Well, it looks like this will passes, so here's hoping it works. :wacko:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100290.html
QuoteDems predict historic House vote on health care
By CHARLES BABINGTON
The Associated Press
Sunday, March 21, 2010; 7:26 AM
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are predicting that a rare Sunday session will produce one of the most significant legislative triumphs in decades: passage of a historic bill to overhaul the nation's health care system to provide coverage to millions of people who currently lack it.
Republicans resolutely opposed to the bill didn't concede defeat Saturday, but warned they will make Democrats pay dearly in the fall elections if the fiercely debated measure becomes law.
With President Barack Obama's emotional appeal from Saturday ringing in their ears, House Democratic leaders prepared for three showdown votes Sunday: on a "rule" to establish debate guidelines; on a package of changes to a Senate-passed bill, including deletion of special Medicaid benefits for Nebraska; and on the Senate bill itself, the focus of intense national debate for months.
Democrats need 216 votes to pass each one. With all 178 Republicans and at least two dozen Democrats vowing to vote no, the legislation's fate lies in the hands of about 20 Democrats who remained uncommitted late Saturday.
Party leaders appeared confident that most would break in favor of the bills. They pointed to Obama's emotional speech to the caucus at the Capitol, and they cited a sense of momentum from the handful of rank-and-file Democrats who have announced their support over the past several days.
ad_icon
Obama told House Democrats they have arrived at "one of those moments" when they can realize their highest aspirations in public life.
"This is one of those times where you can honestly say to yourself, 'Doggone it, this is exactly why I came here,'" he said. "'Because I believe so deeply in this country and I believe so deeply in this democracy and I'm willing to stand up even when it's hard.'"
If Democratic leaders prevail on all three House votes, Obama could sign the Senate version of the bill into law. The bill of "fixes" would go to the Senate under fast-track debate rules that would enable Democrats to pass it without facing a Republican filibuster.
Democrats control 59 of the Senate's 100 seats, one vote shy of the number needed to overcome bill-killing filibusters from a united GOP.
House Democrats have long insisted that senators agree to change the bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. Since then, it became deeply unpopular with many Americans, because of the special deal for Nebraska, a new tax on generous employer-provided health plans and other aspects.
In a sign of increasing Democratic confidence Saturday, House leaders dropped plans for a controversial parliamentary tactic. They agreed to allow a simple yes-or-no vote on the Senate bill. By planning to pass the package of fixes on the same day, Democrats hope they can persuade constituents they did not support the Senate measure as a stand-alone bill.
The legislation, affecting virtually every American and more than a year in the making, would extend coverage to an estimated 32 million uninsured, bar insurers from denying coverage on the basis of existing medical conditions and cut federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade.
Congressional analysts estimate the cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over a decade.
House leaders continued to negotiate late Saturday with a handful of anti-abortion Democrats who threatened to switch from "yes" to "no" on the legislation without greater assurances that no federal money under the new laws would be used for elective abortions.
It was unclear whether Obama would agree to issue an executive order along those lines. Long-standing federal policy bars U.S. aid for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in danger.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats who joined Obama on Saturday spoke of the health legislation in historic terms, citing the many presidents who tried and failed to rewrite the nation's laws. Several cited tales of ordinary Americans struggling to pay bills when insurance companies denied or cut off coverage.
Republicans who vow to do all they can to stop the legislation in either congressional chamber "are not just delaying the inevitable, they are delaying the imperative," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
---
Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Alan Fram contributed to this report
I'm glad they gave up that self-executing rule scam. One of the stupidest ideas ever.
I wonder if this is what will spark your next civil war? With the continued depressed economic climate, the mounting inequalities, the culture war going on unabated, the rise in the number vigilentes and other survivalist groups, it's been brewing for some time now.
G.
fingers crossed that this might still fail
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:06:55 AM
I wonder if this is what will spark your next civil war?
Not a chance. :)
Protesters yesterday shouted racial slurs at Democratic congressmen in the capital.
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:06:55 AM
the rise in the number vigilentes and other survivalist groups,
Aberration. Clan McAnger is responsible for most of that.
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:06:55 AM
I wonder if this is what will spark your next civil war?
Any day now...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.drfaulken.com%2Fd%2F5372-1%2Frussian_version.jpg&hash=30032f8e341ed504883881301e9c3cce24f84d0c)
Oh those Russians...
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 21, 2010, 08:31:11 AM
Any day now...
Trotting that out is always good for a laugh. :lol:
Yep, pro-EU sentiment sure runs deep in Kentucky and Tennessee. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 21, 2010, 08:35:02 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 21, 2010, 08:31:11 AM
Any day now...
Trotting that out is always good for a laugh. :lol:
Yep, pro-EU sentiment sure runs deep in Kentucky and Tennessee. :)
:mellow: Europe has conquered America before we can do it again.
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 08:36:30 AM
:mellow: Europe has conquered America before we can do it again.
Really? I seem to remember the First Partition of Europe in 1945...
It happened once so I don't see why it couldn't happen again. Especially considering how so many americans distrust the government, are armed to the teeth or dispute the legitimacy or even the legality of your current president's election.
Anyhow if it does happen and we're all still here circle jerking you won't be able to say nobody voiced concerns about that possibility. *shrug*
G.
Quote from: Caliga on March 21, 2010, 08:35:02 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 21, 2010, 08:31:11 AM
Any day now...
Trotting that out is always good for a laugh. :lol:
Exactly, I still can't believe anyone would think Canada would be interested in acquiring Detroit.
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:48:03 AM
It happened once so I don't see why it couldn't happen again. Especially considering how so many americans distrusts the government, are armed to the teeth or dispute the legitimacy or even the legality of your current president's election.
I don't know a single American who disputes the legitimacy or legality of Obama's election (recognizing that there are certainly some fringe lunatics out there). :contract:
...and yes, it did happen once, but that was a little different because opposition to the government was united in a specific geographical region. I don't believe that's the case now. I would suspect more Southerners are against healthcare reform, but there is no talk of violent resistance and secession over it.
Quote from: Caliga on March 21, 2010, 08:52:09 AM
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:48:03 AM
It happened once so I don't see why it couldn't happen again. Especially considering how so many americans distrusts the government, are armed to the teeth or dispute the legitimacy or even the legality of your current president's election.
I don't know a single American who disputes the legitimacy or legality of Obama's election (recognizing that there are certainly some fringe lunatics out there). :contract:
...and yes, it did happen once, but that was a little different because opposition to the government was united in a specific geographical region. I don't believe that's the case now. I would suspect more Southerners are against healthcare reform, but there is no talk of violent resistance and secession over it.
:huh:
The Fate Rule applies to trolls by "Grallon" as well, you know. Please do not feed the trolls. This has been a public service announcement.
I don't think Grallon is trolling. I think he is just naturally loathsome and repulsive.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 10:31:04 AM
I don't think Grallon is trolling. I think he is just naturally loathsome and repulsive.
These are not mutually exclusive. He can be loathsome and repulsive and still not actually believe that there is any chance of a civil war breaking out in the US over the current health care legislation. That would make his post on the topic a troll by someone loathsome and repulsive.
It would really be a major sign of the decline of society if a civil war broke out over a half-arsed health care bill.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2010, 10:42:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 10:31:04 AM
I don't think Grallon is trolling. I think he is just naturally loathsome and repulsive.
These are not mutually exclusive. He can be loathsome and repulsive and still not actually believe that there is any chance of a civil war breaking out in the US over the current health care legislation. That would make his post on the topic a troll by someone loathsome and repulsive.
Good point.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 08:20:46 AM
Protesters yesterday shouted racial slurs at Democratic congressmen in the capital.
Democratic Congressman invents fake claim of racial slurs in order to discredit opposition.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 10:46:57 AM
Good point.
I didn't think Grallon was trolling, either. When Fate trolls, it's absurdly obvious.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 11:36:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 08:20:46 AM
Protesters yesterday shouted racial slurs at Democratic congressmen in the capital.
Democratic Congressman invents fake claim of racial slurs in order to discredit opposition.
Yeah, I figured you'd say that. Perhaps Democrats actually planted these people in the crowds to discredit the GOP? Oh well, it must have worked since Boehner has already said such actions were reprehensible.
Quote from: Caliga on March 21, 2010, 11:41:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 10:46:57 AM
Good point.
I didn't think Grallon was trolling, either. When Fate trolls, it's absurdly obvious.
So a troll has to be "absurdly obvious" before you see it? :lol:
Okay, feel free to spend the lifespan debating the possibilities of a new civil war over healthcare with Grallon. Its not like the puppet gets dropped for a while when ignored, like the Fate sock does.
I'm hopeful and fearful at the same time. It's nice to finally do something to tackle the nation's embarassment. On the other hand, when you don't have an effective mandate, that something may actually make things catastrophically worse. I really hope that some time before the implementation they're going to seriously revisit the question of mandates (or, alternatively, have a single-payer system ready once the private market collapses due to adverse selection).
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 11:48:32 AM
Yeah, I figured you'd say that. Perhaps Democrats actually planted these people in the crowds to discredit the GOP? Oh well, it must have worked since Boehner has already said such actions were reprehensible.
if it had happened there would be actual video evidence from the plethora of cameras on the scene. There was none. A completely fabricated story by a reprehensible Congressman, picked up by his willing accomplices in the msm. Fake story by a fake media.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2010, 11:49:09 AM
Okay, feel free to spend the lifespan debating the possibilities of a new civil war over healthcare with Grallon. Its not like the puppet gets dropped for a while when ignored, like the Fate sock does.
I actually wasn't planning on having any more of a discussion with Grallon over it, because even if he wasn't trolling he's so woefully ignorant of American society/culture that a debate would've been pointless.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 12:02:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 11:48:32 AM
Yeah, I figured you'd say that. Perhaps Democrats actually planted these people in the crowds to discredit the GOP? Oh well, it must have worked since Boehner has already said such actions were reprehensible.
if it had happened there would be actual video evidence from the plethora of cameras on the scene. There was none. A completely fabricated story by a reprehensible Congressman, picked up by his willing accomplices in the msm. Fake story by a fake media.
Which Blog did you pick this up on?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 12:13:33 PM
Which Blog did you pick this up on?
which blog did you pick this up from? The only thing that exists is the claim of Rep. Clyburn that he heard racist comments hurled at him by protestors when entering Congress. Nobody else heard the despite the fact that there was a massive presence of reporters of allstripes, and video cameras everywhere filming the events from all angles. Yet the only "evidence" is Clyburn's claim, a typical smear tactics by the Democrats. Then again, maybe CdM was in the crowd.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 12:55:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 12:13:33 PM
Which Blog did you pick this up on?
which blog did you pick this up from? The only thing that exists is the claim of Rep. Clyburn that he heard racist comments hurled at him by protestors when entering Congress. Nobody else heard the despite the fact that there was a massive presence of reporters of allstripes, and video cameras everywhere filming the events from all angles. Yet the only "evidence" is Clyburn's claim, a typical smear tactics by the Democrats. Then again, maybe CdM was in the crowd.
So, if I post the names of others who witnessed this, will you admit that you are lying and let us get back to the thread topic?
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2010, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 12:55:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 12:13:33 PM
Which Blog did you pick this up on?
which blog did you pick this up from? The only thing that exists is the claim of Rep. Clyburn that he heard racist comments hurled at him by protestors when entering Congress. Nobody else heard the despite the fact that there was a massive presence of reporters of allstripes, and video cameras everywhere filming the events from all angles. Yet the only "evidence" is Clyburn's claim, a typical smear tactics by the Democrats. Then again, maybe CdM was in the crowd.
So, if I post the names of others who witnessed this, will you admit that you are lying and let us get back to the thread topic?
It will depend on whether the other witnesses are filthy Democrats, Main Stream Media Traitors or upstanding, patriotic Republicans.
Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2010, 11:55:41 AM
I'm hopeful and fearful at the same time. It's nice to finally do something to tackle the nation's embarassment. On the other hand, when you don't have an effective mandate, that something may actually make things catastrophically worse. I really hope that some time before the implementation they're going to seriously revisit the question of mandates (or, alternatively, have a single-payer system ready once the private market collapses due to adverse selection).
Beside my short-term profits, this is what concerns me: even some democrat woman on CNN adopted this exact same stance: "well yeah, I am sure we will change it later but just let's have it passed now". Why enact a law you KNOW will not work? I mean, outside of Hungary and rest of the Balkans, of course.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2010, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 12:55:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 12:13:33 PM
Which Blog did you pick this up on?
which blog did you pick this up from? The only thing that exists is the claim of Rep. Clyburn that he heard racist comments hurled at him by protestors when entering Congress. Nobody else heard the despite the fact that there was a massive presence of reporters of allstripes, and video cameras everywhere filming the events from all angles. Yet the only "evidence" is Clyburn's claim, a typical smear tactics by the Democrats. Then again, maybe CdM was in the crowd.
So, if I post the names of others who witnessed this, will you admit that you are lying and let us get back to the thread topic?
I suspect he'll either ignore you or claim you're stupid.
Quote from: Tamas on March 21, 2010, 01:38:06 PM
Beside my short-term profits, this is what concerns me: even some democrat woman on CNN adopted this exact same stance: "well yeah, I am sure we will change it later but just let's have it passed now". Why enact a law you KNOW will not work? I mean, outside of Hungary and rest of the Balkans, of course.
Because our system is extremely dysfunctional, and will not let us pass a law that will work. The choice is between doing nothing and letting the situation continue to deteriorate, or gambling on passing a flawed law and then being able to fix it later. The strategy may be to stick the foot in with the bad law, and then once it's a fact of life and needs to be lived with, you tackle the fix.
Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2010, 01:45:16 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 21, 2010, 01:38:06 PM
Beside my short-term profits, this is what concerns me: even some democrat woman on CNN adopted this exact same stance: "well yeah, I am sure we will change it later but just let's have it passed now". Why enact a law you KNOW will not work? I mean, outside of Hungary and rest of the Balkans, of course.
Because our system is extremely dysfunctional, and will not let us pass a law that will work. The choice is between doing nothing and letting the situation continue to deteriorate, or gamble on passing a flawed law and then being able to fix it later. The strategy may be to stick the foot in with the bad law, and then once it's a fact of life and needs to be lived with, you tackle the fix.
I hope that works. Cause it's a really stupid plan.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 01:48:41 PM
I hope that works. Cause it's a really stupid plan.
Really stupid political times call for really stupid plans.
Of course, I'm assuming it's a plan. If Democrats actually think they have an acceptable bill given the weak mandates, then it's not a really stupid plan. It's just plain, utter stupidity.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2010, 01:15:20 PM
So, if I post the names of others who witnessed this, will you admit that you are lying and let us get back to the thread topic?[/quote]
I'm not holding my breath waiting for a list of witnesses. Apparently, only Democratic members of Congress heard this.
I wish they'd hurry up and vote, so the news can get back to the missing white girl of the week and shark attacks.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 02:50:40 PM
I'm not holding my breath waiting for a list of witnesses. Apparently, only Democratic members of Congress heard this.
So when I point out that you are lying when you say that "only thing that exists is the claim of Rep. Clyburn that he heard racist comments hurled at him" and "[n]obody else heard" when there are a number of people who heard and reported this, your answer is... what? An acknowledgment that you lied, or a weasel. It doesn't matter if the Democrats are lying or not, you were
definitely lying when you said that no one heard this except Clyburn, and that his claim was the "only thing that exists."
Are you going to concede like a man that you lied, or are going to squirm like a rat to avoid admitting what every person reading this thread knows is the truth?
Nice try. Originally only Clyburn had heard anything. Then suddenly, other democrats came crawling out of the woodworks claiming they had heard it too. Then suddenly Franks remembers he was called a faggott.
Strangely, nobody else heard any of this, and none of the video supports any of these claims. None of the reporters heard it. I guess you have to have magicalCongressman's ears to hear racism. I'm sure ever more democrats are going to crawl out of the woodworks claiming they heard other offensive comments (no claims of sexism yet).
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 03:35:03 PM
Nice try. Originally only Clyburn had heard anything. Then suddenly, other democrats came crawling out of the woodworks claiming they had heard it too. Then suddenly Franks remembers he was called a faggott.
Strangely, nobody else heard any of this, and none of the video supports any of these claims. None of the reporters heard it. I guess you have to have magicalCongressman's ears to hear racism. I'm sure ever more democrats are going to crawl out of the woodworks claiming they heard other offensive comments (no claims of sexism yet).
Ah, the squirming rat response! Excellent. You do that better than honesty anyway (I presume - you can't have had much practice at being honest).
I am not sure why you bother, though. You have less cred here than even Marti or DGuller. You certainly aren't about to convince anyone of anything, and your laughably unpersuasive prevarications here don't even give you good practice for your line of work. Do you really have the lifespan to waste spewing out this crap?
