The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[HercDriver]

No, I think I misunderstood your meaning of Government backed monopoly, I thought you meant Gov pushing you into a certain plan and my Blue Cross reference was indicating you can stay with your current plan. So perhaps you are right, that I am offering a rebuttal to something you weren't inferring.

BTW: I'm still unsure how a requirement for insurance fits into the definition of a monopoly. I'm no economist, but I understood the term to mean some of the following definitions (as cribbed from an online dictionary):

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller

If economic-wise it fits the def of monopoly, fine, I just had not heard the term used that way (discussions on semantics are 25% of internet debate, anyway). :icon_wink

60 votes is ramming through legislation? Really? You do know that only a simple majority is needed, right? Plenty of votes have passed with the thinnest of majorities...I'm picturing VP Cheney breaking the tie for the G. W. Bush tax cut bill that went through. Sorry, 60 votes ain't ramming anything through, that is more votes than a lot of legislation that has passed.

 

[Spekkio]

So Geico is a monopoly?

Nope, but your utilities are.

60 votes is ramming through legislation? Really? You do know that only a simple majority is needed, right? Plenty of votes have passed with the thinnest of majorities...I'm picturing VP Cheney breaking the tie for the G. W. Bush tax cut bill that went through. Sorry, 60 votes ain't ramming anything through, that is more votes than a lot of legislation that has passed.

Your political bias is preventing you from seeing the elephant in the room...

It's not about the speed or number of votes, but the legislative tricks they used to pass the bill that wouldn't work without a supermajority.

 

[RadicalDude]

Are you talking about reconciliation?

 

[HercDriver]

Your political bias is preventing you from seeing the elephant in the room...

It's not about the speed or number of votes, but the legislative tricks they used to pass the bill that wouldn't work without a supermajority.

So legislative tricks = ramming? I don't follow. The Repubs promised a filibuster and the Dems worked hard to overcome it. (Yawn)

 

[phrogpilot73]

HercDriver, Flash, and mmx... Got a question for you. Are you pro life? Do you believe in the woman's right to choose whether she has an abortion or not?

The reason I ask is because there are decades of legal precedence upholding the Roe v. Wade decision, that the Federal/State government can't dictate what a woman does with her body. However, now there is a law of the land that dictates what every man, woman and child does with their body. It seems to me that's a pretty big contradiction.

I guess you believe in freedom of choice, but only sometimes.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice - TRICARE is not necessarily guaranteed to match all of the requirements of the law. That's why a measure passed the house to guarantee that TRICARE meets the requirements. No guarantee that it will pass the Senate (after all, it was in the original House language, but it was removed by the Senate). I've also read through most of the bill, and I haven't seen anything that says you can keep your current plan (unless it meets the Federal Governments requirements).

 

[mmx1]

The reason I ask is because there are decades of legal precedence upholding the Roe v. Wade decision, that the Federal/State government can't dictate what a woman does with her body. However, now there is a law of the land that dictates what every man, woman and child does with their body. It seems to me that's a pretty big contradiction.

This is about as logically sound as the argument that taxes are slavery. You're mandated coverage but by no means to accept any particular treatment.

 

[phrogpilot73]

This is about as logically sound as the argument that taxes are slavery. You're mandated coverage but by no means to accept any particular treatment.

Actually, it is a sound argument. No, I don't have to accept treatment. However, if I CHOOSE not to accept treatment, why would I be MANDATED to maintain coverage - after all the Feds aren't paying for it, I am. Oh, that's right - it's for the greater good. Democrats are smarter than I am anyway, at least that's the way they act.

Good luck with the 14 state court challenges. Legal precedent of Roe v. Wade, as well as a violation of the First Amendment in the case of Christian Scientists. All so the poor people that drive nicer cars then I do (I saw a $65,000 Benz at Toys for Tots this year) can have health care.

I didn't realize that being a drug dealer would provide better benefits than working my ass off. Maybe I should look into a career change.

 

[Flash]

Flash - as was explained to me by a Canadian, surgery that isn't necessary for life sustainment is often delayed significantly because their system is so over burdened. This person had torn her ACL playing rugby. The docs saw her right away (she went to the ER), gave her a leg brace, crutches, and meds - then set an appointment for several weeks later for an ortho consult. The ortho doc told her she'd need surgery but the soonest she could be seen for this would be six months. This type of delay is typical because there's a lot of demand for services but not much money to be made as a medical professional (compared to the US), so there aren't a lot of doctors available.

If you took my statement to mean that you wouldn't get any help at all, then I apologize for the confusion.

Thanks for clarifying, it was why I asked the question.

It is true that there are often wait times for non-emergency surgery in Canada but it can vary greatly, just like down here. The Canadian system is not a national one in the true sense, it is actually run by the provinces/territories like Medicare is run down here. Some provinces have better care than others, the richer the better, Alberta's oil has given it a lot of money to throw into it's system than others. There are short and long waits up there for all kinds of stuff, my father-in-law got a hip replacement just days after being recommended for one but I know of others who have waits. On the flip side there are waits down here too, a buddy at work only got necessary kidney surgery in 3 weeks vice 3 months because there was a cancellation, and he has good insurance. The Canadian system definitely has it's issues but they are usually nowhere near as bad as you often hear about.

 

[jtmedli]

So legislative tricks = ramming? I don't follow. The Repubs promised a filibuster and the Dems worked hard to overcome it. (Yawn)

Worked hard? I guess you call buying, bartering, threatening, and flatout constitutional violations just to get a vote or two good work? A legislative trick is one thing, but going against the very clause of the constitution with which you defined the need for this bill in order to get it passed is the definition of hypocrisy.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


So the Nebraska deal (the one where they don't have to pay for anything) and the numerous other deals that dished out money with no sense of equality make this thing a good days work too?

