up again. That's what the Health Care bill fixes...NO MORE doughnut holes.

"WASHINGTON – Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday. Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year’s report.

The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government’s “full faith and credit” but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes."

they will probably fail even faster then washington projects because i hope we all know the government is not good at projecting the amount of money needed for stuff, and how long they last I.E. healthcare

[Raptor22]

Certain areas already in this country you need to buy Health care.



Thats not the reason why they have this bill. Healthcare Companies can Deny from covering you if you have a preexisting condition, For example Cancer, heart disorders, and plenty of other things aswell. Would you like that to happen to you?

I understand that part, that part of the bill makes sense. The problem is all the other crap that they have stuffed in there about the government option, and mandatory healthcare, and a tax to pay for it. I say we put more restrictions on what insurance companies can or cannot cancel service for. Get rid of all of the red tape referral garbage, and open healthcare companies to interstate competition. Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?

I will tell you why. Everyone in congress wants their own piece of the pie, and every one of them has lobbyists constantly breathing down their neck and bribing them (with cars, vacations, fancy dinners...). Everyone wants to add their own little something in there to make them feel good, and more importantly make their lobbyists feel good. Its not about their constituents, "fuck the constituents, they aren't buying me anything"...

What makes it worse is that it is happening 535 times with every bill...

(435 Representatives, 100 Senators)

[Nickk XD]

What you don't understand (or may understand, since you kind of stated it) is there needs to be a piece that everyone enjoys. It cannot all be in favor of the democrats and it cannot be all in favor of the republicans...

We have needed some type of reform, like this one, for over 100 years. The republicans always come up with their own non-beneficial bills about health care that does absolutely nothing. Democrats finally was able to take action...that's really all that matters. It's not a matter right now if it is PERFECT (as no bill is)...it's a matter of something getting done.

In the future, they'll be making improvements to this bill.

Yes, there are things I don't like...but there are also things I am so thankful for. Most people on this forum and the real world will not see an increase in their taxes. Donald Trump might see an increase in his since he makes greater than $200,000 per year. Most people below that will get low or no cost health care at the expense of taxes already in place and the added taxes for people who make greater than $200,000 per year (which is about 5% of the U.S. population).

Like I've said before: I think it is about time people getting upset over it just get over it...it has passed...most likely won't be overturned. I know this year, since I can vote, I'm going to vote in every way possible to help prevent republicans from attempting to get rid of this...

You may think I'm biased, but I'm really not too biased. I'm voting for Meg Whitman for Governor in California. She's a republican...but she can't really do a whole lot to influence the health care bill...plus she's one of the few republicans that support it...

I understand that part, that part of the bill makes sense. The problem is all the other crap that they have stuffed in there about the government option, and mandatory healthcare, and a tax to pay for it. I say we put more restrictions on what insurance companies can or cannot cancel service for. Get rid of all of the red tape referral garbage, and open healthcare companies to interstate competition. Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?

I will tell you why. Everyone in congress wants their own piece of the pie, and every one of them has lobbyists constantly breathing down their neck and bribing them (with cars, vacations, fancy dinners...). Everyone wants to add their own little something in there to make them feel good, and more importantly make their lobbyists feel good. Its not about their constituents, "fuck the constituents, they aren't buying me anything"...

What makes it worse is that it is happening 535 times with every bill...

(435 Representatives, 100 Senators)

[kingpinnn]

We have needed some type of reform, like this one, for over 100 years. The republicans always come up with their own non-beneficial bills about health care that does absolutely nothing. Democrats finally was able to take action...that's really all that matters. It's not a matter right now if it is PERFECT (as no bill is)...it's a matter of something getting done.

i remember what Lewis Black said "the republican party is a party of no ideas and the democratic party is a party of bad ideas" lol this bill is a bad bill...just one reason is we cant pay for it...the democrats are thinking about the VAT tax that will raise the price of goods by 10% at least, probably 20%...that is the only way they can pay for this stupid bill...the tax is going to break the back of the average consumer

[Nickk XD]

Can we pay for what we have before the bill No, not at all.

i remember what Lewis Black said "the republican party is a party of no ideas and the democratic party is a party of bad ideas" lol this bill is a bad bill...just one reason is we cant pay for it...the democrats are thinking about the VAT tax that will raise the price of goods by 10% at least, probably 20%...that is the only way they can pay for this stupid bill...the tax is going to break the back of the average consumer

[kingpinnn]

Can we pay for what we have before the bill No, not at all.

and we cant pay for this health care bill...we need change, but not this kind of change

[cuarta_internacional]

Paying for the bill wouldn't be terribly difficult. The United States currently spend 4.5 percent of their Gross Domestic Product on defense, much of which is spent on the mechanical and technological upkeep of a war machine designed to be able to project power anywhere across the globe in sufficient quantity and strength to counter a similar projection of power by a rival superpower in approximate at approximate technological parity, i.e., the Soviet Union.