And don't even
try to tell us that you really are secretly persuasive because you were in the "How to Win Friends and Influence People" club in college!
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 01:42:01 PM
I suspect he'll either ignore you or claim you're stupid.
Nope. Went with Door #3, "Lie Some More."
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 03:35:03 PM
Nice try. Originally only Clyburn had heard anything. Then suddenly, other democrats came crawling out of the woodworks claiming they had heard it too. Then suddenly Franks remembers he was called a faggott.
Strangely, nobody else heard any of this, and none of the video supports any of these claims. None of the reporters heard it. I guess you have to have magicalCongressman's ears to hear racism. I'm sure ever more democrats are going to crawl out of the woodworks claiming they heard other offensive comments (no claims of sexism yet).
When it was first reported it was two congressmen heard the N word Franks was called a faggot and a CNN producer overheard it. That was from last night so it's not all of a sudden. So far you're claim is that these people are liars because they are democrats. That sucks even for you.
Here is a quote from a protestor in Washington reported in the Globe and Mail.
Quote"My concerns are about the health-care bill, and the direction it takes us is toward communism, quite frankly," he said.
Do people actually believe this or is this just a product of Hans and the people who draft his talking points?
It is the talking in the extremes thing which is always easier.
Communism? 'course not. "Europaization" as a republican called it on TV? Yes.
That's not an entirely bad thing in this particular subject considering the US supposedly pays much more for healthcare than Europe for much less results in terms of paying for the freeriders but also as it is meant is that it is a step toward the west european style of heavily state invloved social-capitalist thingie. I am saying west europe because at least they do it with at least some resemblance of efficiency unlike the east.
And to be afraid of that is a legit concern imho. Sure they should not yell communism and be a jerk about it, but the european style of having the state/government run its veins accross everything will not work on the long run. If for no other reason then for the fact that the government -the politicans yearning for votes- get to buy votes with budget money. And that is a one way street once you establish something you can't take it back without destroying yourself politically. What was yesterday a leftist dream will tomorrow be a (perceived) necessary and vital fabric of society itself.
How this materializes varies from one culture to the next, be it overgrown civil servant numbers like Greece, or militant trade unions like France, or just general overspending and corruption on all levels of society like Hungary.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2010, 05:07:43 PM
When it was first reported it was two congressmen heard the N word Franks was called a faggot and a CNN producer overheard it. That was from last night so it's not all of a sudden. So far you're claim is that these people are liars because they are democrats. That sucks even for you.
All democrats are people. All people are liars. Therefore, all democrats are liars. :smarty:
Seems like its passing is a forgone conclusion. :(
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 21, 2010, 06:12:53 PM
Seems like its passing is a forgone conclusion. :(
Do they have no concern for my financial well-being? :(
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2010, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 03:35:03 PM
Nice try. Originally only Clyburn had heard anything. Then suddenly, other democrats came crawling out of the woodworks claiming they had heard it too. Then suddenly Franks remembers he was called a faggott.
Strangely, nobody else heard any of this, and none of the video supports any of these claims. None of the reporters heard it. I guess you have to have magicalCongressman's ears to hear racism. I'm sure ever more democrats are going to crawl out of the woodworks claiming they heard other offensive comments (no claims of sexism yet).
Ah, the squirming rat response! Excellent. You do that better than honesty anyway (I presume - you can't have had much practice at being honest).
I am not sure why you bother, though. You have less cred here than even Marti or DGuller. You certainly aren't about to convince anyone of anything, and your laughably unpersuasive prevarications here don't even give you good practice for your line of work. Do you really have the lifespan to waste spewing out this crap?
And don't even try to tell us that you really are secretly persuasive because you were in the "How to Win Friends and Influence People" club in college!
Well, here is the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I&feature=player_embedded).
yep, there were no racist remarks, a pure race-baiting invention by the CBC. No surprise there. But I'm sure yelling "Kill the Bill" is just code for "Kill the Niggers" or something. Just pathetic.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 21, 2010, 08:31:11 AM
Quote from: Grallon on March 21, 2010, 08:06:55 AM
I wonder if this is what will spark your next civil war?
Any day now...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.drfaulken.com%2Fd%2F5372-1%2Frussian_version.jpg&hash=30032f8e341ed504883881301e9c3cce24f84d0c)
Arkansas? Oklahoma? Louisiana? Oh hell no.
Florida and New Mexico are alright though.
Ok I skimmed through this summary:
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/12/24/how-the-senate-bill-would-change-healthcare (http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/12/24/how-the-senate-bill-would-change-healthcare)
Errr, what? The "public option" is a government owned insurance company which has to compete with the private ones? State-run insurance exchanges?
Either that webpage is severly trying to twist it to a bad angle, or current state of US healthcare is that of zimbabwe, or this is some seriously fucked up shit.
Quote from: Tamas on March 21, 2010, 06:34:16 PMcurrent state of US healthcare is that of zimbabwe
High-tech Zimbabwe, but otherwise yes.
Quote from: Tamas on March 21, 2010, 06:00:29 PM
It is the talking in the extremes thing which is always easier.
Communism? 'course not. "Europaization" as a republican called it on TV? Yes.
That's not an entirely bad thing in this particular subject considering the US supposedly pays much more for healthcare than Europe for much less results in terms of paying for the freeriders but also as it is meant is that it is a step toward the west european style of heavily state invloved social-capitalist thingie. I am saying west europe because at least they do it with at least some resemblance of efficiency unlike the east.
And to be afraid of that is a legit concern imho. Sure they should not yell communism and be a jerk about it, but the european style of having the state/government run its veins accross everything will not work on the long run. If for no other reason then for the fact that the government -the politicans yearning for votes- get to buy votes with budget money. And that is a one way street once you establish something you can't take it back without destroying yourself politically. What was yesterday a leftist dream will tomorrow be a (perceived) necessary and vital fabric of society itself.
How this materializes varies from one culture to the next, be it overgrown civil servant numbers like Greece, or militant trade unions like France, or just general overspending and corruption on all levels of society like Hungary.
Or sound public finances and being the top ranking nations in every international ranking there is like Scandinavia? :huh:
Quote from: Zanza on March 21, 2010, 06:41:23 PM
Or sound public finances and being the top ranking nations in every international ranking there is like Scandinavia? :huh:
There is always an exception.
Scandinavia, with low population density, lots of resources, and a culture which suited nicely the "collectivist" nature of socialism is hardly your typical example.
Quote from: Tamas on March 21, 2010, 06:45:49 PMThere is always an exception.
I think there is no rule. So I think that your generalization does not make any sense.
QuoteScandinavia, with low population density, lots of resources, and a culture which suited nicely the "collectivist" nature of socialism is hardly your typical example.
I am intrigued. I get the culture point, but how is low population density an advantage? That only makes it more expensive to supply services to the population. And what resources does e.g. Denmark have? Pigs and christmas trees? :hmm:
There's an article on the back page of the NYT by a former OMB director that says the bill will actually increase the deficit by 586 billion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 07:17:51 PM
There's an article on the back page of the NYT by a former OMB director that says the bill will actually increase the deficit by 586 billion.
I am going with 674 skajillian dollars, myself.
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Hans's "truths," and government cost projections.
Wow, Pelosi is a terrible speaker. She stumbles over every second word.
Stupid Comcast, I want CSPAN in HD.
Well, to be fair, in the last election your choice was either her or Cindy Sheehan, right? :x
I voted for the Republican candidate who called those two the most dangerous women in the US.
Quote from: garbon on March 21, 2010, 09:47:23 PM
I voted for the Republican candidate who called those two the most dangerous women in the US.
Oh... I didn't realize there actually were Republicans in downtown San Francisco. :blush:
In other local news, black people now soapbox in downtown sf about do-nothing obama.
Quote from: Caliga on March 21, 2010, 09:51:23 PM
Oh... I didn't realize there actually were Republicans in downtown San Francisco. :blush:
I think she owns a boutique or something...although now that she's revealed her loyalties, she might have been forced out of business. :blush:
:(
Sigh.
And now the fun begins. The tax hikes go into effect immediately and are designed in a way to maximise reduction in growth by making them so top heavy (and driving up insurance premiums by targeting medical suppliers). Combined with the expiration of the Bsuh tax cuts you'll have a serious double-whammy on the economy next year. Throw in aexpected spike in mortgage foreclosure due to a rise in AMT resets next year and you're looking at a double-dip recession. Of course the creation of about 150 new medical regulatory bodies will result in sharply higher insurance premiums as well. Not to mention the ending of stimulus money to the States next year will result in sharp cuts in their spending which will hit Medicaid hard, which Congress just expanded while billing the States (except Nebraska, of course).
And to top it all off, to make the budget numbers not look so bad they deferred actual spending on all those new programs until 2014, which means the Dumbocrats will have to fight the next two election cycles on fucking over the health care system and the economy with nothing actually to show for it. Brilliant! :lol:
Now the US is looking at a ratings downgrade which will create further shockwaves. US gov't bonds have already dropped below some corporate bonds (and a full 50 basis points below Germany's bonds). The Democrats apparently went to the hugo Chavez School of Economics.
I couldn't have designed a better bill to discredit the Democrats than they've done, nor designed a more tawdry process in which to do it. It'll be interesting to see the epic meltdown at the polls this November. I figured back in 2008 that whoever won the presidency that year would probably be a one term President due to financial crisis taking usually several years to recover from, but Obama has been such a train wreck that the effect will be much larger than i had thought possible.
the US had a lot of long-term structural problems that neither party was particularly interested in addressing, Obama has moved the whole timetable up and the crisis is now far more immediate.
I hate being a cynic but cynicism just leads to one being right. :(
Bad night for Republicans, good night for Americans.
What's this about student loan changes in this? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2010, 10:50:33 PM
Bad night for Republicans, good night for Americans.
:lol:
This furthers the cause for secession and states rights in the South; in that sense, it was a triumph.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 21, 2010, 10:51:11 PM
What's this about student loan changes in this? :huh:
It got stuck in to win over some Democrats, if I understand this right. From what I heard over the years, the the student loan program was an obscene and pointless subsidy to the banks who issued the student loans.
Quote from: Lettow77 on March 21, 2010, 10:55:33 PM
This furthers the cause for secession and states rights in the South; in that sense, it was a triumph.
Do you actually have a brain?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 21, 2010, 10:51:11 PM
What's this about student loan changes in this? :huh:
A gov't takeover of the Student Loan Insurance biz got thrown in as a "revenue" raiser. Of course it is only a revenue raiser if the gov't is capable of handling the default risk as effective as the banks since it will now bear all of the risk. otherwise it is most likely another giant money pit.
However, it is in the "Reconciliation Bill", which might never get voted on. These were mostly empty promises to buy House members votes, I doubt the Senate really desires another messy protracted fight just for the benefit of the House. The last thing they want is to keep the helth care debate going for another month or two.
Pelosi's laugh could chill the spines of the whole army.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 11:02:20 PM
A gov't takeover of the Student Loan Insurance biz got thrown in as a "revenue" raiser. Of course it is only a revenue raiser if the gov't is capable of handling the default risk as effective as the banks since it will now bear all of the risk. otherwise it is most likely another giant money pit.
However, it is in the "Reconciliation Bill", which might never get voted on. These were mostly empty promises to buy House members votes, I doubt the Senate really desires another messy protracted fight just for the benefit of the House. The last thing they want is to keep the helth care debate going for another month or two.
BTW, just to counter Hansi-spin, it's actually going to
take messy parliamentary politicking to kill the reconciliation bill; reconciliation is a 51-vote simple majority, so the only thing that can kill it now is Republicans working around the clock to spin measures as not actually being deficit-reducers, after the Democrats waited on CBO estimates saying that they are.
I've got issues with both sides of the healthcare debate and would really prefer the damn legislation just went away, but what pleases me is that tonight, the Republicans failed at grotesquely exploiting loopholes in the legislation process. I turned several shades of purple when they pulled that "motion to recommit" nonsense after passing the bill.
Now, look, I don't care about the conservatards and their ilk showing their disdain for the general public; I'm generally pretty open to the notion that pure democracy is not the only way to run an effective government. What pisses me off is the way they then try to pass the buck and make it sound like people
want to bend over and take it from them, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Lately, it seems like to be a Republican, you have to check your common sense and your sense of reality at the door.
BTW, I would argue that tonight was better for the Republicans than they're going to admit; it'd take some serious balls to run for re-election after proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that the rules only apply when they suit you. You Republicans might want to think how easy it would have been to attack that kind of politicking come the fall.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 11:02:20 PM
[A gov't takeover of the Student Loan Insurance biz got thrown in as a "revenue" raiser. Of course it is only a revenue raiser if the gov't is capable of handling the default risk as effective as the banks since it will now bear all of the risk. otherwise it is most likely another giant money pit.
QuoteSince 1965, government has helped students finance college through the Federal Family Education Loan program. The system essentially operates as a lucrative form of corporate welfare, offering a guaranteed rate of return for banks and other middlemen who provide capital for student loans. The government not only makes all the decisions — who is eligible for loans, for what amount and at what rate — but it protects private lenders from virtually any risk: When college students are unable to repay their debts, taxpayers are required by law to reimburse the banks for 97 percent of the losses. "
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29872191/obamas_real_reform
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 21, 2010, 11:16:43 PM
BTW, I would argue that tonight was better for the Republicans than they're going to admit; it'd take some serious balls to run for re-election after proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that the rules only apply when they suit you. You Republicans might want to think how easy it would have been to attack that kind of politicking come the fall.
Way ahead of you, way ahead.
As far as the Reconciliation Bill, it only needs 51 votes if the Parliamentarian rules that it falls under the reconciliation process, a big if. And even with that the GOP can drag out the progress significantly through the amendment process. However, the biggest problem with the bill is that nobody in the Senate really cares for it. Why pick a nasty fight with the GOP for the benefit of the House? After all, the Senate already got its bill thru. Do the Senators really want to continue debating health care, or would they rather focus on something, anything else?
Quote from: Faeelin on March 21, 2010, 11:25:22 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 11:02:20 PM
[A gov't takeover of the Student Loan Insurance biz got thrown in as a "revenue" raiser. Of course it is only a revenue raiser if the gov't is capable of handling the default risk as effective as the banks since it will now bear all of the risk. otherwise it is most likely another giant money pit.
QuoteSince 1965, government has helped students finance college through the Federal Family Education Loan program. The system essentially operates as a lucrative form of corporate welfare, offering a guaranteed rate of return for banks and other middlemen who provide capital for student loans. The government not only makes all the decisions — who is eligible for loans, for what amount and at what rate — but it protects private lenders from virtually any risk: When college students are unable to repay their debts, taxpayers are required by law to reimburse the banks for 97 percent of the losses. "
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29872191/obamas_real_reform
While 97% is awfully high, it is still less than a 100%. Of course, the gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing student loans, or guaranteeing them. It just feeds the wastefullness of the higher ed biz.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 11:31:52 PM
While 97% is awfully high, it is still less than a 100%.
:lmfao: Yes, that last 3% will really push things over the top, and vastly outstrip the amount of subsidy that goes to the banks.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 11:31:52 PM
While 97% is awfully high, it is still less than a 100%. Of course, the gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing student loans, or guaranteeing them. It just feeds the wastefullness of the higher ed biz.
So in other words, bundled up in your statement, you're saying:
1) The government shouldn't be helping make education affordable for Americans.
2) There is waste in higher education. Since this would cut out middle men responsible for the vast majority of loans, it seems like this would save money.
Quote from: DGuller on March 21, 2010, 11:35:16 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 11:31:52 PM
While 97% is awfully high, it is still less than a 100%.
:lmfao: Yes, that last 3% will really push things over the top, and vastly outstrip the amount of subsidy that goes to the banks.
A three percent loss is a three percent loss. It is not a great deterrent against irresponsible lending, but a better deterrent than zero.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 21, 2010, 11:40:26 PM
So in other words, bundled up in your statement, you're saying:
1) The government shouldn't be helping make education affordable for Americans.
2) There is waste in higher education. Since this would cut out middle men responsible for the vast majority of loans, it seems like this would save money.
1) The gov't isn't making higher education "more affordable", it is fueling price inflation by artificially inflating demand to the point were half of the people going to college won't graduate and half of the graduate will have a diploma in a field for which there is no demand while burdening them with massive debt.
2) The gov't has no idea how to manage risk, which will lead to higher rates of default and increased losses, thereby increasing cost.
Doesn't the government already make all the decisions? However bad the decisions are when it comes to managing risk, they're not going to get worse, they're already all made by the government.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 11:31:52 PMOf course, the gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing student loans, or guaranteeing them. It just feeds the wastefullness of the higher ed biz.
What would be the proper role of government in tertiary education? Do you think that state universities make sense?
