HCR Passes
 

Teabagger heads start exploding in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

I feel like puking.

Truly, sca, I doubt things will be much different at all. This is really very moderate reform, and many aspects of it were once upon a time supported by conservative leaders. Though I personally think it's mostly just a modest step in the right direction (and I realize you don't at all), time will tell. Meanwhile, I hope you have a health plan that includes Maalox for your upset tummy.

Because you like big insurance executives, who make millions, denying healthcare to working Americans?

Because you like seeing millions of people go bankrupt every year due to healthcare costs?

Because you like that America is 34th in the world in quality of healthcare?

I could go on.

Amen, my sister!

Really, sca, let's have a talk about this, and try to stay away from hyperbole on all sides. Because really, this is the most moderate of measures (flippy's right) and our healthcare system is deeply flawed (JayDubBear is right).

At this point, why not try some things? I would be willing to try some very conservative ideas - and, correct me if I'm wrong - the bill incorporates many conservative notions from pre-hypocrisy days, and thwarts nearly everything actual liberals and progressives wanted to see.

If you're going to spew, spew into this




Seriously though, this plan includes so many things that the Republicans wanted back before Obama was even a candidate. I think you should take a step back from your talking heads and really, really look at what actually passed instead of the expected outrage/puking reaction.

Stephen Colbert discusses the marketing of fear.

Maybe if the "Conservatives" who are so outraged watched something other than their conservative fear mongers they would see a whole marketing campaign was behind this outrage.

It is true that this version of the bill (all 2700 or so pages of it) I am not very well versed in (and I knew much more about earlier versions).

I do not, however, understand, even in my admitted lack of complete understanding of specifically what is in the health bill, how any 2700 page bill (or so I've heard....I cannot claim to have seen nor read it) can be seen as the "most moderate of measures".

However, one thing I will not do is be sucked into the "well, you must be completely for the way things are now because you aren't for this" argument. Some don't know but I have posted here before that I came from a family that declared bankruptcy due to health reasons (my mom died of lupus when I was a teenager after suffering with it for 13 years), and we survived, though the process certainly sucked.

I do suppose, though, that I don't understand why opposition is blamed on conservative "fear mongering". Do the 50+ percent of the population that is opposed to this listen to this conservative "fear mongering"? Perhaps it is rational people who don't simply don't like many of the proposals for whatever reason (even though many rational people do).

It does remain to be seen though what happens with this. It certainly was not the last hurdle for the bill.

That's the problem. No one really read all 2700 pages, but people wrote every word on those pages. People that knew it would not be scrutinized before being signed into law. I'm very concerned that any true reforms in this thing will be outweighed by the backroom deals hiding in it.

The fear mongering comes from the conservative talking heads saying there will be death panels, that people will die now, ERs will be busier, the government is going to decide what treatment you can or can't have. Watch that link I provided. It's to the Colbert Report. The marketing of paranoia is very interesting. It discusses how a PR company was hired to come up with terms like death panel and nuclear option to raise fear and outrage.

This I am concerned about. The actual HCR part? Happy. But I have this concern about every bill that is passed so it's nothing new.

Since the senate bill will now become law regardless of what happens with the reconciliation bill, is not each Republican vote against the reconciliation bill a vote in favor of the senate HCR bill?

In other words, insofar as the reconciliation bill eliminates the very kickbacks to individual states that the Republicans abhor, is not opposing the reconciliation bill a vote in favor of those programs?

Unless the presumption is that Obama won't sign the Senate version.

If he doesn't can the reconciliation bill even advance? I thought the parliamentarian ruled the existing bill could not be amended until the first had been signed into law.

And scaeagles, to address your question:

David Frum seems to place a fair bit of the blame at the feet of Republican fear mongering and he's hardly sympathetic to Obama.

I've been lobbying for this for months and spent a week in DC with other bleeding disorders advocates visiting congress and campaigning for these reforms, so today is honestly one of those days I'll always look back upon as life changing. I can't even begin to describe how proud I am of being an American tonight. Huzzah to those who voted in favor of fair, equitable care to all!



As to fear mongering, I have to say that it has been my experience throughout this fight that fear mongering has been the most effective tool of opponents. Every time I hear nonsense like "This will bankrupt the country" or "reform will kill our liberties" or "this bill will cause people to die" I myself have wanted to puke. 3590 does none of those things. Nor does it strip anyone's private insurance away, force companies into bankruptcy, put us all on Medicare, or any of the other Bullet Points of Fear that Beck and his ilk throw out every day. What it does do is;

Requires all insurance plans to cover maternity and child care up to age 21.

Prevents insurance companies from requiring co-payments for preventive care, including well baby and child care.

Establishes that the maximum annual deductible is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.

Establishes both an internal grievance process for when an insurance company denies a claim, as well as independent board outside the insurance company that someone can appeal to.

Establishes that all insurance plans must be written in "plain language," must contain details about the coverage, and must provide notice before changing a person's coverage.

Establishes whistleblower protections for health insurance company employees who report violations to the federal government.

Amends the Health Service Act to prevent rescission and guarantee that people may renew their health insurance, even if they become ill.

Eliminates yearly and annual caps, which frequently cause those suffering from chronic illnesses to lose their private insurance and resort to public programs, costing the system billions in the process.

Eliminates pre-existing clauses, thereby guaranteeing access to care for those in most need of it.


And many, many other things. So I ask, how are these things evil? How do these things limit or take away our freedom and destroy America? I cannot see how they do, and I thank God that enough of our Congressmembers had the courage and good sense to fight the good fight and establish these rights.

Jazzman, what a fabulous post. Finally, some reason and just plain humanity. Scaeagles, we have had great insurance for years- the best plans out there. We've seen our premiums go up, as well as our deductibles and co-pays. We've seen our doctor's offices cease accepting major plans because they won't pay on time, what's fair, or they've screwed too many patients. In short, we've seen insurance companies drive the entire medical industry to the brink. This year, for the first time ever, we were denied by our latest insurer -Blue Cross/Blue Sheild Anthem- speech therapy coverage. They state in their policy that it is covered in cases of rehabilitation, but they denied our coverage without explanation. (Our daughter lost her hearing at age 2 1/2, so it's not an issue of congenital loss, although I fail to see why that should matter). Now, we're stuck with thousands of dollars in medical bills, and I'm pissed off enough to take it to court. They've had too much power for far too long, and it's about bloody time we did something about it.

Scaeagles, even though you've been a very vocal opponent to this, I sincerely hope what happened to your family while growing up does not happen to you. All it takes is one serious illness or accident, and you could lose everything. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Visible mojo for the previous two posts - a breath of fresh air to hear from people for whom this means so much. That. and I love the kitten with the plunger.

And remember... The Rebublican party didn't oppose this bill because of what is in it. They fought tooth and nail against it because the current strategy of the party is to try and stop Congress and the president from accomplishing anything, no matter who gets hurt in the process.

I'm still confused....I pay $1000 a month for health insurance for the three of us. How does this affect me? Will I save any money on my premiums, or am I just going to pay more in taxes to cover everyone else?

Other than Wolfette can now be covered up to age 26 and I can change insurance with pre-existing conditions. I don't see any big advantages for the average family.

(begin snarkyness - you've been warned)

Maybe you should see your doctor about that... because you have health insurance and wow, wouldn't it be great if we all could see a doctor when we were sick? Oh that's right, the thought makes you sick to your stomache.

(/snark)

I, for one, am relieved that this passed.

But, since it's not my chronic condition, I'm not going to talk about it here. It's just nice to feel like there might be some back-up for us, after all.

So what's in the "Fix it" bill? If it fails where does that leave us?

Are you buying your own insurance or getting it through an employer?

The big changes are in the area of insurance mobility and availability. If you have insurance and unchanging employment and aren't hitting your coverage caps then you probably won't notice a big difference.

If you're purchasing your own insurance, then whether you'll get help on the price will depend on how much money you make and those parts will be a few years before they really kick in.

To start, there's the fact that those numbers flip when, instead of just being asked, "Are you in favor of Obama's plan", people are shown what is actually in that plan (soucre). So clearly some not insignificant portion of the population was basing their opinion on a false notion of what the plan entailed.

I'll snark right back at you, but will refrain from using the names that pop into my head.

I am sick of the implications that people against this bill don't care. Perhaps - just maybe, if your tunnel vision can allow you to see past the typical mantra - you could imagine that there are those out there - a vast majority of people opposed to this bill - don't think it's the best way to go about it.

But I suppose that may not be fair to say. When most members of congress haven't read it, I suppose I can't truly object to the provisions. Oh, wait....i do nkow there are provisions about the student loan program. Yeah, that's vital to health care.

Don't care about the warning in the least, Betty. Does warning someone that you're going to be an idiot make it OK to be an idiot?

Out of snark mode and back to people who apparently do want to have intelligent discussion about this. Which has been pretty much everyone in this thread up to Betty's post.

*Ding!* Student Loan?

Did you say student loan? Oh oh. I'd not heard that was included.

I better go have a Google for that. Moonie Jr. is college bound in ~18-Months and Headliner is not far behind.

While I admit that I have not read all 2700 pages, I have read several summaries. Have you read any, Leo? If so, then what - specifically - do you object to? If not, then perhaps you should, and then get back to us.

Vague objections concerning "Loss of freedom" and "government takeover" don't hold water when you actually know what is in the bill.

We purchase our own insurance since I work part time and my hubby is self employed.

A few years? Darn! Could use the help now.

Student loan rider must have been a talking point. I saw it mentioned by someone on MP also.

Anyone have more detailed analysis of that?

Here's some detail

It's lame that it was included. But that's business as usual. And while I'd much rather it didn't happen, its not a practice that's going to disappear overnight. And I'm not willing to put health care reform on hold for another 20 years (because let's be honest here, if it failed this time around, that's the minimum length before anyone has the political balls to bring the subject up again) just because every single bill passed in the current congressional process contains superfluous crap. That's an entirely separate issue, and one that would not be solved by blocking this bill.

And here I was feeling bad that I was the 3rd person to make the same joke - but whatever if you want to single me out.

Perhaps you, in your own "tunnel vision", can't see the urgency that others do. You have all the time in the world to wait for reform when you have health insurance...

While we think about things like not sending the kids to their friends house with a trampolene because if they fall and get hurt, we are beyond screwed to pay the bill for that. When my teenage daughter is cooking and we fret because she's using the "big" knife and if she cut herself badly, we would be screwed. And that's just from this weekend. We live our lives around the FEAR of not having health care available to us.

What is so wrong with making progress and giving people the opportunity to live their lives without fear of going bankrupt over normal sickness and injuries?

It's a lot easier to wait for reform to happen when you've got health insurance...

...For someone like me, on the other side of the coin, every day waiting is another day something terrible can happen and wipe us out. So yes, I do have tunnel vision - with health care being the light at the end of the tunnel.

My cousin (who is of my parents' generation) sent a comic strip around to some family members (thankfully I'm not on his email list) where the "punchline" was that the election of Obama and health care reform were the work of the devil. When my mom, whose daughter is on the verge of being severely screwed in the insurance department because she had the audacity to have cancer while unemployed, wrote back explaining that perhaps not everyone thought that joke was very funny, his response was, "Geez, you take it so personally." Umm, yeah, that's because it's affecting her personally!

Everytime I see the thread title, I think of the kidney stone I passed, and how much "fun" dealing with the insurance company has been.

This sums up, I think, one of the major differences I see between myself and many on the other side of the health care reform debate. I have excellent and affordable health insurance. So the reforms (at this point, at least) have little affect on my access to coverage. It's not a personal thing for me. However, I have the ability (thank goodness) to be sympathetic to the plights of others who are less forunate. I have the ability to see beyond my own selfish needs and to support what is best for all Americans.

I have to defend scaeagles a bit. To believe that a given course of action is not a solution to a recognized problem, or that it will actually make the problem worse in the long run is not the same as having no empathy for the problem.

Plenty of government programs have been implemented over the years that were sourced completely from a sense of empathy and desire to make things better for the downtrodden only to have perverse unintended consequences that offered no net improvement and possibly an actual worsening.

I have no problem at all with honest opposition to even what might seem a "moderate" advancement. I just hate the dishonest opposition (and dishonest promotion) that seems to be the preferred channel of communication for the most prominent which then trickles down to those who rely on them for information.

Requiring insurance to do this and that and the other thing is the reason insurance costs of gotten so out of hand.....what ever happened to just letting people purchase what they wanted or needed and not being forced to buy insurance for things they don't want? I am sure that childless couple down the street are thrilled that they have pay into the same pool that covers this:rolleyes:

See above comments.

Why 5 and 10? why not 4 and 11, or 3 and 6? Why not 12 and 17?

I've got no problem with this.

That's rich coming from the same people who just voted for 2700 pages of lawyerese....very rich indeed:rolleyes:

I thought we already had this but if not why not a law that protects whistleblowers for all industries? Do health insurance companies need more whistleblower protections than, lets say, chemical companies:confused:

Seems fair I guess.

So, um, these "billions" won't happen now....or will the ~evil~ insurance companies have to pay the "billions" instead? Seems to me insurance companies might have a hard time staying in business......which, if this does force them out of business then ...um, who will step in to pay for ..........oh, I get it!

See above.



No mention of the whole you "must" have insurance or be fined portion of the bill........interesting omission given the above question.


Do you really think these sleazeballs were fighting "the good fight"?

I see this program as a mere start towards a system that will benefit all. It certainly is not the final deal - or comes close to what we actually need, but a start is something better than a stall.

I view the accusations of "socialism" and the "work of the Devil" as stupid, empty arguments and I hope the wackos keep it up, because it sure helps those holding actual discussions.

I know too many people who don't have health care and really need it. While I've been fortunate enough to have it during major illness, I would have had some VERY dire effects if I did not. One major illness is all it takes to lose years and years of hard work.

As for paying more taxes.......it's about time our taxes went toward Quality of Life in this country. Healthcare and Education should be getting our tax dollars. Lets take care of ourselves FIRST before we take care of the rest of the world.

Yes, I'm fine with it.

Thanks for your concern though.

Ditto.

What about the proposed deficit savings tallied by the Congressional Budget Office? That's the best impartial arbiter of educated money prognostications we have ... and the money savings estimates are what allowed a good many Democrats to vote in favor.

Are opponents of the bill claiming these savings won't happen? Is that what they mean by making matters worse? Or what exactly will make matters worse, and worse in what ways? So far, the details objected to by sleepyjeff seem - at least to me - to be pretty petty objections with little potential harm.

I'm not part of a couple but I'm childless and fine with it too.


Round numbers divisible by 5? Out of all the things to dislike you're going to single out this? Would you be happier if it was any of the examples you gave? This makes it look like you're picking out things to pick on for the sole point of being outraged at something in this bill.

Hardly. A broken prescription medication system, and an insurance model tied tightly to employment are far greater contributors to the cost of insurance.

As much as the car-less couple is thrilled that streets are paved, people whose homes have never caught on fire are thrilled that there's a fire department, and people who have never faced an enemy soldier are thrilled we have a well trained military.

And nevermind, that childless couple down the street is already paying, in the form of emergency room care that those without insurance are forced to resort to, and most of the time end up not paying the bulk of the cost. That tab has (rightly) been picked up by the tax payer all this time, and at a premium rate. This begins the process of actually planning for and controlling those costs, making sure fewer people need expensive emergency services, and that money has been collected to cover those that do.

:eek:

I found it different because yours implied I wanted to puke because others might get cared for. The other two were things like "I hope maalox is covered for you tummy". Good natured vs. accusatory.

On your later point I would have to agree.

Surely you see why your later two examples don't work?

I hope your are right...........I really do.

Not trying to avoid answering the question about specifics that I object to....I just can't research at present.

I think the biggest contributor to health costs is fear on the part of both patients and doctors. That and convenience.

My wife and I battle constantly about when to take our kids to the doctor. My view is that the body is designed, for the most part, to fix itself. You have a 102 fever? 99.99% of the time you'll be fine in a couple days. My wife sees anything over 100.5 as a mandate to go to the doc. I don't get it. It's fear of "what if something is horribly wrong?". There comes a point in time for the doctor, but routine illness is not that point.

When I was a kid, I had brutal allergies. Just aweful. Every spring I would spend two months of agony, and that was just life. Now there are 1400 different allergy medications that require visits to the doc to try to figure out the best one and then the cost of the medication itself. There are so many medications that do indeed offer a possibility for an increased quality of life....but how much of that should be convered by insurance? Is it absolutely vital to the health and well being of my kid that he have his flonase? I'm glad he does, as it spares him discomfort and frustration, but is it really a medical necessity.

I believe doctors fear being sued to a point of such extremism that any and everything must tested for. I have no proof of this except for anecdotal evidence....my 16 year old, around a year ago, had headaches for about 2 weeks straight. Nothing major. Wife took her to the doc. Blood tests and a freakin' cat scan. WTF?????? I said no way to the cat scan, but the wife was so freaked out and the doctor was so insistent that we did it. Completely fine. I suggested getting her eyes checked first, and sure enough, it was because she needed glasses while in school and reading. Cured that right up. I think tort reform doesn't just lower the costs of lawsuits, but lowers the cost related to the fear of lawsuits.

I have so many other things I could type right now but not the time. Sigh. Hopefully later.

You can haz bucket. I think it may be a stoned bucket.

I'm dense. What is the difference between a childless person paying for another child's medical care and the person's whose house never burned down paying for the fire department? Or the childless person paying for the local schools?

? Please enlighten me. If you're going to say that not having a neighborhood burn down, or not having a foreign nation invade benefits everyone, while having paved roads only benefits those with cars and ensuring access to maternity care for everyone benefits only those with children, I'll have to respectfully disagree. I could vow to never enter a road-based vehicle again for the rest of my life and I would still benefit from the portion of my tax $ that is spent on road maintenance. From the goods and services I use that rely directly on our roads for transportation, to simply the fact that nearly everyone else who goes to work to produce the goods and services that benefit me, whether I own a car or not is irrelevant. Likewise, ensuring that families are able to give their children the best shot possible at being healthy members of our society and not risk bankruptcy for the simplest of medical needs benefits you, me, and everyone. A healthy society is a productive society.

Nope, just pointing out that not a lot of thought went into this portion of the bill.....because they are round numbers it looks more like they didn't really study the "needs" of Americans very much but instead just coughed up a couple of numbers that sounded good.

I just think that is something that should be pointed out.....and btw, where did I say or imply that I am "outraged" at anything in this bill? If you question something does that automatically make you "outraged"?

Yeah, your right, all three of your examples were Oranges. It's just that the first one looked like, upon initial reading, it might be an apple.

And do you care to expand on why you consider health care access to be an apple?

Or they know that most American's wouldn't remember 3 and 6 or 4 and 7.

Glad you can come up with such concrete example of the lack of thought that went into this bill.

Try again.

No, not really.

My comment wasn't aimed at Leo.

I for one am happy for the pre-existing clause. Maddie has Type 1 Diabetes and it's treat it or die. When she got diagnosed one of my concerns was making sure she always had coverage - any gap and it could be treated as a pre-existing condition and she'd be hosed. And a lot of pre-exisiting conditions are gentic or from things out of a persons control. I don't think they should be punished for it. And to be honest denying coverage will make us end up on social programs or in the ER which will all end up costing everyone more anyway.

To Scaeagles point of the overuse of Doctors. I agree. I'm not one to take myself or Maddie in at the drop of a hat. I know a person who does and it makes me nuts. Not to mention every visit MUST have a perscription no matter what the ailment. Their medical coverage recently changed and they counted up family visits to the docs for the last year - I believe the number was 35 for 5 family members. That's 5 each in a year. These were all colds, ear infections and the like no serious or cronic conditions. Before Maddie's diagnosis and my recent ailments we generally go once a year for our yearly check ups. That's pretty much it.

And between my kidney stone and broken toe I've been in both the ER and Urgent Care recently. And I would say a number of the people at both places didn't need to be there. They had either a cold or flu. None seemed severe enough to warrant an ER trip for certain. Urgent Care is a little tricker because it's meant for stuff like that. But again unless you are severely dehydrated and need an IV I don't know what you want them to do for a cold or flu. And darn it I had kidney stones and a broken toe (really broken as in pointing the wrong direction) and you're taking up space ahead of me in line, and it is of course all about me :)

As for allergies Scaeagles. I too had horrible allergies in school. All the cartlidge in my nose is broken from rubbing it all the time. I wouldn't say all the allergy medications are a waste but they should just be over the counter and you can then pick and choose on your own dime. Personally the only one that works for me is Allegra - the only one not over the counter and with no generic still. And my copay on it is hefty. So I have to decide if it's worth that or just suck up and take the occasional benadryl when it gets really bad.

Regarding doctors visits - I go once a year or if I am hacking up disgusting sh*t. That means I go once a year, for my physical.

Regarding allergies - Zyrtec is finally OTC, WITH generic. I did the happy dance of joy when I found an exact generic at Costco that cost $18 for 365 pills vs. $45 for 90 pills of brand name. Erica can attest that me without Zyrtec results in me being utterly miserable, sneezing and unable to breathe.

Not getting in the debate here except to say that I'm all for change... and hopefully this one is a change in the right direction.

Also - Katie - there is a generic for Allegra. It's called Fexofenadine. I'm not sure if there's a generic for Allegra-D (basically Allegra plus a 12-hour sudafed), but I just go for the regular 60mg fexo. My copay is $4 for 60 pills...

I guess I'm lost in all the hoopa-a-doo about this. I've been preoccupying myself to keep my depression at bay by riding the peace train through Hippieland.

My big thing is that, well, I have a problem with people (corporations, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc) making a ton of money off of someone being sick. It feels heartless. And how is someone supposed to have a smooth recovery when they're about to go bankrupt because of all of their hospital, health care bills? I mean, the stress of that alone could keep a person sick.

Stated that way, you'll have to throw doctors into that bucket. I don't mind people making money off of making other people better. I have a problem with people making money by denying people the opportunity to be made better.

I get the Fexofenadine but for some reason insurance still charges me full rate - so it's something like $75 for three months. And my inurance requires that ANY recurring perscription be filled by their mail order so I can't do it anywhere else and get it cheaper.

.

I guess do throw doctors in that bucket. I don't mind people making money off of making other people better within reason. A bill for $100,000 for a hospital stay to deal with the leukemia you're suffering from is too much money*. Paying $105 a month for a prescription for anti-depressants is too much, especially when the depression is the one thing that prevents me from finding work from time to time. No work, no money, no prescription, no Serotonin to get work... it's a weird catch 22 situation.

*True story. I went to a fund raiser for a friend when I was in Monterey that his friends put together to help him with his hospital bills. I don't think the $1500 we raised helped all that much, tho. And I think he has insurance through Stanford...

ETA: There are 2 prescriptions that I'm on for my depression. So it was $210 a month on just my meds...

I have no problem with doctors and other medical professionals making a living - even a damn good one - treating people. They deserve it. What irks me, however, is seeing a corporation making obscene profits providing health coverage; or even worse - not providing it.

Can you take it to wal-mart and do the $4 one? Tell them no insurance.

Oh, and I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that I can enter this debate with any sort of super knowledge about what is going on... I'm just not a real good capitalist.

Conservative blogger calls for Obama's assasination on Twitter

It's long been a common aphorism that people like their lawyers to seem wealthy and their doctors not to. Docs are wise to downplay their wealth to their patients - it's always had a poor gut reaction (no pun really intended).

And wow, that Twittidiot obviously hasn't learned the innerSpaceman trial-by-error rules of appropriate internet communication.

fyi
 

The Huffington Post has compiled a list of the top 18 immediate effects of the health care bill as well as some that will take effect in the first year of implementation:

Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.

Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.

Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.

The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27.

Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.

A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.

New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018.

Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.

Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.

Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.

This tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, would be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010.

New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.

Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.

Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.

Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.

The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses.

A two‐year temporary credit (up to a maximum of $1 billion) is in the bill to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatment of diseases.

This is obviously a biased, heavily edited video. However something tells me it did not take the producers of this video much effort to find material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7...ayer_embedded#

But GC... Don't you know that Huffington Post is Teh Liberal EVIL. They're just going to lie to get you to support it! They don't want you to know about the death panels and secret granny death squads. The government wants to take control of the country, and we can't allow that!! Who do they think they are? Who told the government they could run things?! And don't forget, they are coming to take away your guns and money and put you in a re-education camp!

Well I have no grandparents so obviously granny-death squad it doesn't effect me and I don't care.

I see one of those things will help a friend of mine who is against this. He owns a small business with less than 50 employees.

And I suspect that blogger has already been arrested by the Secret Service.

Making reality shows 10% more expensive to produce.

Yay, I'm glad my employers will get a tax credit for my coverage. That's the only benefit I will remotely see from this - and yet I STILL support on behalf of the people I have compassion for. And because I see nothing more socialist in it than, as has been pointed out, schools, roads, fire and police, national weather service and the list could go on and on.

I wish I could live long enough through good health to see some real reform, but I have no illusions that much more will be done in my lifetime.

And I don't know if this counts to break the record (imo, it does not), but it was pointed out to me that - as evidence Congress is hopeless broken - no major legislation has been passed in the last 40 years.

You know who's losing money in that process? The lawyers and bill collectors who were middlemen in that process. WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE ATTORNEYS???? ;)

lol!
:D

There's one aspect of the bill that I know is intended to help people, but I don't think should have been put it - the no co-pays bit. Copays for many insurance plans are modest enough that they function less to reduce the insurance company's burden on that visit, than they do to discourage gratuitous visitation by overprotective parents and hypochondriacs.

A good compromise would have been setting limits on copays but still allowing them. A modest $10 or $20 copay would make office visits accessible to pretty much everyone but discourage people from visiting every time they get a headache.

I'd also like to see pharmacists empowered to do more. Perhaps release certain medications to a near-OTC situation where a pharmacist can clear a patient to receive it without having to wait for a doctor's visit. Medication for UTI and bladder infections, for example.

Oh a side note, it occurred to me to wonder about this: For those folks who have gotten a "prescription" for certain "herbal" remedies... would the prescription coverage now be required to cover people's access to pot? How odd would THAT be!

Problem with this is it will lead people to self diagnose more than they already are. What if that UTI or bladder infection is really an STD. Instead of being treated for the STD they are treating for the bladder infection while the STD gets worse.

How in the HELL can anyone look at this list and say: "It's the end of the world as we know it". Maybe it's because they've had health insurance forever and no illnesses and they can say "I feel fine". (Thank you REM.)

But how often do people allow a bladder infection to worsen because they can't get to a doctor?

Now they can.

I get what your original point was, and some things like allergy medication should be available OTC or nearly OTC. Things that require antibiotics or that have symptoms similar to something more serious should not. Antibiotics are already over-prescribed and should be more controlled (by doctors, not the government), not less (dispensed by a pharmacist after being given a random list of symptoms).

The over-prescribing of antibiotics is personal to me thanks to all the antibiotic resistant strains out there now. I am seriously allergic to anything that ends in 'cillin or is derived from a 'cillin antibiotic - as in if they were to administer penicillin they would have to do it in the hospital because the reaction would be life threatening. There isn't much I can take and if things become resistant to zythromax I'm pretty much SoL.

Because that's not all it is. If those was the sum total of the bill I doubt there would be nearly as much controversy. It's easy to go in and pick out a list of stuff from a 2700 page bill.

Please pick some stuff you are opposed to and post it for discussion. I'm still curious what in the bill you are opposed to. I know you said up thread you weren't well versed in it, yet you are opposed to it. There must be a reason beyond principal.

Just some thoughts on the Huffington Post 14 items.

Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014. - I'm fine with this so long as there is a universal individual mandate with teeth. Don't give any time to anyone who says they support eliminating pre-existing decision eliminations but not mandated coverage. Unfortunately the individual mandate passed and soon to be weakened by the reconciliation bill is not "teeth" in my opinion and if it isn't strengthened could be the fatal flaw that puts the whole thing on the economy crashing track feared by the opposition.

Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums. Fine. Another source I saw said it was 35% of benefit for companies with 25 or fewer but wherever the number is it is somewhat arbitrary and within an order of magnitude of what seems reasonable.

Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled. The reconciliation bill will change this but I can't remember specifically how. This however, if doom happens, will be the second door through which it might come. We're mandating demand with only minimal tools for controlling costs in a political environment (an insurance company may be willing to make the unpopular decision to not cover an expensive drug of questionable value but your local congresscritter never will).

The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27. Don't really like this one, at least not without some "means testing" attached. This really does feel like infantilization to me. I understand the idea behind it, but I still don't like it.

Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014. - Fine, but this really will mean "rationing" though not necessarily any different than the rationing now but now it can be blamed on people we vote for which is a much stronger incentive to push off the bad news until it destroys the system. All the sooner if the mandate isn't given some bite.

A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014. Fine.

New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018. - Fine, but I really need to track down the exact language on this. Once there is a way for something to be completely "free" then the lobbying will begin to get everything defined as preventative care. Chemotherapy for lung cancer will be preventative because it can prevent the need for radiation therapy or something. Manipulable labels are a dangerous thing.

Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick. - Very good and one of the few major pieces that could have been done as a standalone without the mandate.

Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead. Irrelevant so long as they are meeting the requirements established for participation in the exchanges. But not a huge deal depending on how the terms are defined. It'll just become the next accounting game on how to redefine things so as to minimize overhead.

Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims. Fine.

This tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, would be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010. - Stupid and reeks of scope creep. Also a foreboding sign of how they'll justify taxing anything just by attaching any kind of "health" consequence to it.

New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste. - Fine in itself. However, overall a relatively unimportant element and also a chimera. If fraud were easy to squeeze from the system it would have been done already.

Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients. No opinion.

Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits. Fine, but then I already think we're too liberal on granting tax benefits to non-profits.

Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon. Stupid nannyism.

The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage. No strong opinion.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses. Meaningless feel good measure. If you feel this is an important element first please explain without doing any new research in what ways the current federal and state information provided on health insurance options is inadequate.

A two‐year temporary credit (up to a maximum of $1 billion) is in the bill to encourage investment in new therapies for the prevention and treatment of diseases. Nice, but meaningless from the point of view of health care reform.

More links:

10 things....

CNN

NOTHING I'm reading helps me to fathom what the "problem" is.

I think it is easy to see the primary problem the honest dissent has, but like abortion it is fundamentally a philosophical disagreement so there really isn't room for compromise and the opposite view is somewhat incomprehensible.

But I think to a large population Health Care Reform and this would be roughly equivalent:

We as a society think it is important for everybody to have access to university education. Studies show that such education leads to happier, longer, more vibrant lives. So we're going to require everybody to pay tuition to the University of Phoenix regardless of whether they are actually going to be taking classes any time soon, have any interest in classes, and even if they agree that they will never actually complain about not being able to take a class in the future if they reject kicking in their share.

And because we need the people who aren't taking classes to contribute so that we can subsidize those who can't afford to take the classes we're going to make it against the law to simply sit back and pay for your classes when you take them, regardless of your ability to pay and certainty that you'd personally never be a financial burden on the university education system.

I can see why mandating that every citizen buy a private product regardless of their need, intent, or ability is a very scary road. And it is not really equivalent to car insurance, medicare, social security. That's why I'm of the opinion that the right course is either to go more libertarian and accept the brutal outcomes that implies or go totalitarian and nationalize the entire healthcare industry both payer and provider.

I'm not too worried about the current bill because I don't think it really does much and it isn't likely to change in the future but I can see the seeds of something to be afraid of, especially as the logic is further internalized and inevitably begins to spread to other areas that seem nonsensical now (as the logic of anti-smoking regulations are inevitably moving into other areas).

I'm not on board with it (the assumption that this is the first step to ruination), but I don't dismiss it out of hand.

Also, Morrigoon - according to the stuff I've seen - the prohibition on co-pays applies only to check-ups and other preventative care. So the Doc will have to bill it as preventative, otherwise co-pay you pay. The hypochondric-disincentive remains!

And it seems to me the mandate to buy private insurance is thankfully toothless, because I object to it, too - and would expect it to be overturned on constitutional grounds.

But the fines for not buying it are pretty minimal (especially in comparison with the costs of the insurance otherwise have to buy). I can't see them being any big incentive to comply, and it's not expected that enforcement will be robust in any event.

Is the 10% on tanning salons on top of the 8.75% tax? If the new tax will be 18.75%, it's only $2-$3 for the average package. It's certainly not going to deter anyone.

Oh, no wonder there are that many new posts....

As one without health care - I'd like some. Thank you very much...

yeah, i think this thread doubled the LoT post count for the last fortnight.

Perhaps, but if the mandate is unconstitutional then it doesn't matter how toothless it is, it'll still be unconstitutional and subject to being stricken.

And if there is no mandate then not allowing insurance to exclude people from the pool due to pre-existing condition is not sustainable. One without the other means the incentive then is to not pay for any insurance until you get sick then pay for insurance only so long as it takes to not need the coverage at the moment any longer and repeat as necessary.

And that is true regardless of whether the insurance is private or provided by the government. Which is why Medicare has a very strongly enforced mandate that charges people that won't even be regularly eligible to benefit for another 40 years.

Can someone explain to me why socialism is bad? I suspect it's all in how one defines socialism but I don't get the assumed evil behind that term.

I will go with just a few of the items that I find incredibly bothersome.

I do not and cannot support being forced or forcing anyone to buy anything.

Allowing those that have not purchased the insurance (and therefore pay whatever fines) to become sick and then opt in undermines what insurance really is.

I believe the penalties put in place on business related to insurance costs will inhibit hiring because it increases the cost of employment (or will lower the salary paid to offset the increased cost of employment). There are a wide variety of different aspects in this as far as what this does to employer choices in hiring practices.

Obama's promised executive order banning federal funding of abortions is a complete farce and will not stand, and he knows it, and offered oit only to get a few votes (thought we were changing how Washington functioned....didn't Obama say he wouldn't do these types of things, and that it was the job of Congress to pass laws and his job to sign them? He was quite critical of Bush for doing things like this.).

The bill is deemed as deficit neutral by the CBO, but that includes 10 years of revenue collection and only six or seven years of outlays. The CBO also estimates that insurance rates in the individual market would be 10-13 higher in 2016 than they would be wothout passage, so there doesn't seem to be any cost control advantages.

38 states are already planning lawsuits related to states rights (I suppose this isn't an objection, just a point about the overwhelming concerns about the constitutionality of various aspects included).

There is a marriage penalty, as there is more financial assistance for non married couples that married couples. Why the inequity?

Now....have I read the bill? No. I have not. Don't have the time, as I would figure not many average Americans have time to read 2700 page legislation. I'm sure I could go to several sources and find more to list. That was a few off the top of my head (and I think Alex had mentioned a couple), and a few more I knew the basics of but did 10 minutes of reading to become a bit more knowledgable.

Would you be ok with it if people weren't forced to buy anything but it was ok to kick them out of the emergency room if they hadn't bought insurance and don't have money to pay for treatment?

I'm ok with it if we want to go that way (but am perhaps biased by the fact that I am, by most standards, borderline rich). But it will never happen politically (I seem tor recall that Republicans are now the bodyguards for Medicare, insurance that I have no ability to opt out of short of refusing all employment), so it is a bit of a pipe dream.

I'm not sure why the executive order "will not stand." All it does is say "Hyde applies and this bill does nothing to change it." He can repeal it the next day and it will still be true that the bill does not to federally fund abortions (but again I am biased since I think that to the extent that health care coverage is federally funded it should cover abortion as well.)

It's not quite that simple (and while the bill just passed is essentially deficit neutral, combined with the reconciliation bill is it strongly deficit positive). Many programs kick in earlier than four years from now and some revenues don't kick in immediately. The estimate is that only 10% of the 10-year revenue will be collected in the first four years while 1% of the cost happens in the first four years. So yes, there is truth to this but is hardly the 40%/60% split the statement implies. More details on this one here.

Also, it doesn't deal with the CBO estimate that in the second 10 years (when both revenues and expenses will be fully in place) $1.2 trillion would be saved.

Of course, CBO numbers are always soft because they're evaluating bills on the assumption that Congress won't muck with things in the future and that's not really ever true. But still, the CBO is the organization both sides agree to use and I think it is safe to say that if the CBO has forecast a deficit increase that then Republicans would have viewed it as sacrosanct.


That is the estimate for 3590 only (not accounting for changes in the reconciliation bill) and is the unsubsidized price. The primary reason that the cost is higher is simply because the amount of coverage will be significnatly higher (and not simply because it will be more expensive to buy the exact same thing). For subsidized purchasers the price of insurance will be 56%-59% lower (using the same CBO report) than if no law had been passed. The full CBO report from last November here (the 56%-59% number on page 8).

To balance the unmarriage penalty that exists for unmarried couples who do not get the legal protections that married couples do? Or we could look at it as the "Stay at Home Mom" Bonus.

But it is there, just as it is almost everywhere. As dual high income earners, Lani and I are generally screwed on any program.


Don't expect any responses to change any minds, just providing information since I'm apparently one of the few who has time and inclination to read things.

With this I agree to some degree. Which is why what I really support is single-payer. Make it a government supplied service, not a mandated purchase. We don't need to subscribe to fire department service, why do I need to subscribe to this?

Unfortunately that's not politically viable right now. And it never will be politically viable to go from near-zero government supplied medical coverage to truly universal. My hope is that this is the first awkward step in that direction. That, seeing that the country hasn't fallen apart, Stalin hasn't risen from the grave, and grandma isn't being sent to the gas chamber because her prescriptions are getting costly, the electorate will eventually be able to see beyond the b.s. stigma associated with a "socialist" program and realize that, if we can agree that there's a net benefit to doing so, the best way to do it is to dump the inefficiency of this hybrid system and reap the benefit of a truly government-supplied system.

Leo, do you feel the same way about drivers being required to purchase insurance?

Just a little pre-emption.

Al Sharpton did not call Obama a socialist. He did not call Health Care Reform socialism.

Sean Hannity mislead his audience.

Being a frequent visitor to the ER (not as the patient), I've thought about this as we fork over our credit card for our 'co-pay'.

And I appreciate it. Thank you.

I'm not sure if this is in response to Chris' post, but we've been discussing Socialism quite a bit in these parts. A LOT of people have been throwing around the "socialism" moniker like it is the end of everything.

I have this reaction to certain "so called evil" lables: liberal and socialism being two common ones at the moment. It makes me want to embrace the terms and lovingly use them. (It was great to do with with the word "Pussy" recently.)

No, not a response to Chris. Just pre-emption of something I've seen in a couple other places with people saying "If even Al Sharpton says Obama/HCR is socialist then it makes you wonder..."

That's a misrepresentation of what he said so I figured I'd try to trigger some investigation before anybody said it here (if indeed it would have happened).

scaeagles, I'm not sure where you're getting your information about the CBO estimates. I'm not gleaning them from their website, but the news about deficit reduction figures - especially in the later stages - was very widespread and, as I pointed out, what gave so many Dems cover enough to finally vote in favor.


Also, are you confusing Executive Order with Signing Statement? The latter is what Bush abused and Obama objected to. Executive Orders are perfectly legit (as long as they aren't issued to circumvent the law). I'm pretty sure it was an Executive Order Obama pledged to issue on the abortion question.


I hate to get into that, but I hope it's still the bullsh!t option you complained of. Abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure. There's no legitimate role for the federal government to deny coverage for one legal procedure over another, simply because some people object to it. It's legal. That would be like people objecting to tobacco crops being included in a farm subsidy plan.

I don't think any Congressperson was "fooled" by Obama's pledge - but I wish it were so.

Anticipating his response, at least in part - that's a state issue not a federal one.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, and because I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue, there is the question of elective vs. necessary.

I don't think anyone is outraged that the proposed insurance plans do not cover cosmetic surgeries, yet those are perfectly legal.

At what point is an abortion considered elective? Is "a child would be inconvenient" enough of to consider it necessary? Where is the line drawn that says, "On this side an abortion is medically necessary, and on this side it is an elective procedure."

I'm personally having difficulty deciding where I'd draw the line. I'm pretty okay with Hyde as currently written. And the cries from opponents of this reform that this will lead to rampant elective abortions are absurd. But there are people who are arguing that even Hyde is too restrictive, that there should essentially all abortions should be covered, and that I can't agree with.

GD, I was surprised during this whole debate to find that abortions are covered at all - because I presumed they were considered elective. Apparently, not so.

So the issue is, if insurance companies cover a legal procedure as a medical necessity, who is the federal government to decide that particular legal procedure should be singled out for exclusion?

And NA, also anticipating Leo's response and elaborating on GD's - with auto insurance, you are free to not buy it ... and not drive. You will have no such opt out of medical insurance. You will be required to buy it in the same way you are required to pre-pay your income taxes before they are due (in that both happen to be, imo, unconstitutional - but you have to do it anyway or face big trouble).

If people without medical insurance are 100% responsible for their bills (and they aren't pawned off on the taxpayer) then I have no issue with not forcing people to buy medical insurance. Since that won't happen everyone should be forced to contribute something to get some sort of coverage or pay an opt out fine and stay the hell out of the emergency rooms and don't seek doctors care if you can't afford to pay the bill.

As it is, there will still be people without insurance. The homeless and illegal aliens (who rightfully so this new policy does not cover - if you're not here legally you shouldn't get access to our programs) are two groups off the top of my head.

1) One can opt not to drive......

2) The requirement for car insurance is more about protecting the other drivers on the road.......protection for yourself is usually optional(at least it is in my state).

3) Why is it liberals(and I say that lovingly as per your earlier statements:D ) point out the places where government has totally swirled itself into our lives as proof that more encroachments won't hurt? To me this is like saying "well, I've already polished off a tray of lasagna, half a loaf of french bread, a whole banana cream pie, and 3 milkshakes, why not go to taco bell for 4th meal?"

It's shifted around a bit. Hyde was passed right after Roe v. Wade was decided. It was initially written to prevent Medicare from covering abortions except in cases of health risk to the mother, rape, and incest. It was later rewritten to remove the health risk exception. And then again rewritten to remove the rape and incest exception. But in 1993, those exceptions were written back in and that's where we stand now.

And this is news... How?

Let me flip that. Why do conservatives insist that any government program = a direct path to a totalitarian regime that will strip you of all private property and liberties?

Or, to elaborate further, and to actually answer your question, it's to counter act the argument that "this is a socialist program, therefore it is by definition evil." Whether there are reasons this specific socialist program is bad is indeed a question that should be up for debate, however much of the opposition never goes further than "It's a government takeover!!!!!!!!! Run for the hills!!!" And when arguing that point, yes, pointing out socialist programs that exist, work, and are considered by no one to be evil is a valid counter, and disproves the argument.

And take federal and state subsidized public transit instead.

And though this goes completely against most of my political beliefs (eg: increasing government involvement, taxes), in this instance I think I agree.

"Forcing" people to pay an extra amount every month, one that is not already being paid via deductions from people's paychecks (on a percentage basis, so it rises and falls with income - taxes), is going to cause hardship. And you can throw out all the arguments about responsibility and keeping up with bills that you want, but many Americans have difficulty with this, and will have difficulty with this. If we're creating something universal, let's just let it be through taxes and just plain old COVERED.

And exactly how are they going to enforce this bill on the homeless? Sure, they'll qualify for free coverage, but with no address, how will they stay active in the system?

That's a fair question......I suppose it's because we don't see government reigning itself in....so when it is moving in the direction of totalitarianism we get a little nervous.

Are we wrong? Did we or did we not lose liberties today? Were our rights to our property expanded or contracted today? At what point would you say government has gone too far?

Only because they have forced the private transit companies out of business.

So is health care. If I have swine flu, and I can't afford antibiotics or a visit to the doctor to get the prescription, and I'm sitting around hoping that my body will just heal itself, then in the meantime, I'm SPREADING swine flu to all and sundry who have the misfortune to come into contact with me. So let's say I do a Target run to pick up some remedies for my flu symptoms, and as I'm checking out, I set my hands down on the counter. Now, the next person in line behind me happens to be a cancer patient picking up their anti-nausea meds for their chemo treatment (which weakens their immune system).

In this case, would my having had health coverage that allowed me to go immediately to a doctor and get antibiotics, which would have made me less contagious sooner be considered to benefit others?

If my hypothetical is a little too... hypothetical, let's go for a real situation:

If everyone had had health care a few years ago, then perhaps the random stranger with tuberculosis in downtown LA might have gotten treatment for it, and therefore NOT spread TB to people they rode the bus with, which included a friend of mine at USC, who unfortunately CAUGHT it, carried it unknowingly for a few years (spreading it to god knows who) and when diagnosed with it, had to spend half a year on meds. All because she didn't have a car for a few months when she was at USC.

Nonsense, if they're so rich from not paying for car insurance then the presumption is that they can afford to hire a cab.

It'll be a false presumption, but that's how the logic goes.

The private transit companies that didn't exist everywhere and only were affordable because they had free use of publicly subsidized thoroughfares.

It's all entwined.

You could argue that the individual mandate is the same. You are free to decline all the medical treatment you want, but the rest of society is inoculated against a sudden change of heart when you get cancer and decide that maybe you'd really like treatment even if you can't afford it.

I'm not sure see any difference between what you say is a hardship in that first sentence and what is ok in the last sentence.

It's a difficult question and unless the goal is a Libertarian paradise not one where it is easy to draw the line. Is a truly Libertarian Paradise your preference? If so then we've reduced the discussion to the basic philosophical difference which can't be overcome.

Just a nitpick. You put a real person into the story but it was still a complete hypothetical.

At the point when the net benefit is outweighed by the net detriment.

As for questions of liberty - while I value financial liberty to a degree, I do not value it to the degree I value liberties that are independent of money. Rights to everyone's life, freedom, expression et. al. take a back seat to the right to your dollar. Now, I happen to also think that preservation of many of the rights that I do consider essential are aided by preserving the right to private property. But given the choice between instituting something that I think preserves a more crucial right (in this case, the right for everyone to have the opportunity to maintain their health regardless of financial status) vs. preserving some incremental monetary rights, I will almost always choose the former.

It really happened.

huh?

I honestly don't know what the heck you are talking about...:confused:

I do not have to drive. It is perfectly within my rights not to. No car, no autoi insurance. However, I do have to breathe. Breathing would mean that I'm required by law to purchase health insurance.

Essentially it's a tax masquerading as a law. Eventually, I hope, it will become an actual tax. But of course, the government requiring you by law to spend money on something against your will is a tax, by whatever name it's called.

It's perfectly within my rights, scaeagles, to pay my income taxes in April of the following year when they are due and can properly be assessed, and not a moment before. But go ahead and try that.

Putting aside for a moment questions of practicality and whether you think it would function well or not, would you have the same "I'm forced to buy it" objection if we went to a true universal single payer system, where, instead of subsidizing purchase of health insurance by individuals from private companies, health insurance was paid for entirely by the government, budgeted from tax revenue?

This is a fair question, allow me to try to explain it better:

The hardship comes when paying for insurance is a separate bill, rather than being folded into income taxes. The government knows people aren't good at paying their bills, that's why they insist on taking taxes out of people's income before a paycheck is cut. Yet they think they can "add" a bill for multiple hundreds of dollars per month, and mandate it legally. That's why the single-payer option is a better idea. Sure, it'll mean a tax increase, but I think that's the "easier" way to get people to pay for it.