The four most expensive programs in the US military budget are the F-22 and F-35 fighter programs, the Ballistic Missile Defense program, and the Carrier Replacement program, all of which are designed to give the US a military edge in case of a war with a rival superpower, which has not existed since the end of the Cold War.

Shifting over part of the 600+ billion dollar defense budget, which would NOT result in a decrease of necessary warfighting capability (if such capability is really NECESSARY) would easily help cover the costs of the healthcare reform.

Is such a reform unconstitutional?

I don't think so. Article 25 of the International Declaration of Human Rights, as signed by the United States in 1948 as a founding member of the UN, states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and of their family, including ... medical care and necessary social services."
If the United States wish to promote the respect of human rights and human dignity throughout the world, they would do well to fulfill these obligations within their borders.

[dontknow2010]

The four most expensive programs in the US military budget are the F-22 and F-35 fighter programs, the Ballistic Missile Defense program, and the Carrier Replacement program, all of which are designed to give the US a military edge in case of a war with a rival superpower, which has not existed since the end of the Cold War.

Sure... we might not have a rival superpower but countries like Iran and North Korea still pose a threat to national security so we still need that edge in case of a war.


Is such a reform unconstitutional?

I don't think so. Article 25 of the International Declaration of Human Rights, as signed by the United States in 1948 as a founding member of the UN, states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and of their family, including ... medical care and necessary social services."
If the United States wish to promote the respect of human rights and human dignity throughout the world, they would do well to fulfill these obligations within their borders.

The UN was not created to interfere with a country’s sovereignty or internal affairs. As stated in Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.”

[Vutra92]

No public option...

[cuarta_internacional]

Sure... we might not have a rival superpower but countries like Iran and North Korea still pose a threat to national security so we still need that edge in case of a war.



The UN was not created to interfere with a country’s sovereignty or internal affairs. As stated in Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter, “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.”

The existing US arsenal is more than sufficient to deal with any military threat posed by Iran and/or North Korea, in terms of quantity and technological superiority, as well as the arguably much more important training and experience factor.

Alright, so substitute "should" instead of "obligated".

[kingpinnn]

The existing US arsenal is more than sufficient to deal with any military threat posed by Iran and/or North Korea, in terms of quantity and technological superiority, as well as the arguably much more important training and experience factor.

Alright, so substitute "should" instead of "obligated".

that is exactly what the German's thought about their air force, which was greatly superior to all others, and within the span of 3 years their planes were completely outdated...i can also guarantee you that our incredible military power has deterred war aver since the cold war...and even if we reduce the defense budget it wold not be enough...the health bill costs 1.5-2trillion dollars...the CBO was wrong and miscalculated because of false and biased presumptions...health care is not a right...the only right you have are in the constitutions...and congress does not give you rights, you get them for just living...is congress is able to give us rights then they are able to take them away...and the health bill is unconstitutional and if the supreme court decides it is, it will still have trouble...here is an article published by the CATO institute:


"
The Taxing Power of Obamacare

by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute and a director of the Institute for Justice.

Added to cato.org on April 20, 2010

This article appeared on National Review Online on April 20, 2010.

The litigation battle has begun. While the legal arguments are technical, the basic issue is straightforward: Can the federal government force people to buy a product — in this instance, health insurance — from a private company?

Advocates of Obamacare claim that the mandate to purchase health insurance is authorized under the Commerce Clause. But constitutional experts note that this expansion of power is unprecedented. The only way for the Supreme Court to find Obamacare constitutional via the Commerce Clause would be for it to announce, for the first time in 221 years, that there are essentially no structural limits on the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.

That's why the administration had to devise a fallback position: that the penalty for not buying health insurance is authorized under Congress's power "to lay and collect Taxes." But that argument fails on three counts.

First, the penalty is not a tax; it's a fine. The president said as much when confronted with the argument that it violated his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"For an exaction to be a true tax," writes the Institute for Justice, "it has to be a genuine revenue-raising measure." IJ attorneys Jeff Rowes and Robert McNamara looked at 95 categories of state and federal taxes. Each of them had an obvious revenue-generating purpose. While some taxes also have a regulatory purpose — such as the cigarette tax, which is meant in part to discourage smoking — the courts have upheld them only because revenue generation is still a key objective. By contrast, Rowes and McNamara point out, the individual mandate "exists solely to coerce people into acquiring healthcare coverage. If the mandate were to work perfectly, it would raise literally no revenue." The individual mandate is a civil regulation with a civil fine for noncompliance. Thus, the taxing power is irrelevant.

Second, even if the penalty for noncompliance is deemed to be a tax rather than a fine, it does not meet the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes. The type of tax is determined by the event that triggers its incidence. In this case, the trigger is the non-purchase of health insurance.

Although the amount of the tax depends on income, it also depends on age, family size, geographic location, and smoking status. The penalty is no more an income tax than it is a smoking tax. In fact, higher income sometimes results in a lower penalty.