Today we are ALL Democrats! Congratulations to my fellow countrymen on our victory tonight :)
LOL classy
Quote11:08 p.m.: CNN's Brianna Keilar reports: A Republican lawmaker shouted out "baby killer" as Rep. Bart Stupak explained why he would not support the motion to recommit.
Stupak sponsored an amendment in the House bill that included tougher language on restricting federal funding of abortions.
Stupak decided to support the Senate bill after President Obama said he would sign an executive order that would make sure the health care reform law would be consistent with current restrictions on federal funding for abortions.
:D
It is a MSM lie set up by dishonest Democrats
Hans, what about these signs? Also photoshopped by MSM?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F5496%2Fslide_5496_74976_large.jpg&hash=d2cf1576ddac0379e5fbf5300e99b51034da09b8)
For the record, the "browning" poster seems dangerously close to a criminal threat or an incitement to violence.
Whoever designed that donkey poster is a jackass. :x
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 22, 2010, 05:34:40 AM
Whoever designed that donkey poster is a jackass. :x
Well it may be stupid but at least it is not criminal. Unless the other one which pretty much threatens murder.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2010, 08:21:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 07:17:51 PM
There's an article on the back page of the NYT by a former OMB director that says the bill will actually increase the deficit by 586 billion.
I am going with 674 skajillian dollars, myself.
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Hans's "truths," and government cost projections.
I'm fairly confident it will end up being closer to 586 billion than to 674 skajillian.
As long as I get to keep my HSA, I don't fucking care. My S Corp doesn't make a lot of money anyway.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2010, 06:27:32 PM
Well, here is the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I&feature=player_embedded).
yep, there were no racist remarks, a pure race-baiting invention by the CBC.
No evidence of you firing your boss, either, so this video also proves that claim by you a lie.
Welcome to the socialist paradise we've enjoyed since 1948 :)
Here's a short informational film that will help you cope with the transition. You're welcome.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/NHS60/Pages/BirthoftheNHS.aspx (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/NHS60/Pages/BirthoftheNHS.aspx)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2010, 05:59:35 AM
I'm fairly confident it will end up being closer to 586 billion than to 674 skajillian.
Depends on the conversion rate of skajillians to real numbers.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 22, 2010, 06:29:04 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2010, 05:59:35 AM
I'm fairly confident it will end up being closer to 586 billion than to 674 skajillian.
Depends on the conversion rate of skajillians to real numbers.
When the dollar collapses as a real currency skajillians will be chump change.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 22, 2010, 06:37:49 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 22, 2010, 06:29:04 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2010, 05:59:35 AM
I'm fairly confident it will end up being closer to 586 billion than to 674 skajillian.
Depends on the conversion rate of skajillians to real numbers.
When the dollar collapses as a real currency skajillians will be chump change.
Well at least it well help exports.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 05:31:41 AM
For the record, the "browning" poster seems dangerously close to a criminal threat or an incitement to violence.
Doesn't seem that close. That seems well inside. Both parties are equally guilty of this, BTW.
FINALLY. Socialism in America.
Ok, as the Big Government advocate, I will now oppress all of you by meddling in your lives and forcing you to have health insurance. To add insult to injury, I'll even subsidize the poorest, so that NOBODY escapes my dictums.
MWAHAHAHA.
Also, sez here in my "To Do" list that I have to kill your grandmas who are on Medicare.
Don't ask me why, it's what the list says. :hmm:
How long until this thing is repealed? :sleep:
This is historic!
It will make ALL Americans healthier, it will not only cost the government nothing in the long run, it will actually make money, and the Democrats get all the credit for making America a place worth living in again. :ccr
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 22, 2010, 09:07:32 AM
FINALLY. Socialism in America.
Ok, as the Big Government advocate, I will now oppress all of you by meddling in your lives and forcing you to have health insurance. To add insult to injury, I'll even subsidize the poorest, so that NOBODY escapes my dictums.
MWAHAHAHA.
Also, sez here in my "To Do" list that I have to kill your grandmas who are on Medicare.
Don't ask me why, it's what the list says. :hmm:
My state is a few billion in the red because it led the country with this thing. Making healthcare available means more people will be going to use it. For me this meant my rates went way up and what I get back in terms of health care went way, way down.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 22, 2010, 10:20:04 AM
Making healthcare available means more people will be going to use it.
That's always the danger when you try to make sure that people who need care get care.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on March 22, 2010, 10:20:04 AM
Making healthcare available means more people will be going to use it.
That's always the danger when you try to make sure that people who need care get care.
Ya. The people who set the thing up didn't take into account how much $$$ that would cost though. I don't think Washington has done so either.
The bigger problem I have with it is that is is so divisive and so polarized that even if this plan was the best thing since sliced bread a large enough portion of the country is freaking out about it, implementation will never really happen properly. Without a decent sized majority in government -state and federal and the country as a whole backing this the whole 'reform' thing will just totter along until the next election cycle kills it.
Coincidentally NRO has a 503 error the day after Healthcare gets passed. :tinfoil:
For all you GOPtards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu1q17rUkVU
Enjoy your Waterloo. :yeah:
Aren't people freaking out a bit about this (on both sides)? From what I understand it is pretty much a bunch of minor tweaks making the system more civilized (stuff like the insurers being prohibited to deny health care insurance to people based on a pre-existing condition, so people who get an incurable disease and then lose their work are not suddenly left without any health insurance for example), rather than being some sort of a socialist overhaul (for example there is no public option).
So you have to buy health insurance or be fined? I hope there will be some scam insurance providers
Quote from: Vince on March 22, 2010, 10:33:02 AM
Coincidentally NRO has a 503 error the day after Healthcare gets passed. :tinfoil:
Their heads exploded.
Quote from: Brazen on March 22, 2010, 06:23:34 AM
Here's a short informational film that will help you cope with the transition. You're welcome.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/NHS60/Pages/BirthoftheNHS.aspx (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/NHS60/Pages/BirthoftheNHS.aspx)
Sadly the Americans did not create a public system. Instead they created subsidized private health care. Not sure how this fixes anything in their system. More people will have medical insurance coverage but I am not sure what the quality of that coverage will be.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 10:45:54 AM
Aren't people freaking out a bit about this (on both sides)? From what I understand it is pretty much a bunch of minor tweaks making the system more civilized (stuff like the insurers being prohibited to deny health care insurance to people based on a pre-existing condition, so people who get an incurable disease and then lose their work are not suddenly left without any health insurance for example), rather than being some sort of a socialist overhaul (for example there is no public option).
Partially right. It's no socialist overhaul, that's just the chant to rile up the stupid, but it's no minor tweak either. It's a major policy shift for people that for whatever reason cannot get insurance through work. It's also a much needed safety net for people who do have insurance, through work or not, since no one is insured from becoming uninsurable due to a run of bad luck. On the flip side, some of the measures can also be very disastrous for the private insurance market, and thus make the fix worse than the disease.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 22, 2010, 10:48:48 AM
So you have to buy health insurance or be fined? I hope there will be some scam insurance providers
Insurance is heavily regulated even now, and no doubt will be more heavily regulated under Obamacare. While you do have scammers who are selling health discount plans as health insurance, or at least there were five years ago when I was uninsured myself and looking for insurance, you won't have the scammers who would be able to fool IRS or insurance regulators.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 22, 2010, 09:07:32 AM
FINALLY. Socialism in America.
You really are quite clueless about the US. Apparently, we are a stereotype and nothing more.
Interestingly the stock market doesn't appear to be bombing as hard as I would have thought. :hmm:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 22, 2010, 11:08:00 AM
You really are quite clueless about the US. Apparently, we are a stereotype and nothing more.
It is hilarious how all over Facebook today I am reading people triumphantly declare that "we now have socialized medicine in America".
You'd think if people cared enough to bleat about it, they'd actually bother to figure out what it is they're so supportive of.
Then again, this is Facebook, where people feel it is imperative to let others know when they're tired, or have a headache.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2010, 11:01:46 AM
Sadly the Americans did not create a public system. Instead they created subsidized private health care. Not sure how this fixes anything in their system. More people will have medical insurance coverage but I am not sure what the quality of that coverage will be.
The system of mandatory private insurance with heavy regulation and restrictions does fix a lot of things, when implemented properly (which it probably isn't ATM). It's not the most efficient fix, but the politics of doing anything better are utterly impossible.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 11:10:42 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2010, 11:01:46 AM
Sadly the Americans did not create a public system. Instead they created subsidized private health care. Not sure how this fixes anything in their system. More people will have medical insurance coverage but I am not sure what the quality of that coverage will be.
The system of mandatory private insurance with heavy regulation and restrictions does fix a lot of things, when implemented properly (which it probably isn't ATM). It's not the most efficient fix, but the politics of doing anything better are utterly impossible.
I was thinking about the fundamental problem of cost in your system. I havent read anything to indicate that any of these reforms which addresses the cost of your system. I dont think it makes much sense for government to essentially underwrite a system where there is no real cost control. Seems a recipe for huge government expenditure over time.
I can live with mandatory insurance, because having worked for a medical center up in Boston, I know what happens when people show up at the ER when uninsured: the medical center gets reimbursed by the state for the cost of the person's care. So, whether people up there realized it or not, they were paying for at least emergency health care for anyone not otherwise covered.
That doesn't mean I think the government will implement and regulate this well, but at least in theory it makes sense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2010, 11:16:07 AM
I was thinking about the fundamental problem of cost in your system. I havent read anything to indicate that any of these reforms which addresses the cost of your system. I dont think it makes much sense for government to essentially underwrite a system where there is no real cost control. Seems a recipe for huge government expenditure over time.
Yep, you nailed the biggest problem right on the head, cc.
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2010, 11:10:09 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 22, 2010, 11:08:00 AM
You really are quite clueless about the US. Apparently, we are a stereotype and nothing more.
It is hilarious how all over Facebook today I am reading people triumphantly declare that "we now have socialized medicine in America".
You'd think if people cared enough to bleat about it, they'd actually bother to figure out what it is they're so supportive of.
Then again, this is Facebook, where people feel it is imperative to let others know when they're tired, or have a headache.
I think the libertards who keep QQing about it all over Facebook are more hilarious, TBH.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 11:19:57 AM
I think the libertards who keep QQing about it all over Facebook are more hilarious, TBH.
I'm shocked. :P
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2010, 11:21:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 11:19:57 AM
I think the libertards who keep QQing about it all over Facebook are more hilarious, TBH.
I'm shocked. :P
I'm shocked you are shocked. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2010, 11:16:07 AM
I was thinking about the fundamental problem of cost in your system. I havent read anything to indicate that any of these reforms which addresses the cost of your system. I dont think it makes much sense for government to essentially underwrite a system where there is no real cost control. Seems a recipe for huge government expenditure over time.
Yes, that is a huge problem. I think the bill does attempt to introduce many cost control measures, but I think it's safe to say there has been no concerted effort to focus on costs. That could be another fatal flaw of the bill as it is right now.
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2010, 11:17:40 AM
I can live with mandatory insurance, because having worked for a medical center up in Boston, I know what happens when people show up at the ER when uninsured: the medical center gets reimbursed by the state for the cost of the person's care. So, whether people up there realized it or not, they were paying for at least emergency health care for anyone not otherwise covered.
That doesn't mean I think the government will implement and regulate this well, but at least in theory it makes sense.
That's one argument for it. It's not a weak argument, but the far stronger argument is that private insurance market will get destroyed by adverse selection without mandates. If you want to ban denial for pre-existing conditions and limit the actions of the insurance company, you have to balance it out by limiting the actions of the insured as well. One will not work without the other.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 22, 2010, 10:48:48 AM
So you have to buy health insurance or be fined? I hope there will be some scam insurance providers
That's exactly the problem I have with this "solution." You have to have insurance, so you buy some from FlyByNight HealthCo for $50 a month, getting no significant benefits in return. Then, a year later, you discover that you have leukemia, so you switch to Blue Cross Blue Shield for $250 a month, taking out $10k a month in benefits. After a year, you have gone into remissions, so you switch back to FlyByNighCo.
Over two years, you have paid $3600 in premiums and gotten $120,000 in benefits.
Multiply by a million. Problem?
Now, this is an extreme example, for sure, but I don't see anything yet that makes me think something like it won't happen.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 11:39:20 AM
...the far stronger argument is that private insurance market will get destroyed by adverse selection without mandates. If you want to ban denial for pre-existing conditions and limit the actions of the insurance company, you have to balance it out by limiting the actions of the insured as well. One will not work without the other.
That's how I see it as well. Free rider problem, anyone?
I think the important thing here is that Marti loves America once more. :)
Of course, that will change next week when a gay kid gets beat up at some random high school. :(
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 11:54:53 AM
That's exactly the problem I have with this "solution." You have to have insurance, so you buy some from FlyByNight HealthCo for $50 a month, getting no significant benefits in return. Then, a year later, you discover that you have leukemia, so you switch to Blue Cross Blue Shield for $250 a month, taking out $10k a month in benefits. After a year, you have gone into remissions, so you switch back to FlyByNighCo.
Over two years, you have paid $3600 in premiums and gotten $120,000 in benefits.
Multiply by a million. Problem?
Now, this is an extreme example, for sure, but I don't see anything yet that makes me think something like it won't happen.
I don't think the insurance company is forced to accept you when you are sick if you already have insurance.
If you are sick today and are uninsured, yeah, Blue Cross Blue Shield need to accept you, as long as you can pay the premiums.
Besides, if I'm wrong, and they are forced to accept the sick people changing for a better plan, there is nothing in this law preventing them from signing a multi-year contract, I think... So, they could accept you, but you sign a 5 year contract with them, where if you leave from your own will, you keep on paying the insurance.
All these things aside, I still think your health care system is needlessy complicated.
Cover everyone from base, allow people to buy private insurance and get whatever treatment they want.
See, not that hard to do?
It's what they do in Europe, and it works well.
On the other hand, the Canadian way is to prevent you from going to the private, much like Cuba and North-Korea and it works just as well as you'd expect...
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 11:54:53 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 22, 2010, 10:48:48 AM
So you have to buy health insurance or be fined? I hope there will be some scam insurance providers
That's exactly the problem I have with this "solution." You have to have insurance, so you buy some from FlyByNight HealthCo for $50 a month, getting no significant benefits in return. Then, a year later, you discover that you have leukemia, so you switch to Blue Cross Blue Shield for $250 a month, taking out $10k a month in benefits. After a year, you have gone into remissions, so you switch back to FlyByNighCo.
Over two years, you have paid $3600 in premiums and gotten $120,000 in benefits.
Multiply by a million. Problem?
Now, this is an extreme example, for sure, but I don't see anything yet that makes me think something like it won't happen.
As I said earlier in the thread, what will make this not work is the regulatory system already in place. All insurance products sold to individuals are heavily regulated, even now. You just won't be able to sell a nominal non-coverage and have it pass muster with regulators. You can't get fake car insurance just to satisify an insurance requirement, can you?
What's an open question is how easily one can switch from no insurance at all to insurance, after getting a cancer diagnosis. I don't remember off the top of my head what the final solution to this wound up being, but something like waiting periods before the coverage starts would have to be mandatory.
Quote from: DGuller link=topic=4089.msg207991#msg207991You can't get fake car insurance just to satisify an insurance requirement, can you?
Not fake insurance, but there are companies that will give you the cheapest bare bones car insurance so you can get registered. Liability-only, minimum coverage, high deductible...
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2010, 12:06:21 PM
All these things aside, I still think your health care system is needlessy complicated.
Cover everyone from base, allow people to buy private insurance and get whatever treatment they want.
See, not that hard to do?
It's what they do in Europe, and it works well.
I think the US should just have adopted the German system, lock, stock, and barrel. Agree that the US current system is the worst of all worlds, and that the Hope! Change! doesn't make it much (if any) better overall.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2010, 12:35:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller link=topic=4089.msg207991#msg207991You can't get fake car insurance just to satisify an insurance requirement, can you?
Not fake insurance, but there are companies that will give you the cheapest bare bones car insurance so you can get registered. Liability-only, minimum coverage, high deductible...
Yes, of course, but even that insurance goes a long way, especially in states that have adequate minimum liability requirements. The reason car insurance is mandatory is due to the liability aspect of it.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 12:39:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2010, 12:06:21 PM
All these things aside, I still think your health care system is needlessy complicated.
Cover everyone from base, allow people to buy private insurance and get whatever treatment they want.
See, not that hard to do?
It's what they do in Europe, and it works well.
I think the US should just have adopted the German system, lock, stock, and barrel. Agree that the US current system is the worst of all worlds, and that the Hope! Change! doesn't make it much (if any) better overall.
The German system is also searching for cost efficiency, though. Ca. 20 years back there was no free choice of insurance (it was mostly decided by who your employer was), and everyone paid the same. In an effort to let the market do its magic the government decied that insurances could set their rates themselves, and everyone could choose the insurance they liked.
The result was that many young, healthy, flexible people moved to the cheap insurances, while many of the old and chronically ill remained with large, ineffective, expensive insurances. This lead to a central funds into which the insurances with a surplus paid a share of their revenue to subsidize the insurances that made a loss (this led to my then insurance having to raise their rate more than they wanted to, in order create more payments for the central funds). Also, the government introduced minimum times you had to stick with an insurance.
Meanwhile, the share of medical costs that patients have to bear themselves has risen constantly (though generally capped at 2% of the annual income - 1% for socially weak), and for some treatments (esp. expensive dental procedures) you can expect to pay either all or a rather large part of the cost.
Eventually, they re-introduced one rate for all insurances (though the insurances charged a little bit on top recently to cover their losses).
The latest discussion point is to force the pharma companies to lower their prices for medications, and to create more incentives for doctors to prescribe generics.
Quote from: Syt on March 22, 2010, 12:49:36 PM
The German system is also searching for cost efficiency, though. Ca. 20 years back there was no free choice of insurance (it was mostly decided by who your employer was), and everyone paid the same. In an effort to let the market do its magic the government decied that insurances could set their rates themselves, and everyone could choose the insurance they liked.
The result was that many young, healthy, flexible people moved to the cheap insurances, while many of the old and chronically ill remained with large, ineffective, expensive insurances. This lead to a central funds into which the insurances with a surplus paid a share of their revenue to subsidize the insurances that made a loss (this led to my then insurance having to raise their rate more than they wanted to, in order create more payments for the central funds). Also, the government introduced minimum times you had to stick with an insurance.
Meanwhile, the share of medical costs that patients have to bear themselves has risen constantly (though generally capped at 2% of the annual income - 1% for socially weak), and for some treatments (esp. expensive dental procedures) you can expect to pay either all or a rather large part of the cost.
Eventually, they re-introduced one rate for all insurances (though the insurances charged a little bit on top recently to cover their losses).
The latest discussion point is to force the pharma companies to lower their prices for medications, and to create more incentives for doctors to prescribe generics.
Yeah, i know the German system isn't perfect, but it seems to me to be the best mix of cost and effectiveness that I can find.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2010, 12:06:21 PM
Cover everyone from base, allow people to buy private insurance and get whatever treatment they want.
See, not that hard to do?
It's what they do in Europe, and it works well.
The real question is what would be base coverage and what would be privately insured. Access to privately paid medical care varies widely by province here in Canada. Here in BC I can purchase, either through insurance or personally, a wide range of additional care in addition to my general medical care coverage.
As I understand it, that was not possible or was highly restricted in Quebec until somone went to the SCC and obtained a judgment that preventing timely access to medical care - even if it was private - was contrary to the Charter. I am not sure how that case has changed access to private care in Quebec.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2010, 11:16:07 AM
I was thinking about the fundamental problem of cost in your system. I havent read anything to indicate that any of these reforms which addresses the cost of your system. I dont think it makes much sense for government to essentially underwrite a system where there is no real cost control. Seems a recipe for huge government expenditure over time.
The more the cost goes up, the more powerful and well-resourced are those interests who have strong incentives to keep costs high and increasing, and thus the harder it is politically to achieve meaningful cost controls.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment link=topic=4089.msg208023#msg208023The more the cost goes up, the more powerful and well-resourced are those interests who have strong incentives to keep costs high and increasing, and thus the harder it is politically to achieve meaningful cost controls.
That is certainly true but without real reform that addresses the issue you folks are doomed to continue have the most expensive system without having the best outcomes.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 12:39:04 PM
I think the US should just have adopted the German system, lock, stock, and barrel. Agree that the US current system is the worst of all worlds, and that the Hope! Change! doesn't make it much (if any) better overall.
I don't know if it's his achievement of a life-time or if he intends to go 'deeper' in a second mandate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 22, 2010, 12:59:02 PM
The real question is what would be base coverage and what would be privately insured. Access to privately paid medical care varies widely by province here in Canada. Here in BC I can purchase, either through insurance or personally, a wide range of additional care in addition to my general medical care coverage.
Well, imho, there needs to be a minimum standard.
Plastic (non reconstructive) surgery should not be covered, but seeing a doctor once a year should be, albeit with a modest deductible to pay (maybe 25$-30$ to see a doctor for adults).
That was the biggest problem in the US, where the very sick would go to the hospital and be cured (they can't let people die in the streets after all) instead of going for regular 'maintenance' check to prevent bigger problems later on.
Quote
As I understand it, that was not possible or was highly restricted in Quebec until somone went to the SCC and obtained a judgment that preventing timely access to medical care - even if it was private - was contrary to the Charter. I am not sure how that case has changed access to private care in Quebec.
I could go to any private clinic I wanted to before the judgement, the problem was that I could not buy an insurance to cover these expenses.
The case made by Chaouilli was that the government could not prevent me from buying a private insurance to get my own health care while it was not delivering the services I was paying for with my taxes.
So the SCC judged that it was illegal for Quebec to prevent me from buying private insurance coverage to get the treatment I need from the private sector.
Quebec asked for one year delay, after wich they made bogus promises and agreed to let people buy insurance for 3 types of problem.
The biggest problem right now is that a doctor either has to charge 100% to the public or 100% to the private.
And since there are quotas in the public sector, we have under-employed doctors & specialists in some places and over-employed ones in other sectors. My own family doc has a quota on the number of patients he can see in a day at his office. If he goes beyond that, he's not getting paid.
So they talk about all this shortage of nurses and doctor in the public system...
Imho, after completing his quota in the public sector, a doctor should be allowed to work for the private sector. It would solve a lot of problems.
Quote from: Syt on March 22, 2010, 12:49:36 PM
The latest discussion point is to force the pharma companies to lower their prices for medications, and to create more incentives for doctors to prescribe generics.
This is a big topic in Canada.
Way Ontario does it, is by having a list of 'publicly funded' drugs that folks eligible for the public drug plan (everyone over 60 plus those on public assistance) gets for free - and then demanding hefty rebates from the manufacturers as a condition to get on the list.
There is also mandatory interchangable drug substitution legislation (pharmacists must dispense the generic version if it is labelled as officially "interchangeable" with a brand, and you are prescribed the brand, and the physician does not say "no substitution" - its a bit more complex than that, but that is basically the story).
This is above and beyond the system of prescription drug price controls.
Quote from: Caliga on March 22, 2010, 11:08:10 AM
Interestingly the stock market doesn't appear to be bombing as hard as I would have thought. :hmm:
I thought the Black helicopters would be here by now. I guess not.
So tell me, is that other fellow really going to costa rica?
What is happening in the right? Is everyone getting crazy?
Tell me about the fallout, please.
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on March 22, 2010, 02:58:48 PM
So tell me, is that other fellow really going to costa rica?
What is happening in the right? Is everyone getting crazy?
Tell me about the fallout, please.
Cities are on fire. :(
:yes: I'm getting ready to butcher my dog so I can eat the meat and burn his bones and fur for warmth. :(
That said, SF is just one big party. Orgies are taking place in the streets and the smell of marijuana floods the air. In other words, business as usual.
I have to say, I am becoming more persuaded to support the bill because of the histronics from the right. My facebook is being splattered with things like:
Quotewhenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all... Men, against Force and Violence." Never have Locke's words had more relevance
QuoteI have a feeling I'm right, though, and I think the Dems will learn in November that most Americans feel the same way. We don't like to be slaves, we value individual autonomy and liberty, and the government has stepped too far this time. They will pay for their treason.
Incidentally, there is now a big debate in Poland whether in vitro treatment should be covered by the Polish NHS insurance.
Right now the Civic Platform is doing damage control after their Presidential candidate blundered that "yes, as long as there are prospects of the children being healthy and raised as good citizens" which his opponents decried as eugenics. :nelson:
Once the health care reform actually goes into effect in 2014 you will most likely see a spike in uninsured since one of the main reasons for obtaining health insurance as a hedge against catastrophic illness disappears.
Reason as follows: It is cheaper to pay the fine than to buy health insurance (and of course it is unlikely that the fine will survive a Constitutional challenge anyway). Since insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions you can simply go without health insurance until you get sick, and once you're healed you can drop it again. As the healthy exist the insurance market insurance rates will necessary skyrocket, creating further incentive for people to drop their health insurance, resulting in a decline of health insurance.
The problem of course is that what we call health insurance is in reality pre-paid health care, which is why the costs are so out of control. image how expensive and inefficient the car insurance market would be if your insurance would be required to cover oil changes and gas. Pure insanity.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 22, 2010, 03:15:12 PM
I have to say, I am becoming more persuaded to support the bill because of the histronics from the right. My facebook is being splattered with things like:
Quotewhenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all... Men, against Force and Violence." Never have Locke's words had more relevance
QuoteI have a feeling I'm right, though, and I think the Dems will learn in November that most Americans feel the same way. We don't like to be slaves, we value individual autonomy and liberty, and the government has stepped too far this time. They will pay for their treason.
It is the 90's all over again. All we need now is Vince Foster come back to life and it'd be a fun party.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2010, 03:17:23 PM
Once the health care reform actually goes into effect in 2014 you will most likely see a spike in uninsured since one of the main reasons for obtaining health insurance as a hedge against catastrophic illness disappears.
Reason as follows: It is cheaper to pay the fine than to buy health insurance (and of course it is unlikely that the fine will survive a Constitutional challenge anyway). Since insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions you can simply go without health insurance until you get sick, and once you're healed you can drop it again. As the healthy exist the insurance market insurance rates will necessary skyrocket, creating further incentive for people to drop their health insurance, resulting in a decline of health insurance.
The problem of course is that what we call health insurance is in reality pre-paid health care, which is why the costs are so out of control. image how expensive and inefficient the car insurance market would be if your insurance would be required to cover oil changes and gas. Pure insanity.
It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger. It is indeed a very real concern (we call it adverse selection death spiral). It's unfortunate that you will probably discredit this very valid concern by posting it.
You know, it occurs to me. Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on. This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2010, 03:17:23 PM
Once the health care reform actually goes into effect in 2014 you will most likely see a spike in uninsured since one of the main reasons for obtaining health insurance as a hedge against catastrophic illness disappears.
Reason as follows: It is cheaper to pay the fine than to buy health insurance (and of course it is unlikely that the fine will survive a Constitutional challenge anyway). Since insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions you can simply go without health insurance until you get sick, and once you're healed you can drop it again. As the healthy exist the insurance market insurance rates will necessary skyrocket, creating further incentive for people to drop their health insurance, resulting in a decline of health insurance.
The problem of course is that what we call health insurance is in reality pre-paid health care, which is why the costs are so out of control. image how expensive and inefficient the car insurance market would be if your insurance would be required to cover oil changes and gas. Pure insanity.
Yes.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 03:28:57 PM
You know, it occurs to me. Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on. This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.
:mellow: I don't think I have disagreed with a word he has said on this topic since he joined the trifora.
I judge the post, not the poster.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2010, 03:17:23 PM
The problem of course is that what we call health insurance is in reality pre-paid health care, which is why the costs are so out of control.
How can it be pre-paid when they don't come close to covering costs?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 03:28:57 PM
You know, it occurs to me. Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on. This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.
Nobody should defer to me on any subject, regardless of my level of expertise in it. Same goes for everyone else. You should evaluate my statements based on how well I support them, and not on my level of expertise in the subject. I would also not call myself a health insurance expert, as I don't work in the health insurance industry.
Quote from: citizen k on March 22, 2010, 03:41:02 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2010, 03:17:23 PM
The problem of course is that what we call health insurance is in reality pre-paid health care, which is why the costs are so out of control.
How can it be pre-paid when they don't come close to covering costs?
The point Hans was making, and it's a very good one, is that insurance should compensate you against unforeseen events. The events covered by insurance should be random by definition (and also satisfy a couple of other requirements not relevant here). By the classical definition of insurance, health insurance isn't really insurance, and that's part of the problem. Insurance doesn't work well when it covers predictable expenses.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 03:28:57 PM
You know, it occurs to me. Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on. This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.
Nobody should defer to me on any subject
10-4
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 03:24:40 PM
[It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger.
The "constitutional challenge" bit raised half an eyebrow. There is no question of effect on interstate commerce here, and that is the only ground on which Commerce Clause challenges have carried in present era. So the opponents are esssentially banking on the prospect that a conservative Court will buy an untested 9th Amendment argument that could have lots of unexpected ramifications if adopted. Don't bet the ranch on it.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 03:28:57 PM
You know, it occurs to me. Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on. This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.
:mellow: I don't think I have disagreed with a word he has said on this topic since he joined the trifora.
I judge the post, not the poster.
Whatever. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 03:28:57 PM
You know, it occurs to me. Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on. This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.
Nobody should defer to me on any subject, regardless of my level of expertise in it. Same goes for everyone else. You should evaluate my statements based on how well I support them, and not on my level of expertise in the subject. I would also not call myself a health insurance expert, as I don't work in the health insurance industry.
Whatever :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 03:24:40 PM
[It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger.
The "constitutional challenge" bit raised half an eyebrow. There is no question of effect on interstate commerce here, and that is the only ground on which Commerce Clause challenges have carried in present era. So the opponents are esssentially banking on the prospect that a conservative Court will buy an untested 9th Amendment argument that could have lots of unexpected ramifications if adopted. Don't bet the ranch on it.
Did you see Barnett's bit on this? I was a bit surprised he was so certain it's unconstitutional; yea, he's a libertarian, but he's a pretty sharp cookie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 03:24:40 PM
[It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger.
The "constitutional challenge" bit raised half an eyebrow. There is no question of effect on interstate commerce here, and that is the only ground on which Commerce Clause challenges have carried in present era. So the opponents are esssentially banking on the prospect that a conservative Court will buy an untested 9th Amendment argument that could have lots of unexpected ramifications if adopted. Don't bet the ranch on it.
I meant to concur only with the actuarial bits. The situation described by Hans can happen even without the challenge, though, as the mandate is pitifully inadequate.
With regard to the constitutional challenge, I have heard from health actuaries that they're very doubtful that the mandate would survive it, so that argument is familiar to me as well. I don't know how well-informed and bias-free their doubt is, though. There are unfortunately plenty of demented right-wingers in our ranks.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2010, 02:37:59 PMThere is also mandatory interchangable drug substitution legislation (pharmacists must dispense the generic version if it is labelled as officially "interchangeable" with a brand, and you are prescribed the brand, and the physician does not say "no substitution" - its a bit more complex than that, but that is basically the story).
That was tried in Germany, too, together with attempts to force doctors on a prescription budget. The thing is that big pharma often has doctors (or a large percentage of them) in their pockets through various means. Not to mention that it can be popular to take an old medication and add a new component which changes it in an almost insignificant way which leads to a new patent and to a drug for which there's no generic yet. Add a marketing campaign that hypes the new version of the drug.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 03:50:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 03:24:40 PM
[It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger.
The "constitutional challenge" bit raised half an eyebrow. There is no question of effect on interstate commerce here, and that is the only ground on which Commerce Clause challenges have carried in present era. So the opponents are esssentially banking on the prospect that a conservative Court will buy an untested 9th Amendment argument that could have lots of unexpected ramifications if adopted. Don't bet the ranch on it.
How are you engaging in interstate commerce by not engaging in commerce? This argument doesn't even pass the laugh test. Not to mention that the HCR Bill leaves in place the ban on interstate commerce on health insurance. Where did you get your law degree from, DeVry?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2010, 04:14:53 PM
How are you engaging in interstate commerce by not engaging in commerce? This argument doesn't even pass the laugh test. Not to mention that the HCR Bill leaves in place the ban on interstate commerce on health insurance. Where did you get your law degree from, DeVry?
You don't see health care as relating to commerce?
Hans is unaware of the meaning of the term "regulate," I guess.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 04:19:10 PM
Hans is unaware of the meaning of the term "regulate," I guess.
You are dodging his question. :contract:
Did you, or did you not, get your law degree from DeVry?
I'm not a lawyer, so I may be asking a very stupid question. However, as far as I'm aware, what shields insurance from interestate commerce laws is the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Since it's just a legislative act, wouldn't it or parts of it get superseded by any future legislation in the area? If the act says that interstate commerce laws don't apply to insurance, and then some later act says "well, let's make this insterstate commerce law apply", wouldn't the later act win out?
Yes, yes it would.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 04:24:42 PM
If the act says that interstate commerce laws don't apply to insurance, and then some later act says "well, let's make this insterstate commerce law apply", wouldn't the later act win out?
Yes.
However, it did just occur to me that there might be a possible legit challenge to this - one could argue that the "fine" is in effect a capitation tax levied on every person in America, with the ability to obtain a credit equal to the amount of the tax if one purchases a qualifying plan. That would run afoul of the constitutional requirement that capitation taxes be apportioned among the several states.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 04:23:09 PM
Did you, or did you not, get your law degree from DeVry?
That would be telling.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 04:37:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 04:23:09 PM
Did you, or did you not, get your law degree from DeVry?
That would be telling.
Your credits unlikely to transfer.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 04:23:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 04:19:10 PM
Hans is unaware of the meaning of the term "regulate," I guess.
You are dodging his question. :contract:
Did you, or did you not, get your law degree from DeVry?
Maybe Hans is in fact a lawyer in addition to being an economist, prophet, and mind reader.
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf#page=2
An interesting look at the constitutionality of the mandate. It's from a Liberal think tank, but still, IMO, pretty persuasive.
I do hope this means Hans will shut up about judicial activism now that he's begging the Supreme Court to find that exchanging money for services doesn't fall under commerce.
Quote from: Syt on March 22, 2010, 04:07:06 PM
That was tried in Germany, too, together with attempts to force doctors on a prescription budget. The thing is that big pharma often has doctors (or a large percentage of them) in their pockets through various means. Not to mention that it can be popular to take an old medication and add a new component which changes it in an almost insignificant way which leads to a new patent and to a drug for which there's no generic yet. Add a marketing campaign that hypes the new version of the drug.
The difference is that in each province you have to convince a governing board to add your pharma products to the list so having doctors in their pocket and and marketing dont really help large pharma, which is in part why Canadian provinces are able to keep drug costs down.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 22, 2010, 06:43:25 PM
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf#page=2
An interesting look at the constitutionality of the mandate. It's from a Liberal think tank, but still, IMO, pretty persuasive.
I do hope this means Hans will shut up about judicial activism now that he's begging the Supreme Court to find that exchanging money for services doesn't fall under commerce.
I found the part about inactivity being activity and direct taxation not all that persuasive.
BTW, what is a capitation tax?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2010, 07:05:50 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 22, 2010, 06:43:25 PM
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf#page=2
An interesting look at the constitutionality of the mandate. It's from a Liberal think tank, but still, IMO, pretty persuasive.
I do hope this means Hans will shut up about judicial activism now that he's begging the Supreme Court to find that exchanging money for services doesn't fall under commerce.
I found the part about inactivity being activity and direct taxation not all that persuasive.
BTW, what is a capitation tax?
I imagine it's a head tax.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2010, 02:04:29 PMseeing a doctor once a year should be, albeit with a modest deductible to pay (maybe 25$-30$ to see a doctor for adults).
How much does this normally cost in the US these days?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 22, 2010, 07:13:01 PM
How much does this normally cost in the US these days?
With or without coverage?
I pay about 45 each time I see my GP, no coverage.
I went to my doctor two weeks ago for acute bronchitis. It cost me $25. He gave me prescriptions for three items (a Proventil albuterol rescue inhaler, a course of dexamethasone, and a course of azithromycin) which cost a total of $62.
My wife has a certain medical condition that requires a lot of medical visits in increasing frequency. Haven't paid a dime.
My insurance went to shit last month. A copay to see a doctor is now 30. There is a 250 deductable/year for any tests plus a 100 copay.
In othe words if I went to my yearly physical and she wanted some blood tests done I'd pay 30 to see the doctor, 100 for the test, plus 250 for the deductable. This after my fucking rates went up by 6%. Assholes.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2010, 07:20:44 PM
My wife has a certain medical condition that requires a lot of medical visits in increasing frequency. Haven't paid a dime.
I think DP's question was about the part of the US outside of Canada.
Quote from: Barrister on March 22, 2010, 07:20:44 PM
My wife has a certain medical condition that requires a lot of medical visits in increasing frequency. Haven't paid a dime.
Tax evader. <_<
Quote from: Faeelin on March 22, 2010, 06:43:25 PM
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf#page=2
An interesting look at the constitutionality of the mandate. It's from a Liberal think tank, but still, IMO, pretty persuasive.
I do hope this means Hans will shut up about judicial activism now that he's begging the Supreme Court to find that exchanging money for services doesn't fall under commerce.
But if you don't buy health insurance there is no commerce by definition, no? So how can the act of not engaging in commerce be regulated by the commerce clause?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2010, 08:22:14 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on March 22, 2010, 06:43:25 PM
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf#page=2
An interesting look at the constitutionality of the mandate. It's from a Liberal think tank, but still, IMO, pretty persuasive.
I do hope this means Hans will shut up about judicial activism now that he's begging the Supreme Court to find that exchanging money for services doesn't fall under commerce.
But if you don't buy health insurance there is no commerce by definition, no? So how can the act of not engaging in commerce be regulated by the commerce clause?
Read the article.
I suppose even without the Commerce Clause, how can you say this isn't in the interests of "general welfare", but Social Security is, as defined in Helvering?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 03:50:53 PM
Don't bet the ranch on it.
I'm willing to bet the farm. I don't have much on it besides those pesky farmhands.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 09:01:06 PMRead the article.
I did. The argument in favour of the Commerce Clause is extremely weak to laughable. The argument on the General Welfare clause is much more persuasive.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2010, 10:32:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2010, 09:01:06 PMRead the article.
I did. The argument in favour of the Commerce Clause is extremely weak to laughable. The argument on the General Welfare clause is much more persuasive.
Use your great legal mind to tell us why. Cite cases and legal precedents. Don't use any blogs or anything like that to help you. Just use pure Hans.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 11:45:17 PM
Use your great legal mind to tell us why. Cite cases and legal precedents. Don't use any blogs or anything like that to help you. Just use pure Hans.
I've seen that video of him. I don't want to see pure Hans. :x
Quote from: garbon on March 22, 2010, 11:46:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 11:45:17 PM
Use your great legal mind to tell us why. Cite cases and legal precedents. Don't use any blogs or anything like that to help you. Just use pure Hans.
I've seen that video of him. I don't want to see pure Hans. :x
Oh, don't like your Hans black eh? How about some Hans with sugar and cream? A nice creamy Hans, just oozing out of that uniform. Mouthwatering.
I only like creampuffs when they have a nice filling.
Quote from: garbon on March 23, 2010, 12:00:39 AM
I only like creampuffs when they have a nice filling.
That would be a problem. Hans is just filled with bullshit.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 22, 2010, 08:22:14 PM
But if you don't buy health insurance there is no commerce by definition, no? So how can the act of not engaging in commerce be regulated by the commerce clause?
The Commerce Clause is not phrased in terms of regulating individuals who engage in commerce; it is phrased in terms of the power to regulate commerce, tout court. The commerce being regulated here is the sale and consumption of health care services. The Necessary and Proper clause permits Congresss to adopt any needful regulation to effectuate its regulatory scheme for that interstate market.
you don't have to believe me (I know you won't) - read Justice Scalia's concurrence in Raich.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2010, 07:05:50 PM
I found the part about inactivity being activity and direct taxation not all that persuasive.
Elaborate? ;)
QuoteBTW, what is a capitation tax?
A direct tax of a flat amount per person (per head).
Apparently the legislation gets around this by imposing the tax on AGI (income) but then capping it at a very low amount. Analytically this is very close to a capitation tax and arguably amounts to an artful dodge, but the direct taxation clause is kind of a constitutional anachronism and the Court is not likely to bend over to knock out the law on this basis.
Virginia will challenge the law.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2010, 10:19:40 AM
Virginia will challenge the law.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments
Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.
An interesting angle I heard this morning is that the increased coverage for Americans will likely increase the demand for more doctors and nurses in the US which will impact countries like Canada which are already facing doctor and nursing shortages as more medical professionals are drawn into the US.
Not sure if this is accurate. Presumably the uncovered people were already getting treatment, although in emergency wards not family doctors.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2010, 10:26:25 AM
Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.
Since when was that a concern to your side? :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on March 23, 2010, 10:56:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2010, 10:26:25 AM
Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.
Since when was that a concern to your side? :lol:
Since the same time Republicans became concerned with it. When the other side was spending money in a way we don't agree with!
And it's signed. Nixon would be proud. :cry:
I've been reading into the commerce clause arguments against Health Care, and I've gotta say, I can't see how you could shoot it down without destroying decades of federal law. If we think growing wheat for private consumption, or pot for private consumption, falls within the Commerce Clause power, how doesn't this?
Conversely, if it doesn't, how can the government enforce drug laws based on growing it?
The Republicans secretly want to decriminalize Pot.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2010, 02:25:21 PM
The Republicans secretly want to decriminalize Pot.
:w00t:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 23, 2010, 02:25:21 PM
The Republicans secretly want to decriminalize Pot.
Some do.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2010, 09:31:09 AM
Elaborate? ;)
It seemed like the arguments against "inactivity is not activity" boiled down to:
It's silly.
The government routinely pays people to do something when they're not doing something so they can fine someone for not doing something.
The argument against the direct tax seemed to boil down to no one pays attention to that any more.
I didn't find those very persuasive.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2010, 10:26:25 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2010, 10:19:40 AM
Virginia will challenge the law.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments
Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.
The first comment posted in reference to that article is really funny; it is the first time I have ever seen Ronald Reagan accused of being a "Socialist" (the comment says he "took us into a socialism future".) :lmfao:
Quote from: Agelastus on March 23, 2010, 05:34:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 23, 2010, 10:26:25 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2010, 10:19:40 AM
Virginia will challenge the law.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/HEAL221S1_20100322-000603/332103/#comments)
Virginia will waste some tax dollars then.
The first comment posted in reference to that article is really funny; it is the first time I have ever seen Ronald Reagan accused of being a "Socialist" (the comment says he "took us into a socialism future".) :lmfao:
To the very far right, there has never been a sitting president that wasn't a pinko. :tinfoil:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2010, 05:25:38 PM
It seemed like the arguments against "inactivity is not activity" boiled down to:
It's silly. . . .
I thought that was pretty persuasive given that the "inactivity" argument is just made up. This law is not regulating inactivity; it is taking a kind of activity (the delivery, purchase and sale of health care services) and making regulations about it. And I don't see anything in the commerce clause that says the commerce power doesn't extend to a regulation that requires people to do something.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2010, 05:56:42 PM
I thought that was pretty persuasive given that the "inactivity" argument is just made up. This law is not regulating inactivity; it is taking a kind of activity (the delivery, purchase and sale of health care services) and making regulations about it. And I don't see anything in the commerce clause that says the commerce power doesn't extend to a regulation that requires people to do something.
Well, all arguments were made up at some point or another, weren't they?
People who don't have health insurance are not delivering, purchasing, or selling health care services. They are inactive.
AFAICT there's no precedent in US history for fining people for not doing something.
I would certainly think it worthwhile to allow people to opt out of the health care system completely. They don't have to (and indeed would agree that they cannot) buy insurance, and they cannot get any health care services unless they can pay cash. It certainly would satisfy the "not buying insurance isn't a decision" crowd, and would eliminate the free rider problem that those who refuse to buy insurance represent.
We could cut a notch in their ear or something to indicate to any EMT people called to their aid in the event of a heart attack or car crash or something to leave 'em be unless they are conscious enough to fork over the cash.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2010, 06:04:08 PM
People who don't have health insurance are not delivering, purchasing, or selling health care services. They are inactive.
AFAICT there's no precedent in US history for fining people for not doing something.
There are plenty of regulations which fine people for not doing things. Environmental statutes, for instance. ;)
I know what you're getting at, but the argument only makes sense if you say the health insurance mandate is about only regulating health insurance. Otherwise you're asking a court to believe that Congress can't regulate health care because there's someone out there who has never, ever visited a doctor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2010, 06:04:08 PM
Well, all arguments were made up at some point or another, weren't they?
People who don't have health insurance are not delivering, purchasing, or selling health care services. They are inactive.
AFAICT there's no precedent in US history for fining people for not doing something.
Sure there is. If you don't pay taxes, you get fined.
The problem with the "not consuming health care" assumption is that it is false. Virtually everyone is going to consume health care at some point. It may be involuntary, even.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 23, 2010, 06:06:34 PM
There are plenty of regulations which fine people for not doing things. Environmental statutes, for instance. ;)
What are the fines for not polluting?;)
QuoteI know what you're getting at, but the argument only makes sense if you say the health insurance mandate is about only regulating health insurance. Otherwise you're asking a court to believe that Congress can't regulate health care because there's someone out there who has never, ever visited a doctor.
But the fine is not imposed on people who visit a doctor without insurance, it's a fine on people without insurance full stop.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2010, 06:08:07 PM
Sure there is. If you don't pay taxes, you get fined.
You used to get fined or jailed for not showing up for induction too. But I don't think those activities are covered by the commerce clause. Sorry I wasn't specific enough.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2010, 06:19:30 PM
But the fine is not imposed on people who visit a doctor without insurance, it's a fine on people without insurance full stop.
I get that. But those people who do not have insurance will use healthcare at some point in their life, right?
The bill regulates healthcare by mandating that individuals who have or will use healthcare in the future perform an action.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 23, 2010, 06:46:11 PM
I get that. But those people who do not have insurance will use healthcare at some point in their life, right?
The bill regulates healthcare by mandating that individuals who have or will use healthcare in the future perform an action.
One could even say an activity. :P
It's all good. If it goes to the court and the boys and girls in black say the government has the power to regulate inactivity that has economic consequences (and what doesn't?) I'm not going to join a militia. I just didn't find the argument persuasive.
Quote from: citizen k on March 23, 2010, 05:46:50 PM
To the very far right, there has never been a sitting president that wasn't a pinko. :tinfoil:
Washington? Jefferson? Jackson?
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2010, 07:33:23 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 23, 2010, 05:46:50 PM
To the very far right, there has never been a sitting president that wasn't a pinko. :tinfoil:
Washington? Jefferson? Jackson?
Remember, Texas just took Jefferson out of the school books.
Quote from: ulmont on March 23, 2010, 07:35:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2010, 07:33:23 PM
Quote from: citizen k on March 23, 2010, 05:46:50 PM
To the very far right, there has never been a sitting president that wasn't a pinko. :tinfoil:
Washington? Jefferson? Jackson?
Remember, Texas just took Jefferson out of the school books.
Yeah, but that's Christianity-related, not left/right related.
The "very far right" in the founders' day were monarchists.
Quote from: ulmont on March 23, 2010, 07:35:59 PM
Remember, Texas just took Jefferson out of the school books.
:huh: I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Unless this is a joke.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2010, 06:58:40 PM
I just didn't find the argument persuasive.
Oh. Well, that's all right. I don't find lots of commonly accepted arguments very persuasive.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2010, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 23, 2010, 07:35:59 PM
Remember, Texas just took Jefferson out of the school books.
:huh: I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Unless this is a joke.
*shrug* "diminished Jefferson's role as regards to the Enlightenment," if you must. Clearly, Jefferson is not a friend of the Texas Board of Education, and by extension to the far right.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2010, 09:31:09 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2010, 07:05:50 PM
I found the part about inactivity being activity and direct taxation not all that persuasive.
Elaborate? ;)
QuoteBTW, what is a capitation tax?
A direct tax of a flat amount per person (per head).
Apparently the legislation gets around this by imposing the tax on AGI (income) but then capping it at a very low amount. Analytically this is very close to a capitation tax and arguably amounts to an artful dodge, but the direct taxation clause is kind of a constitutional anachronism and the Court is not likely to bend over to knock out the law on this basis.
Declaring something a "constitutional anachronism" and thus okay to ignore is an extremely dangerous precedent.
Quote from: ulmont on March 23, 2010, 09:40:57 PM
*shrug* "diminished Jefferson's role as regards to the Enlightenment," if you must. Clearly, Jefferson is not a friend of the Texas Board of Education, and by extension to the far right.
Remember, Jefferson edited the Bible and took all the magic fantasy hocus-pocus shit out of the New Testament. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 23, 2010, 09:53:06 PM
Quote from: ulmont on March 23, 2010, 09:40:57 PM
*shrug* "diminished Jefferson's role as regards to the Enlightenment," if you must. Clearly, Jefferson is not a friend of the Texas Board of Education, and by extension to the far right.
Remember, Jefferson edited the Bible and took all the magic fantasy hocus-pocus shit out of the New Testament. :)
I honestly did not know that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2010, 06:21:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2010, 06:08:07 PM
Sure there is. If you don't pay taxes, you get fined.
You used to get fined or jailed for not showing up for induction too. But I don't think those activities are covered by the commerce clause. Sorry I wasn't specific enough.
Don't you have stuff like mandatory car insurance? Or don't certain professions have to get a mandatory malpractice insurance?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2010, 10:06:37 PM
I honestly did not know that.
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/ (http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/)
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 02:17:20 AM
Don't you have stuff like mandatory car insurance? Or don't certain professions have to get a mandatory malpractice insurance?
Imposed by the states. For certain activities.
Quote from: ulmont on March 23, 2010, 09:40:57 PM
*shrug* "diminished Jefferson's role as regards to the Enlightenment," if you must.
That is a bit different than taking "Jefferson out of the school books!" :lol:
This is a big fucking deal.
- Biden :wub:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2010, 06:53:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 02:17:20 AM
Don't you have stuff like mandatory car insurance? Or don't certain professions have to get a mandatory malpractice insurance?
Imposed by the states. For certain activities.
Ok. I keep forgetting about your federal vs. state divide. :P
Quote from: Fate on March 24, 2010, 07:12:00 AM
This is a big fucking deal.
- Biden :wub:
Biden: Master of the Obvious.
QuoteInsurers Back Effort to Make Health Care Reform Succeed
By MICHAEL SCHERER / WASHINGTON Michael Scherer / Washington 1 hr 57 mins ago
The health-insurance industry, which spent months campaigning against Democratic health reform, has shifted focus in the wake of its passage, pivoting from opposition to making sure the new law succeeds beyond most expectations.
America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry trade group, has agreed to sign on to a new, 50-state health care reform implementation effort, provisionally called Enroll America, which is being organized by Ron Pollack of the pro-reform group Families USA. "We are participating in it," says AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach. "The goal is to get everyone covered." (Watch TIME's video "The Story of an Uninsured Woman.")
Other parts of the health industry, including drug companies and hospitals, are also expected to join the effort, which will focus on making sure as many uninsured Americans as possible get insurance under the law President Obama signed Tuesday. "We are literally going to try to raise tens of millions of dollars per year for the next several years, beyond 2014 when most of these things get implemented," says Pollack. He says he plans to meet Wednesday with Karen Ignagni, the head of AHIP, to discuss the involvement of insurance companies.
The Congressional Budget office estimates that 95% of legal Americans will have health insurance after the law is fully implemented by 2016, adding approximately 32 million previously uninsured people to the health-coverage rolls. Health insurers have long argued for tougher government mandates that would require more of those who are generally healthy to get health insurance, which helps spread the risk in the pool of insured. (See the sticking points on House and Senate health reform.)
Enroll America will focus on enticing the final 5% of Americans who will be eligible for health insurance under the new law but whom congressional budget scorers do not expect to enroll. On a state-by-state basis, the group will work to create an easy application process for benefits, including access to enrollment at doctors' offices, pharmacies and government agencies that provide other benefits like food stamps. "All of these groups have a business reason to do this," says Pollack, who notes that his new coalition would include "many groups that don't really see eye to eye."
Enroll America won't be the only outside group working to sell health-insurance reform in the coming months. A coalition of labor and other progressive interest groups plans to launch its own outside effort to educate voters about the benefits of the new reform law in advance of November elections. "If we can teach the public what's in it, it can help trump the politics of repeal," says one person involved in this effort, which is likely to work with Anita Dunn, who resigned as White House communications director in December. "We need to build a political case for health care reform over the next 10 months." (See what health care reform really means.)
PhRMA, the drug industry's trade group, is also expected by progressive activists to continue public education spending over the coming months, though the organization's board has not yet made any final decisions. The group has already spent tens of millions of dollars in recent months on ads promoting health reform.
While conservative groups and Republican politicians will surely continue advertising and organizing against the health-reform law, Families USA also plans to launch its own public education campaign, funded through foundation donations, over the coming months. It will include a "health-reform road show" across the country, which will seek to drum up local press coverage of the new law's benefits, says Pollack. The organization is also planning to release state-by-state studies of the number of beneficiaries from key parts of the law, like the new protections for patients with pre-existing conditions. (See "Multimedia: Health Care for the Uninsured.")
Individual insurance companies also plan to launch education efforts for their existing customers about the benefits provided by the new law. "Our top priority is to minimize disruption for the 200 million people we serve today," says AHIP's Zirkelbach.
Interesting. I didn't expect the flip to happen so fast. I did expect the health insurance lobby to switch over after the reform passed, though.
The reason is simple: if you can't repeal the reform in full, then repealing parts of it would be a disaster for the industry. Once the reform passes and sticks, their interests lie in making the reform work well, which would now pit them against the Republicans. I wonder what the long-term implications are now that the insurers have strong incentives to be in the Democrats' corner.
The bill will be repealed in full. Republicans and Southern Democrats will have a super majority in 2010. I for one welcome our new conservative overlords.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2010, 06:04:08 PM
People who don't have health insurance are not delivering, purchasing, or selling health care services.
Nonsense. They are not buying health insurance but they certainly are getting health care services of some kind during their lives unless they are living as a hermit in the wilds.
QuoteAFAICT there's no precedent in US history for fining people for not doing something.
There are plenty of mandates that require people to do things. We require people to send kids to school. We require them to answer the Census. We require them to file a tax return even if they made no income. If the claim is that the government cannot impose a penalty for failure to comply with these mandates it has zero support in either constitutional law or practice.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm?csp=hf
QuoteWASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2010, 09:49:53 PM
Declaring something a "constitutional anachronism" and thus okay to ignore is an extremely dangerous precedent.
But not an unusual one. It was done with the Second Amendment for quite a long time. It has been done (and still is) with the Declaration of War power. And even now the 11th Amendment is interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court in a way at odds with its plain text.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 07:20:12 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2010, 06:53:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 02:17:20 AM
Don't you have stuff like mandatory car insurance? Or don't certain professions have to get a mandatory malpractice insurance?
Imposed by the states. For certain activities.
Ok. I keep forgetting about your federal vs. state divide. :P
It is important when many states are the size of countries in their own right.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2010, 09:25:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2010, 09:49:53 PM
Declaring something a "constitutional anachronism" and thus okay to ignore is an extremely dangerous precedent.
But not an unusual one. It was done with the Second Amendment for quite a long time. It has been done (and still is) with the Declaration of War power. And even now the 11th Amendment is interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court in a way at odds with its plain text.
Is it really that hard to do it the right way and just make an amendment? Sheesh. <_<
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2010, 09:18:16 AM
There are plenty of mandates that require people to do things. We require people to send kids to school. We require them to answer the Census. We require them to file a tax return even if they made no income. If the claim is that the government cannot impose a penalty for failure to comply with these mandates it has zero support in either constitutional law or practice.
Please see my responses to Marty and grumber above. Truancy is state or local jurisdiction. The census and tax returns are covered by specifically enumerated powers of Congress.
I have a question for you (or anyone else): what powers does Congress *not* have, besides those proscribed in the Bill of Rights?
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2010, 02:17:20 AM
Don't you have stuff like mandatory car insurance? Or don't certain professions have to get a mandatory malpractice insurance?
Yes, but you make a proactive choice to drive, and you make a proactive choice to enter into a given profession. This would be the first blanket commercial mandate.
Looking forward to the supremacy of Congress in the US, and the final annihilation of your archaic written constitution. There is nothing so wretched as a formal, written constitution.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 24, 2010, 11:47:02 AM
Is it really that hard to do it the right way and just make an amendment? Sheesh. <_<
Yes, which is why the efforts are made to circumvent the process entirely.
Okay, here's a quote from the last case to find that Congress had violated the Commerce Clause. I think it illustrates why I think it will be very, very hard here. It's from
United States v. MorrisonQuoteAs we observed in Lopez, modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence has "identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.""First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce." "Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities." "Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, ... i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."
(This is quoting LopezUnlike the earlier cases to come before the Court here neither the actors nor their conduct has a commercial character, and neither the purposes nor the design of the statute has an evident commercial nexus. The statute makes the simple possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of the grounds of the school a criminal offense. In a sense any conduct in this interdependent world of ours has an ultimate commercial origin or consequence, but we have not yet said the commerce power may reach so far" (citation omitted)). Lopez's review of Commerce Clause case law demonstrates that in those cases where we have sustained federal regulation of intrastate activity based upon the activity's substantial effects on interstate commerce, the activity in question has been some sort of economic endeavor.
Finally, our decision in Lopez rested in part on the fact that the link between gun possession and a substantial effect on interstate commerce was attenuated. Id., at 563—567. The United States argued that the possession of guns may lead to violent crime, and that violent crime "can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs of violent crime are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. Second, violent crime reduces the willingness of individuals to travel to areas within the country that are perceived to be unsafe." Id., at 563—564 (citation omitted). The Government also argued that the presence of guns at schools poses a threat to the educational process, which in turn threatens to produce a less efficient and productive workforce, which will negatively affect national productivity and thus interstate commerce. Ibid.
We rejected these "costs of crime" and "national productivity" arguments because they would permit Congress to "regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce."
(returning to the case itself)
We accordingly reject the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce. The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. In recognizing this fact we preserve one of the few principles that has been consistent since the Clause was adopted. The regulation and punishment of intrastate violence that is not directed at the instrumentalities, channels, or goods involved in interstate commerce has always been the province of the States. Indeed, we can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.
See the difference here?
Not really. For one, not purchasing a product is by its very definition noneconomic and thus arguably doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Second, there is a total prohibition in place on the purchase of health insurance across state lines in the individual market. Since there is no interstate market for individual health insurance by law, an individual mandate to procure health insurance cannot have an effect on a nonexisting interstate market.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 05:58:06 PM
Not really. For one, not purchasing a product is by its very definition noneconomic and thus arguably doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Second, there is a total prohibition in place on the purchase of health insurance across state lines in the individual market. Since there is no interstate market for individual health insurance by law, an individual mandate to procure health insurance cannot have an effect on a nonexisting interstate market.
False assumptions lead to false conclusions. This applies even when false assumptions are falsely called true "by definition." An economist will tell you that the decision to spend money on X rather than Y is an economic activity.
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2010, 06:02:20 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 05:58:06 PM
Not really. For one, not purchasing a product is by its very definition noneconomic and thus arguably doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Second, there is a total prohibition in place on the purchase of health insurance across state lines in the individual market. Since there is no interstate market for individual health insurance by law, an individual mandate to procure health insurance cannot have an effect on a nonexisting interstate market.
False assumptions lead to false conclusions. This applies even when false assumptions are falsely called true "by definition." An economist will tell you that the decision to spend money on X rather than Y is an economic activity.
Of course the decision to purchase Y instead of X is an economic activity - the nonpurchase of X is not an economic activity.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 05:58:06 PM
Not really. For one, not purchasing a product is by its very definition noneconomic and thus arguably doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Second, there is a total prohibition in place on the purchase of health insurance across state lines in the individual market. Since there is no interstate market for individual health insurance by law, an individual mandate to procure health insurance cannot have an effect on a nonexisting interstate market.
The lack of a market in insurance across state lines was itself a decision made by Commerce. There is nothing in the Constitution which forbids it. Saying "You can't sell insurance across state lines because unders its Commerce Clause powers Congress forbade it, and therefore it isn't an interstate activity commerce can regulate" is a bit. Umm.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:07:17 PM
Of course the decision to purchase Y instead of X is an economic activity - the nonpurchase of X is not an economic activity.
I am utterly unconvinced of your argument on this point. If that's the crux of the constitutional challenge, IMHO your side is sunk.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 06:07:33 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 05:58:06 PM
Not really. For one, not purchasing a product is by its very definition noneconomic and thus arguably doesn't fall under the commerce clause. Second, there is a total prohibition in place on the purchase of health insurance across state lines in the individual market. Since there is no interstate market for individual health insurance by law, an individual mandate to procure health insurance cannot have an effect on a nonexisting interstate market.
The lack of a market in insurance across state lines was itself a decision made by Commerce. There is nothing in the Constitution which forbids it. Saying "You can't sell insurance across state lines because unders its Commerce Clause powers Congress forbade it, and therefore it isn't an interstate activity commerce can regulate" is a bit. Umm.
Not really. Indeed, the law was put in place in order to leave the regulation to the States in the first place. Congress could have opened up the interstate market but didn't Congress is trying to have it both ways. Currently, there is no interstate market, thus nothing for Congress to regulate by the Constitution. If Congress created an interstate market they then would have the power to regulate the interstate market they created. They chose not to do so. But even if it did create an interstate market Congress has no power from the Constitution to order, as a requirement of citizenship or residency, an individual to purchase a commercial product against his will. There is no precedence in this to be found anywhere in our history.
Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2010, 06:10:06 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:07:17 PM
Of course the decision to purchase Y instead of X is an economic activity - the nonpurchase of X is not an economic activity.
I am utterly unconvinced of your argument on this point. If that's the crux of the constitutional challenge, IMHO your side is sunk.
For commerce to occur there has to be an exchange taking place, it is the very basics of economics. No exchange of goods, no commerce.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:17:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2010, 06:10:06 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:07:17 PM
Of course the decision to purchase Y instead of X is an economic activity - the nonpurchase of X is not an economic activity.
I am utterly unconvinced of your argument on this point. If that's the crux of the constitutional challenge, IMHO your side is sunk.
For commerce to occur there has to be an exchange taking place, it is the very basics of economics. No exchange of goods, no commerce.
No, I understood the point you were making. I simply remain completely unconvinced that it will fly.
Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2010, 06:18:35 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:17:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 24, 2010, 06:10:06 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:07:17 PM
Of course the decision to purchase Y instead of X is an economic activity - the nonpurchase of X is not an economic activity.
I am utterly unconvinced of your argument on this point. If that's the crux of the constitutional challenge, IMHO your side is sunk.
For commerce to occur there has to be an exchange taking place, it is the very basics of economics. No exchange of goods, no commerce.
No, I understood the point you were making. I simply remain completely unconvinced that it will fly.
Realistically speaking, what is far more important than any legal argument is what Justice Kennedy will have had for breakfast the day he casts the tiebreaker. He will weigh between his desire to defer to Congress and the unprecedented powergrab by the gov't, while considering the unpopularity of the bill. The four conservative justices will fall back on the Constitution to oppose it, while the four left-wing justices believe that the only limits on gov't power are in the bedroom and in the prosecution of war against Al Qaeda.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:15:14 PM
Not really. Indeed, the law was put in place in order to leave the regulation to the States in the first place. Congress could have opened up the interstate market but didn't Congress is trying to have it both ways. Currently, there is no interstate market, thus nothing for Congress to regulate by the Constitution. If Congress created an interstate market they then would have the power to regulate the interstate market they created.
How does flood insurance fall with the Interstate Commerce thing? Homeowners insurance can't be sold across state lines, and yet we have a federal program that takes care of the flood hazard regardless. Is the gov't flood insurance unconstitutional?
There is no war against al-Qaeda.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:46:18 PM
Realistically speaking, what is far more important than any legal argument is what Justice Kennedy will have had for breakfast the day he casts the tiebreaker. He will weigh between his desire to defer to Congress and the unprecedented powergrab by the gov't, while considering the unpopularity of the bill. The four conservative justices will fall back on the Constitution to oppose it, while the four left-wing justices believe that the only limits on gov't power are in the bedroom and in the prosecution of war against Al Qaeda.
As I noted a few pages ago:
QuoteWASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."
But it's a pity we don't have the old board's archives around, because the fact that you are complaining about unpopular legislation passed by 60 senators and the House, and are hoping that the Supreme Court will engage in some weird jujitsu where it pretends that health are isn't a commercial activity is
fantastic.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:46:18 PM
Realistically speaking, what is far more important than any legal argument is what Justice Kennedy will have had for breakfast the day he casts the tiebreaker. He will weigh between his desire to defer to Congress and the unprecedented powergrab by the gov't, while considering the unpopularity of the bill. The four conservative justices will fall back on the Constitution to oppose it, while the four left-wing justices believe that the only limits on gov't power are in the bedroom and in the prosecution of war against Al Qaeda.
As I noted a few pages ago:
QuoteWASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."
But it's a pity we don't have the old board's archives around, because the fact that you are complaining about unpopular legislation passed by 60 senators and the House, and are hoping that the Supreme Court will engage in some weird jujitsu where it pretends that health are isn't a commercial activity is fantastic.
It was a crap poll of "Adults", which generally means it is worthless, none of the other polls show this.
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2010, 06:58:31 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:15:14 PM
Not really. Indeed, the law was put in place in order to leave the regulation to the States in the first place. Congress could have opened up the interstate market but didn't Congress is trying to have it both ways. Currently, there is no interstate market, thus nothing for Congress to regulate by the Constitution. If Congress created an interstate market they then would have the power to regulate the interstate market they created.
How does flood insurance fall with the Interstate Commerce thing? Homeowners insurance can't be sold across state lines, and yet we have a federal program that takes care of the flood hazard regardless. Is the gov't flood insurance unconstitutional?
Does the gov't mandate that everybody buy flood insurance whether they want to or not? The federal gov't can spend their tax revenue pretty much as it likes (though technically, yes, that is unconstitutional), but you're comparing apples to oranges. Does the federal gov't dictate to the States how to run flood insurance, or does it incetivise the States to adhere to federal guidelines like they do with so much else?
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 25, 2010, 12:18:50 AM
It was a crap poll of "Adults", which generally means it is worthless, none of the other polls show this.
Yeah, the kids who vote in the normal polls all hate health care because it means they'd have to go to the doctor's. :homestar:
Quote from: Faeelin on March 24, 2010, 08:03:04 PM
As I noted a few pages ago:
QuoteWASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."
It's time for poll wars:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_health_care_032410_7am.pdf (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_health_care_032410_7am.pdf)
QuotePoll: Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill
CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.
A CBS News poll released Wednesday finds that nearly two in three Americans want Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill.
The Senate version of the legislation was passed by the House Sunday night, and President Obama signed it into law on Tuesday. The House also passed a separate reconciliation bill, which cannot be filibustered, that is now being debated in the Senate. That bill would make changes to the bill already signed into law.
Senate Republicans are now challenging whether the bill is truly a budget reconciliation bill (which is what makes it filibuster-proof) and inserting amendments designed to slow down passage. Republican attorneys general are also planning to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
The poll finds that 62 percent want Congressional Republicans to keep challenging the bill, while 33 percent say they should not do so. Nearly nine in ten Republicans and two in three independents want the GOP to keep challenging. Even 41 percent of Democrats support continued challenges.
Americans are split about the fact that the bill largely lacked bipartisan support. Fifty percent said they were disappointed that the bill did not have support from both parties, while 44 percent said that it doesn't matter.
Most see the bill as an important achievement for the president. Fifty-two percent called passage a major accomplishment for Mr. Obama, up from 46 percent before Sunday's vote. Thirteen percent called it a minor accomplishment, and 32 percent said passage was not an accomplishment.
For the new poll, CBS News re-interviewed 649 adults interviewed just before the House vote in a CBS News poll conducted March 18-21. The findings suggest an improvement in perceptions of the legislation: While 37 percent approved of it before the vote, 42 percent approved afterward.
Still, there was significant disapproval for the bill. Forty-six percent say they disapprove, including 32 percent who strongly disapprove. Those numbers have barely moved since before the bill was signed.
Americans also did not significantly change their views on the impact of the bill. Thirty percent still say it will make the health care system better, while 33 percent say it will make the system worse.
They have also held relatively firm in their perceptions of how the bill will effect them. Sixteen percent say the bill will "mostly help," while 35 percent say it will "mostly hurt." Both of those numbers are down slightly from before the vote. Forty-three percent now say the bill will have "no effect," an increase of eight points.
A majority of Americans continue to say that they find the bill to be confusing and do not understand what it means for them or their family.
Passage of the bill did seem to improve perceptions of Democrats in Congress. Thirty-eight percent now say they approve of Congressional Democrats, up from 29 percent before the vote. Fifty-six percent disapprove. The approval rating for Republicans in Congress has held roughly steady at just 25 percent. About one in two Americans call passage of the bill a major accomplishment for the Democratic Party.
There has also been a boost in perceptions of President Obama's handling of the issue. Before the vote, his approval rating on handling health care was 41 percent; afterward, it was 47 percent. His disapproval rating fell from 51 percent to 48 percent.
About one in two Americans say Mr. Obama has kept a campaign promise in getting the legislation passed. Forty-three percent, including three in four Republicans and a slim majority of independents, say he has forced through an unpopular agenda.
Six in ten Americans say they expected the bill to pass, while 36 percent say they were surprised it got through Congress. Seventeen percent now say they are "more optimistic about Washington" as a result of the effort to pass the bill, up from 12 percent before the vote. A majority still say the vote made them more pessimistic about Washington.
Despite a Congressional Budget Office analysis finding that the bill will ultimately lower the budget deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years and $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years, 57 percent of those surveyed, including most Republicans and independents, say the bill will increase the deficit. Just 18 percent say it will decrease the deficit.
This poll was conducted by telephone on March 22-23, 2010 among 649 adults first interviewed by CBS News March 18-21, 2010. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Poll
This is excellent news for John McCain.
Only because the public wants Republicans to "keep challenging" the bill does not mean they want them to succeed. :ph34r:
Quote from: Fate on March 25, 2010, 04:46:06 AM
This is excellent news for John McCain.
He and Palin kept warning us about Obama's :o
socialism :o but we didn't listen.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2010, 04:50:06 AM
Only because the public wants Republicans to "keep challenging" the bill does not mean they want them to succeed. :ph34r:
Right, because 'the public' is that crafty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2010, 04:54:15 PM
Please see my responses to Marty and grumber above. Truancy is state or local jurisdiction. The census and tax returns are covered by specifically enumerated powers of Congress.
First of all, as stated, these were just illustrative examples. Businesses are subjected to all sorts of mandates and reporting under the Commerce clause, such as the securities laws, environmental compliance, ERISA, medical privacy, compliance with immigration laws, and so on. A reporting entity under any of manifold regulations cannot defend itself by simply pointing to a failure to act. Regulation of commerce necessarily includes the power to mandate certain actions in order to make the regulatory scheme effective.
Second of all, you are mistaken - neither the census clause nor the taxing clause directly gives Congress the power to require that citizens report on a form, much less the power to sanction for non-compliance. The census clause just says that an "enumeration" shall be made every ten years in a manner directed by Congress. It does not directly grant the power to mandate that citizens fill out census forms, much less state that Congress can provide for a sanction if it wishes. The same is true for taxes - the text simply gives Congress the power to levy taxes (and after amendment, income taxes without apportionment) - but there is nothing in the text giving Congress the power to require filing returns or to require turning over personal or corporate financial information.
The power to do all these things comes from the application of Necessary and Proper Clause to these enumerated powers. The power to conduct a census would not be effective without the power to require citizens to respond. The power to tax income would not be effective without the power to require citizens and business to report their income and provide other related information. By the same token, the power to regulate commerce necessarily includes the power to impose mandates to help effectuate that regulation. if you deny that power, you deny the others as well.
QuoteI have a question for you (or anyone else): what powers does Congress *not* have, besides those proscribed in the Bill of Rights?
The limits of the Commerce Clause power are now fairly clear and have been set out in a series of Supreme Court decisions (starting with Lopez). The regulation in question must be economic in nature and must impact significantly on interstate commerce, unless the regulation "is necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective" (From Scalia's concurrence in Raich). For example, a law prohibiting a person from carrying a weapon within a certain distance of a school is not a valid exercise of the commerce power because merely carrying a gun is not a commercial activity and carrying a gun near a school has no interstate character. Nor is such a law required to effectuate any broader scheme of interstate commercial regulation.
Under these well-established and long-standing constitutional principles, this law is not even a close case. The market for health care services may be the single largest complex of interstate commercial activity in the country. Congress has decided to regulate that market. A law to regulate that market falls in very core of the commerce power. The centerpiece of the regulatory scheme is pooling of risk and blocking adverse selection and free riding. A mandate is both necessary and proper to carrying out the regulatory scheme. Thus, the constituonality of the mandate is plain as day under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
If one were to say otherwise, the entire system of federal commercial regulation would collapse (in the minds of some -- such as those backing these lawsuits - perhaps a desirable objective). All that would be left would be direct regulations of the instrumentalities of commerce, because once recourse to the Necesary and Proper clause is blocked, that is all that is left of the Commerce Clause power. Securities law, antitrust law, federal environmental law, most of federal criminal law, large swaths of civil rights law, etc. would all fall.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 25, 2010, 12:23:41 AM
Does the gov't mandate that everybody buy flood insurance whether they want to or not? The federal gov't can spend their tax revenue pretty much as it likes (though technically, yes, that is unconstitutional), but you're comparing apples to oranges. Does the federal gov't dictate to the States how to run flood insurance, or does it incetivise the States to adhere to federal guidelines like they do with so much else?
You missed the point - under your argument, flood insurance is purely intrastate and thus the feds can't do *anything* about it. The taxing power doesn't give the feds some additional magic powers to spend the money it raises to pursue unconstitutional objectives, as you (for once) correctly observe.
In reality of course, flood waters have a bad habit of not politely ceasing to flow when they reach a state line, so the provision and regulation of flood insurance is something well within the reach of federal commerce powers.
Huh. Someone shot a bullet through Eric Cantor's office window.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2010, 12:28:59 PM
Huh. Someone shot a bullet through Eric Cantor's office window.
A drive-by at his Richmond office according to a press statement. I doubt he was there.
Is the US coming close to a start on achieving third world political status? ;)
Quote
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T1
House GOP leader says bullet fired into office after health care vote
Washington (CNN) -- Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, said Thursday that a bullet had been fired through a window at his district office in Richmond, Virginia. He also said he had received threatening messages.
He said he would not publicly release the messages out of concern that doing so would only incite further violence.
He also accused Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland -- a member of the Democratic House leadership -- of "fanning the flames" of violence by using threats that have been made against Democratic members "as political weapons."
"Enough is enough," Cantor said. "It has to stop."
Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse hit back against Cantor's claims.
"We disagree with the charge made by Rep. Cantor today that Democrats are using acts of violence for political gain," he said. "Let's be clear: Calling on Republican leaders who have contributed in part to this anger by wildly mischaracterizing the substance and motives of health reform to condemn these acts is entirely appropriate."
More than 10 Democrats have reported trouble since the weekend health care vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, told reporters Wednesday.
Windows have been smashed at Democratic offices in at least three states, and federal agents are investigating whether a cut gas line at the home of a Virginia congressman's brother was related to the lawmaker's yes vote.
Democratic congressional leaders have demanded Republicans join them in condemning a spate of threats and vandalism that has followed Sunday's vote on a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.
The FBI is now looking into the threats, and at least 10 House Democrats have been given extra security.
The threats are especially vicious for Michigan's Bart Stupak, who switched his vote to seal the deal for the bill. He has released a threatening voice mail that he received.
"Stupak, you are a lowlife, baby-murdering scumbag, pile of steaming crap. You're a cowardly punk, Stupak, that's what you are. You and your family are scum," an unidentified caller said. "That's what you are, Stupak. You are a piece of crap."
"Go to hell, you piece of [expletive deleted]" another called said.
Read more about Stupak's political future
In Virginia, Albemarle County fire marshals and the FBI are looking into the slashing of a propane gas line outside the home of Rep. Tom Perriello's brother, the congressman's office said.
A Perriello aide told CNN that the line to a propane tank on the brother's gas grill had been severed after the brother's home address was posted online by a Tea Party activist. Lee Catlin, a spokesman for the fire marshal's office, said the incident "did not involve an immediate threat to occupants of the residence" but would disclose no details.
The county joined the investigation late Tuesday after a request from the FBI, Caitlin said. "Officials are taking the incident very seriously and conducting a vigorous investigation," he said.
On Sunday, Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan of Missouri had a coffin placed on his lawn, said his spokeswoman, Sarah Howard. She said Tea Party protesters at his office in St. Louis had a coffin with them and later brought it to his house. The coffin was later removed, she said.
House Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn, who is African-American, said he has received a fax in his office with a picture of a noose drawn on it and had threatening telephone calls at his home.
iReport: 'A very dangerous time for Obama,' Dem leaders
"We're giving aid and comfort to these people, and this stuff gets ratcheted up," Clyburn told CNN. "We in this Congress have got to come together in a bipartisan way and tamp this foolishness down. It doesn't make sense. That's not what a democracy is all about."
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, said a brick was thrown through a window at her Niagara Falls district office, and a message that referred to "snipers" was left at one of her campaign offices. In a written statement, she said GOP leaders have been "fanning the flames with coded rhetoric."
Slaughter said federal agents and local authorities were investigating the threat and vandalism at her offices.
The top Republican in the House, Minority Leader John Boehner, told reporters that he has urged opponents to demonstrate legally.
"I've made statements that I understand people are angry, but violence and threats are inappropriate and irresponsible," the Ohio congressman said. "If people are angry, they ought to register to vote and get involved in a campaign."
But Boehner, who compared the legislation's passage to "Armageddon," said Democrats had not complained to him that Republicans haven't been quick enough to condemn the threats and vandalism.
Democratic officials and liberal Web sites are also upset that Sarah Palin used an image of crosshairs in a Facebook post this week listing 20 vulnerable Democrats who voted for the legislation. She plans to target them this election year with money from her political action committee.
Palin's team is fighting claims that she is encouraging threats of violence. One House member mentioned her Facebook posting during a Wednesday meeting on safety concerns, a Democratic source told CNN's Dana Bash. Mention of the map brought audible groans to the room, the source said.
An adviser to Palin responded by pointing to several instances in which the former Alaska governor has urged supporters to focus their energies on civil debate and action at the ballot box, not extremist activities.
Read more about Palin's targeting effort
The white-hot rhetoric that dominated the last several months of debate on the historic health care bill culminated in unruly protests by the Tea Party movement at the Capitol over the weekend.
Three African-American House Democrats, including civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, reported protesters shouted racial slurs at them and spat at one of them, while Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, an openly gay House member, had anti-gay slurs yelled at him.
Republican House members encouraged protesters outside and inside the House gallery, some of whom carried messages like "Vote no or else" or "If Brown won't stop it, a Browning will" -- a reference to newly elected Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown accompanied by a silhouette of a pistol.
Since the vote, an Alabama blogger has launched a "window war" against Democrats and has kept a tally of the recent incidents of damage.
And conservative talk show host Glenn Beck told his radio audience Monday that Democrats who supported the bill would be remembered as "an enemy of the republic" and "an enemy to the Constitution."
But he urged viewers of his Fox News television show Wednesday to avoid violence, because "radical" supporters of the Obama administration are counting on such attacks to discredit their opposition, he said.
"Not only is it completely nuts and wrong, it's exactly what they want," Beck said. He told viewers, "They are begging for it. You are being set up."
But in Kansas, Democrats in Wichita are seeking to raise money over a brick thrown through the window of the party headquarters.
"At first, we thought our office was just the object of a random act of bitter violence, but now we know that's not the case," the Sedgewick County Democratic Party's Web site said. "This attack was instigated, encouraged and directed by an ultra-right wing blogger and similar events occurred all over the country."
The Web site item asked for donations to "help us get back to work."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 25, 2010, 09:56:33 AM
If one were to say otherwise, the entire system of federal commercial regulation would collapse (in the minds of some -- such as those backing these lawsuits - perhaps a desirable objective). All that would be left would be direct regulations of the instrumentalities of commerce, because once recourse to the Necesary and Proper clause is blocked, that is all that is left of the Commerce Clause power. Securities law, antitrust law, federal environmental law, most of federal criminal law, large swaths of civil rights law, etc. would all fall.
This won't overturn legislation I don't like, so I'm going to repeat the statement that you can't make nonactivity an activity.
More seriously, Yi, if you're interestesd in a libertarian take on the Constitution, I'd check out anything by Randy Barnett, especially his
Presumption of Liberty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 25, 2010, 09:56:33 AM
The power to do all these things comes from the application of Necessary and Proper Clause to these enumerated powers. The power to conduct a census would not be effective without the power to require citizens to respond. The power to tax income would not be effective without the power to require citizens and business to report their income and provide other related information. By the same token, the power to regulate commerce necessarily includes the power to impose mandates to help effectuate that regulation. if you deny that power, you deny the others as well.
This is very convincing.
Would you happen to know the entire clause by heart, or have a link to it. I would be interetested in reading it.
QuoteThe Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2010, 05:03:13 PM
This is very convincing.
Would you happen to know the entire clause by heart, or have a link to it. I would be interetested in reading it.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution is a kind of annotated index.
Section 1.8 concluded that the Congress shall have the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 24, 2010, 06:07:17 PM
Of course the decision to purchase Y instead of X is an economic activity - the nonpurchase of X is not an economic activity.
The Supreme Court has rejected this sort of argument in the past. In the 1930s, in Wickard, the Supreme Court upheld a statute limiting how much wheat farmers could grow, even if farmers grew wheat for their own, personal use. Why? Because if you grow your own wheat, you won't buy wheat on the market. And even though growing wheat is obviously a local, not across state-lines type activity, the Court pointed out that interstate commerce is affected when you aggregate the activities of thousands of farmers. In Raich, the recent medical marijuana case, the Court followed very similar logic. And the test that the Government needs to pass is fairly easy: It doesn't even need to prove the regulation actually substantially affects interstate commerce, but rather that the the Congress would have a rational basis for concluding so. Arguably, this is a stretch of the commerce power, but the major recent cases in which the court struck down laws under the Commerce Clause involved purely noneconomic activity. Morrison was about gender-motivated violence, and Lopez was about guns in schools.
From Raich:
"We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a "rational basis" exists for so concluding. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 USC Sec. 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Thus, as in Wickard, when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to 'make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper' to 'regulate Commerce...among the several States.'"
If regulation of medicinal marijuana falls within the commerce power, it is hard to believe that medical insurance wouldn't.
Also, US v Felger makes it clear that regulating commerce under the commerce clause isn't limited to regulating commercial activity itself: "But this mistakenly assumes that the power of Congress is to be necessarily tested by the intrinsic existence of commerce in the particular subject dealt with, instead of by the relation of that subject to commerce and its effect upon it." Non-commercial subjects (in the case of Folger, the non-sale of goods) can still be regulated as part of a larger effort to regulate interstate commerce, where such would impact interstate commerce.