The problem is, this really does mean that everyone will have government insurance, and quite rightly, it freaks out the Republicans and Libertarians. It even freaks me out, but I think the benefit outweighs the cost in this instance. I've said before that the plan I favor would be a government-provided minimum coverage (like Medicare), with the option for citizens to purchase privately-supplied supplemental insurance. That way, people who fear "standing in line for care" will be provided with a way out, or a way to choose the best doctors, whose price might require extra fees and/or insurance to cover.

And I acknowledge that this means there must be some requirement for doctors to accept a certain number of patients at the government minimum, in order to be able to charge the other patients more.

The good news here is that if employers want to be seen as providing good benefits, they can still buy the supplemental coverage for their employees, but overall it will probably cost the employers less than paying for the current full coverage (with employees still footing huge bills to pay their portion)

Only the bolded part really happened. Everything else was hypothetical:

Good answer but the "dollar" is not just a dollar....it represents my labor....replace the word "dollar" with labor and then read your paragraph again.

Let's just say if a Truly Libertarian Paradise is Miami and outright Totalitarianism is Seattle my preference would be to live in Memphis, not Walla Walla.

But how are you drawing that bright solid line? Especially when it looks like every step taken away from Miami gets labeled as Seattle? Or it is claimed we already live in Boise.

Considering I think government is too big as it is and my general philosophy that I prefer government keep its hands out of as much as possible, I suppose I would have a problem with it on a philosophical level. As with anyone, my taxes go to support all sorts of things that I do not philosophically support. But because of how you defined the issue, the "I'm forced to buy it" objection goes away and would be, of course, replaced by numerous other objections, which would be more in line with my normal objections to government intrusion into my life and high taxation.

I was making fun of the attitude that some people take towards other people's financial needs/choices

So on balance, if it were a simple either/or choice. Would you prefer a universal mandate to purchase private insurance or a government-run single payer system?

But it was still LESS hypothetical than my previous example. Which, being entirely hypothetical, may have been "too" hypothetical for the reader. :rolleyes:

I think you're missing my point, but I'm going to admit it is a not particularly important point, apologize for bringing it up, and leave it be.

Doesn't change my stance, seeing as I disagree with the premise. A dollar can be exchanged for labor. It is not however labor. It doesn't represent labor. A dollar is an arbitrary thing. It's a immensely useful arbitrary thing, but it is fundamentally nothing. It exists only because we say it exists, it has value only because we say it has value.

But that's getting more philosophical than necessary. More concrete and to the point, I do not find it unreasonable to say, "As long as you are part of this society, you are required to share the responsibility of things that ensure the continued viability of this society." What that share is can be argued ad-nauseum, but as Alex said, unless you are truly arguing for absolute libertarian rule (hope you know a good asphalt contractor, or a mechanic who specializes in rebuilding suspensions), simply crying, "You're taking my liberty!" is an empty argument. It's already been agreed by our society that we're okay with "infringing" on that kind of liberty to some degree. We may draw the line at different places, but declaring "It's anti-freedom, and therefore wrong!" is a flawed place to be arguing from unless you're prepared to argue that ALL services that require monetary collection from citizens are equally wrong.

If you are defining "property" as "money" then I would have to say that since I will now apparently qualify for a rebate on my (ex-husband's) employer contracted, exorbitantly (yet very comprehensive) priced insurance, then my personal rights (liberty) were expanded today.

Because the damn liberal Commies are socialists. :p

You dont' get a prescription - you get a recommedation.

Ok, I see:)

Fascist or Socialist?....um, I guess Socialist but only because it would make it easier to target who to blame.

Fascist? Really? Fascist?

See, you're not saying that it is a step towards Seattle from Miami, you're just saying it is Seattle.

But anyway, I guess your support can now be counted on when the next step is attempted for a single payer system. Since we're already in Seattle, presumably if the option is status quo or switch to socialism (which is what it'll be) you'lll be supporting the switch.

Just out of curiosity- do the people who are not for this bill resent having to subsidize the healthcare systems of the military? If not- why?

Maybe not Boise, but certainly no further East than Wyoming....

If only there were some sort of document, respected by all of our lawmakers limiting .......sigh.

I do and I don't.......I believe that we would all be a lot better off if healthcare didn't have insurance. Like College education, healthcare costs so much because the consumer is too far removed(or at least insulated) from the equation. Let a free market reign and the costs would not be so high and most would be able to afford healthcare.....and the few who couldn't would not be that big of a burden for charities to handle.

But since the reality of the world is not a free market I see no reason why the military shouldn't have insurance paid for by the people who they work for......just as in most other businesses.

Oh, you mean that thing that Bush completely forgot about disregarded?

The free market is what created the medical insurance industry*.





*some non-free market forces are what propelled it rapidly into entrenchment, but it came to be of its own free will.

Yeah, that. Before you give up anymore power to the federal government maybe you should remember that another Bush may be only 4 to 8 years away:eek:

Not the grossly regulated, forced monopolized version we have now....nothing free market about it.

[choking laughter]

Do you mean the "smart one"?

[/choking laughter]

Ok, I am bowing out of this discussion........a few final thoughts:

1) It's not as bad as many on the right have been saying........yet.

2) I am not "outraged" at the Dems or Obama. I think it was a mistake to pass this bill for a whole host of reasons chief of which is I am for free markets and this is not free.

3) I hope it works. And if it doesn't I hope enough Dems have the character to recognize it's failings and dump it rather than try to fix it with endless buckets of money.

When I no longer work for a company, they generally cancel my insurance. Many companies do not pay for insurance, either in part or whole, and do not cover families. (The insured opts to pay to add on to their policy). I am not at all against military health coverage- I just wish the people who make the armaments, produce the hardware, build the planes and provide food to the troops might get a little help. The military is nothing without the people who work to support it- why should they count less? Again, I am a military brat and I totally support what they do receive- I think they deserve better, in fact. I just happen to feel that way about all Americans.

I understand. I felt this way about the war.

HR is a big f#@*ing deal!

This just in:

Republican party begins feeding on its young:

Frum was fired today by The American Enterprise Institute.

Senators are receiving death threats. WTF is wrong with people. WTF is wrong with this country. When did we turn into a bunch of children stomping our feet and making threats because we didn't get our way. The volatile political divide that has been growing over the past few years is getting scary.

HCR is bittersweet at best for all women. And thus should be for us all.

The article is by a friend of a friend. Looking at the HRC from a point of view that makes it look pretty awful, and I'm generally a supporter. There's just so much not right about it though. Ugh and le sigh.

Per your link (bolding mine):
Excuse me, WTF??? How did I miss this? Since when is there no public option?

Since early December when the Senate version dropped not only the public option but any triggers that might eventually invoke one.