Certain taxes, such as the Social Security payroll tax, have been classified as excises, which are levied on the performance of an act or the enjoyment of a privilege. In current usage, "excise" covers virtually every internal revenue tax except the income tax. Maybe, in principle, the insurance penalty — imposed on the non-performance of an act — qualifies. But if so, the Constitution requires that "excises shall be uniform throughout the United States," whereas the insurance penalty varies with location: Households in some areas are taxed while identical households in other areas are exempt.

The penalty may be closest to a direct tax, which can be either a capitation (imposed on each person) or an assessment on property. Arguably, the penalty is a negative tax on property — i.e., the non-ownership of the property (health insurance) triggers the tax. Yet it fails to satisfy the constitutional command that "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States" by population.

The apportionment provision means that Congress must: first, decide the total revenue to be raised; second, allocate that amount among the states according to population; and third, divide each state's allocation by its tax base to compute the rate. The insurance penalty is not apportioned. Indeed, because the purpose is not to raise revenue (the desired revenue is zero) and the tax base depends on how many residents of each state fail to purchase health insurance in a given year, the penalty cannot be apportioned.

In 1796, the Supreme Court ruled that a tax incapable of apportionment cannot be a direct tax — a ruling that made little sense. Suppose Congress taxed, for example, all private land containing recoverable oil. Because many states have no such land, the tax could not be apportioned. It would still be a direct tax on property, however — by any definition but the Court's. Nonetheless, if today's Court accepts the flawed logic of the 1796 case, that will serve to clarify that the penalty is not a tax at all, but a civil fine.

The third reason the power to tax cannot justify an insurance mandate is that, even if the penalty is considered a tax and somehow survives the test for apportionment or uniformity, Congress cannot use the taxing power as a backdoor means of regulating an activity, unless the regulation is authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. That's what the Supreme Court held in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922). The IRS had penalized Drexel for employing an underage worker. The company asserted, successfully, that the penalty was actually a regulation of child labor, which at that time was considered to be an exclusive state prerogative. The law's "prohibitory and regulatory effect and purpose are palpable," wrote the Court. Ditto for the insurance mandate, a regulatory scheme explicitly designed to compel the purchase of health insurance.

Here's the counterargument from the administration: Penalties are merely the flip side of credits, which are sprinkled throughout the tax code. If it's constitutional to offer a tax credit for those who have health insurance, how could it be unconstitutional to impose a penalty on those who don't? In both instances, insured persons pay less tax than uninsured persons.

That may sound plausible on its face, but there's a big difference between credits and penalties. When Congress enacts a credit, it reduces the impact of a pre-existing, legitimate tax. Judicial scrutiny is then limited to ensuring that the rights of disfavored parties are adequately protected. In contrast, tax penalties imposed for a regulatory purpose must be authorized under an enumerated power independent of the taxing power. When Congress regulates, as in Drexel Furniture, the Constitution is implicated both to ensure that rights are protected and that Congress has not exceeded its authority.

To put it bluntly, the taxing power will not help the government defend the insurance mandate. Only the Commerce Clause remains as a potential source of authority, and this argument too is under vigorous attack in pending lawsuits.

Legal refinements aside, the insurance mandate is an affront to personal liberty that will exacerbate our health-care problems. For those who care, it's unconstitutional as well."

[kingpinnn]

Paying for the bill wouldn't be terribly difficult. The United States currently spend 4.5 percent of their Gross Domestic Product on defense, much of which is spent on the mechanical and technological upkeep of a war machine designed to be able to project power anywhere across the globe in sufficient quantity and strength to counter a similar projection of power by a rival superpower in approximate at approximate technological parity, i.e., the Soviet Union.

The four most expensive programs in the US military budget are the F-22 and F-35 fighter programs, the Ballistic Missile Defense program, and the Carrier Replacement program, all of which are designed to give the US a military edge in case of a war with a rival superpower, which has not existed since the end of the Cold War.

Shifting over part of the 600+ billion dollar defense budget, which would NOT result in a decrease of necessary warfighting capability (if such capability is really NECESSARY) would easily help cover the costs of the healthcare reform.

Is such a reform unconstitutional?

I don't think so. Article 25 of the International Declaration of Human Rights, as signed by the United States in 1948 as a founding member of the UN, states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and of their family, including ... medical care and necessary social services."
If the United States wish to promote the respect of human rights and human dignity throughout the world, they would do well to fulfill these obligations within their borders.

If we are to have change it must use the porivate market and those methods that work with it and not manipulate it to gevernment ends...and it is unconstitutional because no where in the constitution does it give the feds the authority to force someone to participate in the market. It is not like car insurance which I don't approve of either because you choose to buy a car. And the health care industry is 1/y of our economy and the healthcare bill will take atleast 1.5 trillion to do. Which is way more that the defense projects you cites. This bull is another federal manipulation of markets which will only hurt us in the long run just like how they manipulated the housing markets causing collapse

[Iceman]

Please do not bump old threads. :locked: