QuoteWASHINGTON (CNN) -- The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a summary of his long-awaited health care reform bill Wednesday, setting the stage for a legislative showdown on President Obama's top domestic priority.
Sen. Max Baucus will reveal his panel's compromise health care reform plan on Wednesday.
The bill crafted by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, would cost $856 billion over 10 years and mandate insurance coverage for every American.
The bill -- released with no Republican support -- would not add to the federal deficit, Baucus said in a written statement.
The measure drops the public option favored by Obama and many Democratic leaders, according to a statement. As expected, the plan instead calls for the creation of nonprofit health care cooperatives.
As with other reform proposals, the bill would bar insurance companies from dropping a policyholder in the event of illness as long as that person had paid his or her premium in full. It would add new protections for people with pre-existing conditions and establish tax credits to help low- and middle-income families purchase insurance coverage.
Insurance companies also would be barred from imposing annual caps or lifetime limits on coverage. Individuals, however, would be fined up to $950 annually for failing to obtain coverage; families could be fined as much as $3,800.
The plan also would create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for small groups and individuals to buy insurance.
"The cost of America's broken health care system has stretched families, businesses and the economy too far for too long. For too many, quality, affordable health care is simply out of reach," Baucus said.
"This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of us have sought for so long."
The Republican Senate leadership ripped the proposal, arguing it would impose unreasonable new tax burdens while cutting vital government programs.
"This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.
"Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy."
The Senate Finance Committee is the last of five congressional committees needed to approve health care legislation proposals before the topic can be taken up by both the full Senate and the full House of Representatives.
Various forms of the legislation proposed by Democrats have already cleared three House committees, as well as the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
The release of the bill comes a day after Obama delivered a fiery defense of his embattled plan to overhaul health care, telling a raucous union audience in Pennsylvania that "now is the time for action" and "the time to deliver."
"When are we going to say enough is enough?" he asked a national AFL-CIO convention. "How many more workers have to lose their coverage? How many more families have to go into the red for a sick loved one? ... We have talked this issue to death year after year, decade after decade."
Baucus has led months of negotiations with five other committee members -- three Republicans and two Democrats -- on what is considered the only proposal that could win bipartisan support in Congress.
Don't Miss
Obama offers health care details in speech
Baucus to unveil health care bill next week
In Depth: Health care in America
GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Charles Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming -- the three Republicans involved in the so-called "Gang of Six" -- all still had concerns Tuesday that had not been sufficiently addressed, Snowe, Grassley and other Republican sources indicated.
GOP sources close to the senators stressed that they intend to keep negotiating and plan to offer amendments.
Wednesday morning Baucus said he was optimistic that the bill would ultimately win GOP votes.
"I think when we finally vote on the bill ... there will be Republican support," he told reporters on Capitol Hill.
"They'll become a little more familiar with it" in the days ahead, he said, and they will have several opportunities to offer amendments during the full committee's consideration of the bill.
Baucus also noted that it is "very similar" to the framework laid out by Obama during the president's speech to Congress last week.
In a statement issued Tuesday evening, Grassley said among the outstanding issues to be resolved are the costs to taxpayers, affordability for individuals, preventing taxpayer money from funding abortions, screening out illegal aliens, limiting medical malpractice lawsuits and lowering the overall costs.
Grassley also said he wanted assurances from Democratic leaders in Congress that the bipartisan measure under negotiation would remain unchanged after the Finance Committee passes it.
Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia said he would oppose the Baucus proposal because it lacks a government-funded public health insurance option favored by Obama and liberal Democrats.
"By being against this bill, I am putting down a marker, which I think others should put down, too, who might feel the same way I do," Rockefeller said. He called the Baucus proposal an attempt to gain one or two Republican supporters, rather than a bill that would set good policy for the nation.
Baucus said the negotiators were tackling a range of controversial issues, including medical malpractice, ensuring a denial of benefits to illegal immigrants and expanding federal support for Medicaid.
Another of the Finance Committee negotiators, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, said the negotiators also considered a provision to specifically prohibit any provisions in the health care proposal from funding abortion.