So nobody thinks that Hans has a leg to stand on here?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2010, 06:43:08 PM
So nobody thinks that Hans has a leg to stand on here?
Does he ever? :hmm:
These things always seem like logical acrobatics to me. I was never cut out to be a lawyer. AFAIK the purpose of the law is to provide medical care, not regulate interstate commerce.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2010, 06:50:40 PM
These things always seem like logical acrobatics to me. I was never cut out to be a lawyer. AFAIK the purpose of the law is to provide medical care, not regulate interstate commerce.
:lol: That *is* its purpose - but this discussion has left the realm of common sense some time ago in order to dive into ideological quagmires and logical loopholes.
G.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2010, 06:50:40 PM
These things always seem like logical acrobatics to me. I was never cut out to be a lawyer. AFAIK the purpose of the law is to provide medical care, not regulate interstate commerce.
The Constitution grants the federal government no power to regulate health care. Since the government has only the powers granted by the Constitution, if health care is not part of interstate commerce (*or something else over which the government has power), the federal government would have no power to regulate it.
So, yes, the purpose of the bill is to provide medical care, but Congress cannot just pass bills as it sees fit. It can only do so within its narrow constitutional mandate.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 07:28:23 PM
The Constitution grants the federal government no power to regulate health care. Since the government has only the powers granted by the Constitution, if health care is not part of interstate commerce (*or something else over which the government has power), the federal government would have no power to regulate it.
So, yes, the purpose of the bill is to provide medical care, but Congress cannot just pass bills as it sees fit. It can only do so within its narrow constitutional mandate.
Yeah, I know. It just feels sleazy to me. Starting with the end and working backward to find the authority. It's like starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it. I'd rather just pass an amendment saying congress shall provide health care. I'm an engineer at heart I suppose, not a politician. :P
Quote from: Cecil on March 25, 2010, 06:48:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 25, 2010, 06:43:08 PM
So nobody thinks that Hans has a leg to stand on here?
Does he ever? :hmm:
I thought Ed was the only paraplegic on the forum. :unsure:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2010, 06:50:40 PM
These things always seem like logical acrobatics to me.
That is a valid objection. There has always been a tension between the idea of a restrictive versus expansive interpretation of enumerated powers. Marshall tended to push a more expansive interpretation, but gilded age courts were far more restrictive. From the early 30s to the 90s, the Court strongly pushed an expansive interpretation. Since then there has been a backlash but only a very moderate one. Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Raich (that is the medical marijuana case referred to several times here) indicates that that even the conservative wing of the Court is not inclined to turn back the clock in giving a generous interpretation to federal authority, only to block the worst excesses.
Of course one could take a different view, but it would require a radical reorientation of the constitutional system and a repeal of the majority of the United States Code.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 06:13:28 PM
Also, US v Felger makes it clear that regulating commerce under the commerce clause isn't limited to regulating commercial activity itself: "But this mistakenly assumes that the power of Congress is to be necessarily tested by the intrinsic existence of commerce in the particular subject dealt with, instead of by the relation of that subject to commerce and its effect upon it." Non-commercial subjects (in the case of Folger, the non-sale of goods) can still be regulated as part of a larger effort to regulate interstate commerce, where such would impact interstate commerce.
Not familiar with that case, but this does remind me that boycotts and refusal to deal can give rise to antitrust liability under federal law . . .
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2010, 08:54:55 PM
Yeah, I know. It just feels sleazy to me. Starting with the end and working backward to find the authority. It's like starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support it. I'd rather just pass an amendment saying congress shall provide health care. I'm an engineer at heart I suppose, not a politician. :P
But then you would have to pass amendments allowing Congress to establish the interstate highway system, regulate the airwaves used by radio and TV stations, limit pollution, join the UN, provide foreign aid... the list of things allowed because of the interpretation (rather than enumeration) of federal power is almost endless.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 25, 2010, 10:51:41 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2010, 06:50:40 PM
These things always seem like logical acrobatics to me.
That is a valid objection. There has always been a tension between the idea of a restrictive versus expansive interpretation of enumerated powers. Marshall tended to push a more expansive interpretation, but gilded age courts were far more restrictive. From the early 30s to the 90s, the Court strongly pushed an expansive interpretation. Since then there has been a backlash but only a very moderate one. Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Raich (that is the medical marijuana case referred to several times here) indicates that that even the conservative wing of the Court is not inclined to turn back the clock in giving a generous interpretation to federal authority, only to block the worst excesses.
Of course one could take a different view, but it would require a radical reorientation of the constitutional system and a repeal of the majority of the United States Code.
:thumbsup:
And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 26, 2010, 07:36:55 PM
And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.
But since the 30s, the US has gone from being a backwards shithole to a real, unified country. Why undo all that?
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2010, 08:04:12 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 26, 2010, 07:36:55 PM
And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.
But since the 30s, the US has gone from being a backwards shithole to a real, unified country. Why undo all that?
Because some people feel more at home in a backwards shithole?
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2010, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2010, 08:04:12 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 26, 2010, 07:36:55 PM
And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.
But since the 30s, the US has gone from being a backwards shithole to a real, unified country. Why undo all that?
Because some people feel more at home in a backwards shithole?
Then they should be exterminated, and their bodies donated to science.
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2010, 08:10:36 PM
Then they should be exterminated, and their bodies donated to science.
Why? Does science have a shortage of Neanderthal corpses?
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2010, 08:12:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2010, 08:10:36 PM
Then they should be exterminated, and their bodies donated to science.
Why? Does science have a shortage of Neanderthal corpses?
Yes. Look at how much trouble they are having getting usable DNA. Fresh samples would be greatly appreciated.
Quote from: grumbler on March 26, 2010, 08:12:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 26, 2010, 08:10:36 PM
Then they should be exterminated, and their bodies donated to science.
Why? Does science have a shortage of Neanderthal corpses?
Science has no Neanderthal corpses.
That said, these aren't Neanderthals, as you said earlier that they were people.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 26, 2010, 07:36:55 PM
:thumbsup:
And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.
If that's how you feel, say goodbye to the Federal ban on partial-birth abortions. Interestingly enough, in Gonzalez v. Carhart, which upheld the Federal ban on partial birth abortions, Justice Thomas's concurrence suggests that he doubts the Federal government has the authority to even ban partial birth abortions, but reserves comments since the challenging party did not challenge the statute under the commerce clause.
Quote from: stjaba on March 26, 2010, 08:26:52 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 26, 2010, 07:36:55 PM
:thumbsup:
And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.
If that's how you feel, say goodbye to the Federal ban on partial-birth abortions. Interestingly enough, in Gonzalez v. Carhart, which upheld the Federal ban on partial birth abortions, Justice Thomas's concurrence suggests that he doubts the Federal government has the authority to even ban partial birth abortions, but reserves comments since the challenging party did not challenge the statute under the commerce clause.
I don't think Neocons are overly concerned with abortion. Hans just wants wars, low taxes, and huge deficits.
Quote from: Fate on March 26, 2010, 08:48:32 PM
I don't think Neocons are overly concerned with abortion. Hans just wants wars, low taxes, and huge deficits.
Surely they get a little satisfaction out of enriching their cronies, trampling on the Constitution, and watching black people drown too. :hmm:
Dammit people. If you keep responding to it, it'll keep humping your leg.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 26, 2010, 07:36:55 PM
:thumbsup:
And this is exactly what needs to happen to undo the lawlessness perpetrated since the 1930s.
You know, we could just pass an amendment granting all those powers right now and keep things as they are.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2010, 11:47:04 AM
Dammit people. If you keep responding to it, it'll keep humping your leg.
Sadly that is about all the action some languishites can get.
Quote from: katmai on March 27, 2010, 04:53:51 PM
Sadly that is about all the action some languishites can get.
:rolleyes:
Sorry I touched a nerve grabon
Quote from: katmai on March 27, 2010, 05:51:05 PM
Sorry I touched a nerve grabon
I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars. ^_^
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 05:56:54 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 27, 2010, 05:51:05 PM
Sorry I touched a nerve grabon
I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars. ^_^
Are people in gay bars that desperate?
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 05:56:54 PM
I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars. ^_^
Dubious, this joint has quite the collection of fat slobs.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on March 27, 2010, 06:34:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 05:56:54 PM
I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars. ^_^
Dubious, this joint has quite the collection of fat slobs.
G.
:sleep:
Quote from: DGuller on March 27, 2010, 06:14:39 PM
Are people in gay bars that desperate?
There are always desperate men and those to drunk to know better.
@Grallon - there is a segment of the population for whom such is an ideal.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 05:56:54 PM
Quote from: katmai on March 27, 2010, 05:51:05 PM
Sorry I touched a nerve grabon
I think most languishites could score if they went to their local gay bars. ^_^
Fag hags need love too.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 06:36:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 27, 2010, 06:14:39 PM
Are people in gay bars that desperate?
There are always desperate men and those to drunk to know better.
Where is drunk?
(I had to do it, I mean you DO know better)
Quote from: PDH on March 27, 2010, 07:31:58 PM
Where is drunk?
(I had to do it, I mean you DO know better)
How do you know I'm not drunk now?!
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2010, 07:37:14 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 27, 2010, 07:31:58 PM
Where is drunk?
(I had to do it, I mean you DO know better)
How do you know I'm not drunk now?!
Your perfect use of the apostrophe is a big hint. :)
Quote from: Agelastus on March 27, 2010, 08:16:45 PM
Your perfect use of the apostrophe is a big hint. :)
I always use the apostrophe correctly. It is one of my few causes that I champion.
Good that the kids will be covered, but the way this is being implemented will cause prices to rise even further.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404575152100463512126.html
Quote* MARCH 30, 2010
Flap on Children's Coverage Settled
Insurers Say They Will Accept Pre-Existing Conditions After Dispute on Timing, Warn of Higher Prices
By AVERY JOHNSON
[PREEX] John Harmer
Jade Harmer, right, with her mother, Tina, earlier this year. Jade could benefit from the new health-care law.
Insurers said they would comply with regulations the government issues requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, after a dispute with lawmakers over interpretation of the new health-care legislation.
The Obama administration has made near-immediate coverage for sick children a priority in its health-care overhaul. But shortly after the bill's passage last week, insurers contended that the law didn't require them to accept sick children until 2014.
The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.
Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, sent AHIP president Karen Ignagni a letter Monday pledging to issue new regulations in coming weeks to clarify that insurers must give sick children access to their parents' plans starting in September. "Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," Ms. Sebelius said.
AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from the law's mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.
In a letter responding to Ms. Sebelius Monday, Ms. Ignagi said her members recognized the "significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," and pledged to fully comply with the regulations HHS is developing. The group is analyzing how much it would cost to take all comers under 19 years old.
The industry group said it would comply with the broader interpretation after lawmakers expressed outrage over its narrower reading.
"Any attempts to create loopholes at the expense of children's health care are reprehensible and those who wish to take such action will have to answer for it," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D., W.Va.).
First Focus, an advocacy group for children, said the bill's intent was to protect children with pre-existing health conditions from being denied coverage. Bruce Lesley, the group's president, said it was "disappointing that insurance companies continue to look for opportunities to deny coverage to this vulnerable population.
Though sicker children incur more health expenditures, additional costs to the industry were likely to be minimal as the number of children who would be affected by the broadest interpretation of the law could be relatively small. The Children's Health Insurance Program is credited with extending coverage to about eight million low-income children who are not poor enough for Medicaid.
Roughly eight million children remain uninsured, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, but just 1% to 2%—or 80,000 to 160,000—have a health condition such as cystic fibrosis or cancer that would disqualify them from private insurance coverage, said Sara Rosenbaum, chairwoman of the health-policy department at George Washington University and a children's health-care expert. Many of those children's families were unaware they could qualify for Medicaid or CHIP assistance or enroll in an employer plan, she said.
"We're talking nationwide about a handful of children" who might benefit from expanded private coverage, Ms. Rosenbaum said. "I can't imagine why insurance companies are fighting this so hard."
Insurer practices regarding pre-existing conditions vary, but companies tend to exclude coverage for childhood illnesses such as juvenile diabetes.
Jade Harmer, 13, of Fredericksburg, Va., might be able to benefit from the health bill's immediate provisions. Her mother, Tina Harmer, said the family's insurance, a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that is part of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, wouldn't cover weekly $1,000 drug injections for Jade's multiple sclerosis.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which administers the Harmers' plan, couldn't comment on the specifics of the case. But Jena Estes, a vice president there, said the drug in question was not approved for use in children.
Ms. Harmer applied to several other insurers but said her daughter was turned down because of her health condition. She was hoping that with the new health-care bill she could find a policy that would cover her daughter's treatment.
"I've been keeping a close eye on health reform because I know it would help with pre-existing conditions, but a few things worry me," said Ms. Harmer. "Is it what they say it is?"
Write to Avery Johnson at [email protected]
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2010, 09:05:05 PM
The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.
:lmfao: As opposed to before the law, when you could choose not to cover treatments of your customers? Excellent PR.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 29, 2010, 09:05:05 PM
Good that the kids will be covered, but the way this is being implemented will cause prices to rise even further.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404575152100463512126.html
Quote* MARCH 30, 2010
Flap on Children's Coverage Settled
Insurers Say They Will Accept Pre-Existing Conditions After Dispute on Timing, Warn of Higher Prices
By AVERY JOHNSON
[PREEX] John Harmer
Jade Harmer, right, with her mother, Tina, earlier this year. Jade could benefit from the new health-care law.
Insurers said they would comply with regulations the government issues requiring them to cover children with pre-existing conditions, after a dispute with lawmakers over interpretation of the new health-care legislation.
The Obama administration has made near-immediate coverage for sick children a priority in its health-care overhaul. But shortly after the bill's passage last week, insurers contended that the law didn't require them to accept sick children until 2014.
The insurance industry's lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the law meant only that they needed to cover treatments for sick children who already were customers.
Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, sent AHIP president Karen Ignagni a letter Monday pledging to issue new regulations in coming weeks to clarify that insurers must give sick children access to their parents' plans starting in September. "Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system," Ms. Sebelius said.
AHIP said de-linking the requirement to insure sick children from the law's mandate that everyone buy health-insurance coverage, which goes into effect in 2014, could drive up prices in the meantime. But the group said it would do whatever HHS tells it to do.
In a letter responding to Ms. Sebelius Monday, Ms. Ignagi said her members recognized the "significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition," and pledged to fully comply with the regulations HHS is developing. The group is analyzing how much it would cost to take all comers under 19 years old.
The industry group said it would comply with the broader interpretation after lawmakers expressed outrage over its narrower reading.
"Any attempts to create loopholes at the expense of children's health care are reprehensible and those who wish to take such action will have to answer for it," said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D., W.Va.).
First Focus, an advocacy group for children, said the bill's intent was to protect children with pre-existing health conditions from being denied coverage. Bruce Lesley, the group's president, said it was "disappointing that insurance companies continue to look for opportunities to deny coverage to this vulnerable population.
Though sicker children incur more health expenditures, additional costs to the industry were likely to be minimal as the number of children who would be affected by the broadest interpretation of the law could be relatively small. The Children's Health Insurance Program is credited with extending coverage to about eight million low-income children who are not poor enough for Medicaid.
Roughly eight million children remain uninsured, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, but just 1% to 2%—or 80,000 to 160,000—have a health condition such as cystic fibrosis or cancer that would disqualify them from private insurance coverage, said Sara Rosenbaum, chairwoman of the health-policy department at George Washington University and a children's health-care expert. Many of those children's families were unaware they could qualify for Medicaid or CHIP assistance or enroll in an employer plan, she said.
"We're talking nationwide about a handful of children" who might benefit from expanded private coverage, Ms. Rosenbaum said. "I can't imagine why insurance companies are fighting this so hard."
Insurer practices regarding pre-existing conditions vary, but companies tend to exclude coverage for childhood illnesses such as juvenile diabetes.
Jade Harmer, 13, of Fredericksburg, Va., might be able to benefit from the health bill's immediate provisions. Her mother, Tina Harmer, said the family's insurance, a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that is part of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, wouldn't cover weekly $1,000 drug injections for Jade's multiple sclerosis.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which administers the Harmers' plan, couldn't comment on the specifics of the case. But Jena Estes, a vice president there, said the drug in question was not approved for use in children.
Ms. Harmer applied to several other insurers but said her daughter was turned down because of her health condition. She was hoping that with the new health-care bill she could find a policy that would cover her daughter's treatment.
"I've been keeping a close eye on health reform because I know it would help with pre-existing conditions, but a few things worry me," said Ms. Harmer. "Is it what they say it is?"
Write to Avery Johnson at [email protected]
Clearly the answer is tort reform!!111111111