Sorry sir, but I'm just not tracking.

 

[Flash]

Point out to me what clause in the Constitution, as amended, authorizes the Federal government to mandate that I purchase something. Or cite case law. I really don't care. Then, maybe, I might consider whether this bill is Constitutional.

Good luck with the 14 state court challenges.

I will assume that those cases make it to the Supreme Court sooner or later and then they will decide whether it is Constitutional, until then it is all mental masturbation as Brett says.......

HercDriver, Flash, and mmx...The reason I ask is because there are decades of legal precedence upholding the Roe v. Wade decision, that the Federal/State government can't dictate what a woman does with her body. However, now there is a law of the land that dictates what every man, woman and child does with their body. It seems to me that's a pretty big contradiction. I guess you believe in freedom of choice, but only sometimes.

Requiring someone to buy insurance is not the same dictating what someone does to their body, just what they have to purchase. How does that affect one bodily, other than lightening your wallet?

Oh, and in case you didn't notice - TRICARE is not necessarily guaranteed to match all of the requirements of the law. That's why a measure passed the house to guarantee that TRICARE meets the requirements. No guarantee that it will pass the Senate (after all, it was in the original House language, but it was removed by the Senate). I've also read through most of the bill, and I haven't seen anything that says you can keep your current plan (unless it meets the Federal Governments requirements).

Meeting federal requirements will not be difficult for almost all insurance plans, including TRICARE, just some paperwork. I don't think your supposed worry is a realistic one.

Actually, it is a sound argument. No, I don't have to accept treatment. However, if I CHOOSE not to accept treatment, why would I be MANDATED to maintain coverage - after all the Feds aren't paying for it, I am. Oh, that's right - it's for the greater good. Democrats are smarter than I am anyway, at least that's the way they act.

You are paying for only part of it, actually very little to none if you are still in TRICARE, and the government and insurance pays the rest. And hey, maybe they are smarter than you.......

Legal precedent of Roe v. Wade, as well as a violation of the First Amendment in the case of Christian Scientists.

I didn't realize that being a drug dealer would provide better benefits than working my ass off. Maybe I should look into a career change.

Again, as mmx and I pointed out you are not mandated to get treatment, just insurance, the comparison to Roe v. Wade is a poor one. As for Christian Scientists and others like them, they can pay the fine and go on with their business as long as it does not violate other laws. Big deal.

 

[Flash]

Worked hard? I guess you call buying, bartering, threatening, and flatout constitutional violations just to get a vote or two good work? A legislative trick is one thing, but going against the very clause of the constitution with which you defined the need for this bill in order to get it passed is the definition of hypocrisy......Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.....

A lot of the deals, bartering and other stuff that went on is normal practice in Congress and most legitimate legislative bodies the world over, the passing of Medicare Part D is another good example of what you described. Until the Supreme Court finds the bill or parts of it unconstitutional it will remain the law of the land, whatever you may think of it.

 

[mmx1]

So the public option is dead, and yet Republicans still want to tank this plan over the individual mandate - the central feature of Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care reform, and of the Wyden-Bennett alternative, backed by Republican senators including Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, and Lamar Alexander. What was once supportable is now anathema.

David Frum has some concrete suggestions on how to make substantive improvements to the now-signed legislation.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/22/frum.healthcare.gop.strategy/index.html
But, seeing how well the hardline strategy has worked, Republicans plan to stick to "repeal and replace".

Hmm, good luck with that.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

But not all taxes, just Duties, Imposts, and Excises. RIF.

 

[jtmedli]

A lot of the deals, bartering and other stuff that went on is normal practice in Congress and most legitimate legislative bodies the world over, the passing of Medicare Part D is another good example of what you described. Until the Supreme Court finds the bill or parts of it unconstitutional it will remain the law of the land, whatever you may think of it.

Sir, FTR I'm no fan of Medicare either. I've known numerous people who can and should be paying for their own health care (IT is available to them and is the same policy that I'm covered under and costs the same mine would) and yet remained on medicare because it was easier and cheaper. Mainly cheaper because the rest of us are paying their way as well as our own which is what this bill will undoubtedly degenerate into as well. Speculation left to proof, the old addage of "well that's the way we do things 'round here" doesn't make things right. Weren't you (and/or mmx1) the same using slavery and segregation as comparably aggressive legislative battles? Well, here in the south that was way things were done 'round here, but that didn't make it right either.

Pelosi actually had the balls to say that this bill was revolutionary and as important as medicare and social security. Both of which are slowing dying and going bankrupt that need reform or to just be taken out back and buried. Interesting comparison, Nancy.

How many people do you think are actually going to get a health insurance policy vice paying $350 a year? I vote not many. Health care costs me about $700 a year for basic coverage. What would you rather do? Pay $350 and treat it as a license to freeload, or work hard and pay for a health insurance policy? If you say the latter then you're out of touch with the general population. Not everyone out there is a 'go-getter' or hard worker and most of them are going to opt out and continue to ride the system for all it's worth.

 

[NUFO06]

Three percent increase in my medicare taxes next year and a 1.5% x Base Pay raise means we will all make less next year. Still waiting for the reality of all this national debt to have an effect on inflation, its comming.

What is the federal govt going to do when the states throw up there hands and say they cant pay for the shifted cost of medicare from the fed to the state that is in this bill. The states are not going to raise taxes to pay for medicare.

Has there every been a law that requires you to purchase a product for just being born in this country? How is that freedom.

 

[jtmedli]

Has there every been a law that requires you to purchase a product for just being born in this country? How is that freedom.

It's not and that's the whole point!! Thanks for being one of the few who gets it.