One key sticking point between many Democrats and Republicans remains the question of whether to create a government funded public health insurance option.
Republicans unanimously oppose the public option as an unfair competitor that would drive private insurers out of the market, which they say would bring a government takeover of health care.
Democratic supporters reject that claim, saying a nonprofit public option would be one choice for consumers who also could sign up for private coverage.
Conrad has proposed creating nonprofit health insurance cooperatives as an alternative to the public option.
Obama, a supporter of the public option, also cited the idea of cooperatives as a possible middle-ground during his speech to Congress last week
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/health.care/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
I am amazed at how the Democrats are getting played.
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
QuoteThe Republican Senate leadership ripped the proposal, arguing it would impose unreasonable new tax burdens while cutting vital government programs.
I am sure that does shock Republicans since their way of handling government deficits has always been to increase government programs and cut taxes.
QuoteI am amazed at how the Democrats are getting played
Yeah what suckers. Coming out with compromise positions. :huh:
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
It sounds like a misguided attempt to transfer similar idea about car insurance to health insurance to me. It sounds horrible but it depends on the details.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2009, 10:21:19 AM
Yeah what suckers. Coming out with compromise positions. :huh:
A few thoughts. Compromise just to have compromise is wrong. You dn't compromise with bad ideas if you don't have to.
Moreover, they compromised, and now the GOP has rejected the "compromise" bill. As people predicted months ago.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:28:47 AM
A few thoughts. Compromise just to have compromise is wrong. You dn't compromise with bad ideas if you don't have to.
Moreover, they compromised, and now the GOP has rejected the "compromise" bill. As people predicted months ago.
I am not sure that a middle and less extreme way may not be a better option. Obviously they feel like they have to get Blue Dog and some Republican support or they wouldn't bother.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2009, 10:27:37 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
It sounds like a misguided attempt to transfer similar idea about car insurance to health insurance to me. It sounds horrible but it depends on the details.
Is this where the
Death Panels come in? If you don't have car insurance you can't drive, so if you don't have health insurance than you can't be allowed to live?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2009, 10:31:20 AM
I am not sure that a middle and less extreme way may not be a better option.
I think the worrying thing is when bipartisan compromise and fudges become virtues in and of themselves, regardless of the policy involved. I don't know which of the numerous approaches I'd consider best policy, it could well be one. But, I think it's dodgy to assume that a bill is automatically better because it's got Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe backing it. I don't think it's wise to just judge things by the number of centrists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 10:41:25 AM
I think the worrying thing is when bipartisan compromise and fudges become virtues in and of themselves, regardless of the policy involved. I don't know which of the numerous approaches I'd consider best policy, it could well be one. But, I think it's dodgy to assume that a bill is automatically better because it's got Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe backing it. I don't think it's wise to just judge things by the number of centrists.
Well I sort of worry that a purely public solution is a point of no return. Once something gets to be apart of the entitlement program...well people feel entitled to it and it is very hard to take away. Perhaps a middle ground of non-profits maybe a good middle ground that may have more flexibility.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2009, 10:45:52 AM
Well I sort of worry that a purely public solution is a point of no return. Once something gets to be apart of the entitlement program...well people feel entitled to it and it is very hard to take away. Perhaps a middle ground of non-profits maybe a good middle ground that may have more flexibility.
If the public option is more competitive than private industry, why is that a bad thing?
The current bill seems to do nothing to significantly expand coverage or curtail costs. And co-ops have had a bad experience, in practice.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:49:07 AM
If the public option is more competitive than private industry, why is that a bad thing?
Because private insurance companies represent possible public revenues while public insurance providers represent public expenses?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2009, 10:45:52 AM
Well I sort of worry that a purely public solution is a point of no return. Once something gets to be apart of the entitlement program...well people feel entitled to it and it is very hard to take away. Perhaps a middle ground of non-profits maybe a good middle ground that may have more flexibility.
I like Snowe's idea that the public option comes into operation in states that, after a period, don't develop competitive insurance markets (ie. Alabama with 1 company having 90% of the market).
Though I think the public option is really unimportant in comparison to the amount of attention it's attracted. I think leftie Democrats are making a monumental mistake if that becomes the sine qua non of healthcare reform. I also think Republicans have made a mistake focusing on something that the White House and a number of Senators always viewed as negotiable.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
Yes, it is the most important part of any move to universal coverage, imo.
A major reason private insurance is so expensive is because of information asymmetry. Imagine you are a 25 year old woman expecting to get pregnant. You will obviously be more inclinded to get insurance just before receiving the 5 figure bill. The result is that insurance companies have to treat everyone as more likely to get coverage just before a major expense, which drives up rates for healthy people just wanting insurance.
Insurance plans through companies are often cheaper, in large part due to mandates that everyone at the company have health insurance. With a universal mandate, the problem of information asymmetry is significantly reduced (people can't only purchase insurance just before they need it).
If you want to insure everyone affordably, you need to either provide everyone insurance that doesn't get it through their employer or mandate that people get it on their own. The former will obviously be very expensive (and lead to the cancellation of many corporate policies), while the latter should significantly reduce the current premiums by eliminating the asymmetry problem.
The GOP members are under a lot of pressure from the public. Dems will need to go it alone in any case.
:lol: I just got around to reading the details of this proposed bill.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 10:56:58 AM
Though I think the public option is really unimportant in comparison to the amount of attention it's attracted.
Actually reading this bill makes me think otherwise.
Single payer is a very clean solution. The government pays for a base level of care; the free market takes care of the rest. There is a budgetary cost of course and political decisions have to be made about the base level of services provided. But it gets you universal coverage without having to fiddle around with mandates, adverse selection, fines, tax credits, "health care cooperatives," and all these fiddly bureaucratic rules that in practice are going to bog down this plan in an inpenetrable morass of regulations.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2009, 10:27:37 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
It sounds like a misguided attempt to transfer similar idea about car insurance to health insurance to me. It sounds horrible but it depends on the details.
How is this misguided? What is criminally misguided is prohibiting denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, without mandating that everyone have health insurance. That would lead to people buying insurance right before needing major expenses, and saving on premiums before that. Incidentally, the comparison with car insurance is also misguided, although it's easy to make a misleading connection. The reason for mandates are very different for those two types of insurance.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 16, 2009, 01:31:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2009, 10:56:58 AM
Though I think the public option is really unimportant in comparison to the amount of attention it's attracted.
Actually reading this bill makes me think otherwise.
Single payer is a very clean solution. The government pays for a base level of care; the free market takes care of the rest. There is a budgetary cost of course and political decisions have to be made about the base level of services provided. But it gets you universal coverage without having to fiddle around with mandates, adverse selection, fines, tax credits, "health care cooperatives," and all these fiddly bureaucratic rules that in practice are going to bog down this plan in an inpenetrable morass of regulations.
If the public option was something akin to the VA, I would agree—but I don't think that was in the cards. For example, republicans put in an amendment that all congressmen be on the plan. If the public option is something along the lines of medicare, I'm worried about breaking the budget.
A mandate can be the cleaner option.
There's a simple, basic flaw in mandated coverage with no public option- with the car comparison, one can elect not to drive to avoid the hike in cost of living. The vast majority of uninsured remain so simply because they cannot afford to purchase coverage- fining people another thousand dollars for not being able to pay an unavoidable cost would only exacerbate the problem.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 01:56:52 PM
There's a simple, basic flaw in mandated coverage with no public option- with the car comparison, one can elect not to drive to avoid the hike in cost of living. The vast majority of uninsured remain so simply because they cannot afford to purchase coverage- fining people another thousand dollars for not being able to pay an unavoidable cost would only exacerbate the problem.
I believe it's not a fine but a sliding scale tax for people a certain percentage above the poverty line who don't have insurance, while those from the poverty line to very high above it receive a sliding scale of subsidy if they don't have employer-provided insurance to buy insurance.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 01:56:52 PM
There's a simple, basic flaw in mandated coverage with no public option- with the car comparison, one can elect not to drive to avoid the hike in cost of living. The vast majority of uninsured remain so simply because they cannot afford to purchase coverage- fining people another thousand dollars for not being able to pay an unavoidable cost would only exacerbate the problem.
How does the existence of a public option affect this one way or the other?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 03:25:30 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 01:56:52 PM
There's a simple, basic flaw in mandated coverage with no public option- with the car comparison, one can elect not to drive to avoid the hike in cost of living. The vast majority of uninsured remain so simply because they cannot afford to purchase coverage- fining people another thousand dollars for not being able to pay an unavoidable cost would only exacerbate the problem.
How does the existence of a public option affect this one way or the other?
Because the public option costs nothing.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 01:56:52 PM
There's a simple, basic flaw in mandated coverage with no public option- with the car comparison, one can elect not to drive to avoid the hike in cost of living. The vast majority of uninsured remain so simply because they cannot afford to purchase coverage- fining people another thousand dollars for not being able to pay an unavoidable cost would only exacerbate the problem.
One counter-argument is that the mandate removes the biggest reason for individual health insurance being unaffordable.
It may become affordable to some, but there will still be many people who can't pay the lesser rates either.
Poverty sounds like such a downer.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 16, 2009, 05:09:10 PM
It may become affordable to some, but there will still be many people who can't pay the lesser rates either.
Yeah, that. Poverty level shouldn't be confused with a threshold for financial independence. The federal government defines the poverty level for an individual in 2009 as $10,830 (it increases by $3,740 for each additional person in the household). In the "Minsky Moment" thread, it mentions "Ponzi borrowers," who I would probably classify as those falling between the poverty line and the real cost of living for their area; all those people would be susceptible to the penalties if poverty line is the indicator being used.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
How's it unconstitutional?
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
What's a non-retarded way to force people to buy health insurance?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 16, 2009, 05:19:11 PM
In the "Minsky Moment" thread, it mentions "Ponzi borrowers,"
Different concept. Minsky defined "ponzi finance" as financing in which the interest or carrying cost exceeds the current income available to make payments. It is a concept that relates primarily to business financing, although it can be applied to individuals. PIK instruments would be a real world example of Minskyite "ponzi finance". When Ponzi finance begins to come prevelant, that is a sign that the boom has reached unsustainability and the system becomes unstable and prone to collpase.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
How's it unconstitutional?
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
How's it unconstitutional?
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
Don't many states mandate that people buy car insurance? If that hasn't been struck down, why would this be?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2009, 06:24:08 PM
Don't many states mandate that people buy car insurance? If that hasn't been struck down, why would this be?
Those are state laws?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2009, 06:24:08 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
How's it unconstitutional?
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
Don't many states mandate that people buy car insurance? If that hasn't been struck down, why would this be?
No State has a mandate that you buy car insurance.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:35:00 PM
No State has a mandate that you buy car insurance.
I see what you did there.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthejosevilson.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F04%2Ffuturama_fry_looking_squint.jpg&hash=e215ec81dc3e9c13e0c4b870434bfafe8bb5f9b4)
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
I guess you also believe social security is unconstitutional?
I'm hearing some of the same old negativities about this latest "newest" bill. :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2009, 06:24:08 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
How's it unconstitutional?
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
Don't many states mandate that people buy car insurance? If that hasn't been struck down, why would this be?
Tim doesn't understand.
Quote from: garbon on September 16, 2009, 07:02:26 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 07:01:59 PM
social security is unconstitutional?
If only...:weep:
I know. Pre-FDR it would've been considered unconstitutional, but the health care mandate goes far beyond that in violating the constitution.
They'd be on sounder footing if they simply advocated a large tax increase and then offering tax credits to buy health insurance.
Quote from: KRonn on September 16, 2009, 07:36:55 PM
I'm hearing some of the same old negativities about this latest "newest" bill. :(
I'm sure you'd hear them even if Baucus played a prank and actually released the full text of War and Peace.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:35:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2009, 06:24:08 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
How's it unconstitutional?
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
Don't many states mandate that people buy car insurance? If that hasn't been struck down, why would this be?
No State has a mandate that you buy car insurance.
If you want to drive a car you have to have insurance. Of course, one can simply choose not to own a car if you want, but that's not really a choice for a vast majority of adults.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 16, 2009, 05:56:32 PM
Different concept. Minsky defined "ponzi finance" as financing in which the interest or carrying cost exceeds the current income available to make payments. It is a concept that relates primarily to business financing, although it can be applied to individuals. PIK instruments would be a real world example of Minskyite "ponzi finance". When Ponzi finance begins to come prevelant, that is a sign that the boom has reached unsustainability and the system becomes unstable and prone to collpase.
That was understood. I was stretching to illustrate those that are living beyond their means, even though they look like they should be able to subsist on paper.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2009, 07:57:41 PM
If you want to drive a car you have to have insurance. Of course, one can simply choose not to own a car if you want, but that's not really a choice for a vast majority of adults.
Of course it is a choice that many do indeed make. Just because most people chose to drive doesn't mean that you have no choice.
What's the point of a compromise bill when only one side will vote for it anyway?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 16, 2009, 07:57:41 PM
If you want to drive a car you have to have insurance. Of course, one can simply choose not to own a car if you want, but that's not really a choice for a vast majority of adults.
Don't be stupid.
For those that are opposed to a mandate, can you explain how you want to achieve universal health care coverage? (assuming you care about that)
Quote from: alfred russel on September 16, 2009, 08:25:37 PM
For those that are opposed to a mandate, can you explain how you want to achieve universal health care coverage? (assuming you care about that)
I'm not opposed to a mandate, but you could achieve universal coverage by giving it away for free.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2009, 08:06:43 PM
What's the point of a compromise bill when only one side will vote for it anyway?
Presumably this compromise will get the DINOs plus one moderate Republicans to vote for cloture. They don't need to vote for the actual bill.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 16, 2009, 08:36:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 16, 2009, 08:25:37 PM
For those that are opposed to a mandate, can you explain how you want to achieve universal health care coverage? (assuming you care about that)
I'm not opposed to a mandate, but you could achieve universal coverage by giving it away for free.
Two problems with that:
1) Americans with private insurance lose it, and
2) you still force americans to pay for health care, only it is no longer linked to their own care and is instead through taxes.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 16, 2009, 08:46:43 PM
Two problems with that:
1) Americans with private insurance lose it, and
2) you still force americans to pay for health care, only it is no longer linked to their own care and is instead through taxes.
Never mind. I thought you were asking how it would be possible to achieve without mandates, not how do you want to achieve it without mandates.
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
What's a non-retarded way to force people to buy health insurance?
The silence is deafening. I guess today's talking points didn't cover that question.
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 09:27:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
What's a non-retarded way to force people to buy health insurance?
The silence is deafening. I guess today's talking points didn't cover that question.
Of course the silence is deafening. If someone knew a non-retarded way to force people to buy health insurance than it wouldn't be an issue. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 09:27:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 05:29:25 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM
Incidentally, does anybody understand the whole "fining Americans who don't have health care" bit?
It's a retarded way to force people to buy health insurance, and blatanly unconstitutional to boot. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law.
What's a non-retarded way to force people to buy health insurance?
The silence is deafening. I guess today's talking points didn't cover that question.
I answered your question in the very next post, douhebag.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 17, 2009, 08:06:32 AM
Oh, so you also believe that social security is unconstitutional. Alrighty then.
Hans is still mad about the unconstitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase. Nowhere does it say the Federal Government can buy land from France in the whole document.
Hopefully there will be super cheap bullshit options (first aid kit and bus ticket to Tijuana) for people who don't want insurance.
Incidentally, here's a list of Baucus's top ten donors, which is one reason I am skeptical about this bill:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_1xQeOPE9ePU%2FSrIZ1nnQ_cI%2FAAAAAAAAD3g%2FHhApbZQD8Tw%2Fs1600%2Fbaucusdonoar.jpg&hash=a1ebbbc3ef0529f79e67e720b18050eb273dc487)
Quote from: Faeelin on September 17, 2009, 08:56:41 AM
Incidentally, here's a list of Baucus's top ten donors, which is one reason I am skeptical about this bil:
See? The insurance and pharmaceuticals companies know his plan is the best for the health of the American people.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 17, 2009, 06:33:48 AM
I answered your question in the very next post, douhebag.
Where, I didn't see it.
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 17, 2009, 06:33:48 AM
I answered your question in the very next post, douhebag.
Where, I didn't see it.
The next post was JRs. But the one after that was Hans.
QuoteWhat article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
There you go Doughebag!
This reminds me of that essay I had to grade as a History TA where a student wrote thinking that narrow constructionalism versus broad constructionalism was about literally building buildings in the United States instead of about Constitutional interpretation. I was amused about Alexander Hamilton's strong desire to build buildings all over the country.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 17, 2009, 09:41:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 17, 2009, 09:26:01 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 17, 2009, 06:33:48 AM
I answered your question in the very next post, douhebag.
Where, I didn't see it.
The next post was JRs. But the one after that was Hans.
QuoteWhat article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
There you go Doughebag!
I thought that's what Hans was referring to, but then I was confused when he called it an answer to my question.
Donna Brazille and Ed Gilespie (who ever that is) were on CNN spinning the health care battle, and they mentioned the possibility of reconciliation, which would only require 51 votes in the Senate as opposed to 60. Anyone know what they're talking about?
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
How bout the taxing clause and the commerce clause.
That should do it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 05:26:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
How bout the taxing clause and the commerce clause.
That should do it.
Remember, Hans is a rabid legal positivist who doesn't believe in common law. :contract:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 05:26:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 16, 2009, 06:09:23 PM
What article of the Constitution permits Congress to mandate that people buy insurance?
How bout the taxing clause and the commerce clause.
That should do it.
Good old Commerce Clause. What can't it do? :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 05:26:18 PM
How bout the taxing clause and the commerce clause.
That should do it.
Has the commerce clause been used to regulate individual non-commerical activity?
I ask in curiosity, not anger. I'm not a racist.
Buying health insurance is commercial activity. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Has the commerce clause been used to regulate individual non-commerical activity?
Yes. The possession of purely intra-state produced marijuana has been banned based on the commerce clause, in
Gonzales v. Raich.
Quote from: ulmont on September 17, 2009, 06:09:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Has the commerce clause been used to regulate individual non-commerical activity?
Yes. The possession of purely intra-state produced marijuana has been banned based on the commerce clause, in Gonzales v. Raich.
You could get high and THEN cross state lines.
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 09:27:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 05:29:25 PM
What's a non-retarded way to force people to buy health insurance?
The silence is deafening. I guess today's talking points didn't cover that question.
Make insurance free, legislate the cost of procedures and pay for it via taxation.
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2009, 06:21:11 PM
Make insurance free, legislate the cost of procedures and pay for it via taxation.
Ok, maybe I should've clarified my question. What's a non-retarded way to force people living in a politically retarded country to buy health insurance?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 05:20:31 PM
Donna Brazille and Ed Gilespie (who ever that is) were on CNN spinning the health care battle, and they mentioned the possibility of reconciliation, which would only require 51 votes in the Senate as opposed to 60. Anyone know what they're talking about?
Yep. The Senate has a process called budget reconciliation which only requires 51 votes to enter and requires 51 votes to pass a bill and, I believe, filibusters can't happen during reconciliation. It was used for budgets and tax bills during Clinton's Presidency, for an education bill, ANWR and tax bills during Bush's.
The White House hasn't been trying to find a majority for healthcare, it has one. It's been trying to find a super-majority to end a filibuster because everyone wanted to avoid using reconciliation if that was possible. I believe a number of blue dogs have now said that they'd be willing to support budget reconciliation to pass a bill.
Yay I can't wait for them to lie and cheat in order to save the interests of the American public.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 05:20:31 PM
Donna Brazille and Ed Gilespie (who ever that is) were on CNN spinning the health care battle, and they mentioned the possibility of reconciliation, which would only require 51 votes in the Senate as opposed to 60. Anyone know what they're talking about?
Ed Gilespie was the former head of the RNC.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 17, 2009, 06:05:52 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 05:26:18 PM
How bout the taxing clause and the commerce clause.
That should do it.
Has the commerce clause been used to regulate individual non-commerical activity?
I ask in curiosity, not anger. I'm not a racist.
Yes, yes you are.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 17, 2009, 06:08:03 PM
Buying health insurance is commercial activity. :huh:
So the commerce clause can now be used to force people to buy stuff against their will? Wow, that certainly is a liberal interpretation of the law.
Why should states have any more power to force people to buy things than the national government?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2009, 03:35:12 AM
Why should states have any more power to force people to buy things than the national government?
They don't.
Car insurance.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2009, 03:39:51 AM
Car insurance.
We already had this debate. States can't force you to buy car insurance any more than they can force you to get a drivers license or buy a car.
The ability to drive is pretty much a necessity for many people so the state is in effect mandating a license and insurance.
Just make it so if you want to work in the US, you have to buy health insurance. No one HAS to work, thus it is not mandatory.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 18, 2009, 03:45:39 AMWe already had this debate. States can't force you to buy car insurance any more than they can force you to get a drivers license or buy a car.
Lame. That's like saying "states can't force you to pay taxes on groceries since nobody forces you to eat". Unless you live in Manhattan or some such city with ample transportation, or happen to be Raz, you *must* own a car.
Plenty of places you don't have to own a car. You can choose a lifestyle that does not involve them. Even if not wanting to own one seems un American.
What other forms of insurance should the government be able to force you to buy?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 18, 2009, 07:24:30 AM
Plenty of places you don't have to own a car. You can choose a lifestyle that does not involve them. Even if not wanting to own one seems un American.
:mellow: You've obviously not lived in any part of America that might be considered rural. Either that or you think choosing to live as a shut-in is a desirable lifestyle choice.
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2009, 07:01:32 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 18, 2009, 03:45:39 AMWe already had this debate. States can't force you to buy car insurance any more than they can force you to get a drivers license or buy a car.
Lame. That's like saying "states can't force you to pay taxes on groceries since nobody forces you to eat". Unless you live in Manhattan or some such city with ample transportation, or happen to be Raz, you *must* own a car.
There are people who don't, because they can't afford it.
Still, this does blaze an interesting trail for the US to follow. Perhaps they can also make 'law insurance' mandatory, so that when you get sued or you commit a crime, there's always money to defend yourself and pay damages. The Trial Lawyers that are such a powerful force in the Democratic Party would love that.
I've had legal insurance before. ^_^
Quote from: Neil on September 17, 2009, 06:21:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 09:27:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 16, 2009, 05:29:25 PM
What's a non-retarded way to force people to buy health insurance?
The silence is deafening. I guess today's talking points didn't cover that question.
Make insurance free, legislate the cost of procedures and pay for it via taxation.
That doesn't sound like a good idea for me--what happens to those of us with insurance and employers that give us the choice of different plans that cost different amounts?
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2009, 07:26:43 AM
:mellow: You've obviously not lived in any part of America that might be considered rural.
You can choose where to live. The town I grew up in would be difficult without a car.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 18, 2009, 03:45:39 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 18, 2009, 03:39:51 AM
Car insurance.
We already had this debate. States can't force you to buy car insurance any more than they can force you to get a drivers license or buy a car.
When I pay taxes, I'm forced to pay for all sorts of things.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 18, 2009, 07:37:20 AMYou can choose where to live. The town I grew up in would be difficult without a car.
Not if you don't have a car that would permit you to move there. ;)
Look, all I'm trying to do is dispute the notion that states don't force people to buy auto insurance. For all intents and purposes, they do. I'm not even saying I think it's good that they do that. I'm undecided on that item because of how your lack of insurance can screw another driver.
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2009, 07:29:24 AM
I've had legal insurance before. ^_^
Everyone should. It's reprehensible that the Democrats would attempt to line the pockets of insurers before their staunchest supporters, the lawyers.
Quote from: Caliga on September 18, 2009, 07:41:33 AM
I'm undecided on that item because of how your lack of insurance can screw another driver.
Your lack of law insurance can screw other litigants.
Not having law insurance should be a felony.