Idaho Will Sue

[JLawson]

Lawson,

Sure, I'll buy a lot of that. That's not the part that irks me. The part that irks me is the people whining that government is taking over their healthcare. That to me is just scare-tactics that bears little resemblance to what is being rammed through congress.

As far as the projected costs and revenue, its not exactly as if the CBO is just some random guy the "Board of Directors" likes. Even the GOP is citing the CBO to argue against the bill (factoring in an increase in medicare payments to doctors that would have happened with or without healthcare reform). Also, remember not all of the "costs" are covered by increased spending... a lot is covered by cutting costs elsewhere (medicare). And us unpopular as new fees and taxes are, at least everything is being paid for. (As opposed to the Iraq War, for instance...)

Being paid for?

Could you kindly tell me HOW?

I realize that I'm no mathmetician or scientist, but it seems pretty plain to me that if your income is $2 trillion, and your expenses are $4 trillion a year, you're NOT paying as you go. You're nowhere near close to it, and all the handwaving you can manage isn't going to change that.

Most folks outside the beltway understand the concept of actually living within a budget. That you've got X amount coming in, with Y expenses - and if X-Y is greater than zero you're fine. And that you can take on debt for extraordinary events (like cars or houses) but you've GOT to pay it back.

That seems to be lost on the folks inside the Beltway.

To put it simply, we're broke and living on our credit cards. So far we can make the minimum payments, but the balance owed keeps going up, and we've got NO way to pay down the principle.

Most people are handling their own health care w/no problems. Government 'efficiency' being what it is, if the government takes over payment we're looking at probably 20% losses internally due to bureaucratic 'friction'. That leaves 80%, spread out over a larger number of people than before.

Somehow, I have no confidence in a good outcome from that.

Now isn't the time for the government to take this on - let them clean up their own budgets first and show they can control the fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid before they try to control health care for the entire country.

[IntLibber]

The bottom line is that doctor's salaries are high because we don't have tort reform, and there is no tort reform in this health care bill. You can force down doctors pay all you like, but if you don't get tort reform, the doctor is merely working to pay his malpractice insurance, and will leave medicine.

What we are seeing is physicians refusing to accept any insurance at all and working on a cash basis. Doctors spend 1/8th of their day doing insurance paperwork, and another chunk doing government paperwork. You're going to see doctors doing a John Galt and refusing to deal with any insurance companies or government agencies in order to reclaim enough time in the day that they can reduce their fees by 40% on cash paid procedures, and still make the same amount of money.

This is where things are going to get interesting, because they will develop a loyal following of people who refuse to pay insurance, using only a cash basis doctor, and suing the government to be exempted akin to homeschooling. Thats when it will be made clear that this really isn't about health care, but government controlling our lives and pocketbooks.

FYI

I do wish tort reform was included in the bill. Obama did ask for at least one element to be included, but it doesn't look like that made the final bill. As much as Dem tactics in getting this bill through have been regrettable, I do think if the GOP hadn't been so determined to sink Democrats with healthcare rather that negotiate in good faith, it would have made it in.

Still, this bill doesn't prevent it from happening. GOP will make big gains in congress this fall and I wouldn't be shocked if such a bill gets introduced.

Your comment earlier about "it not being about government health care" is making the same conceptual mistake that fascist governments have always depended on.

See, lefties like to call fascists "right wing" because they use industry to control people for the national good, but really, the only difference between fascism and socialism is the fascists let you keep your property, but tell you every which way what you can do with it. Is it still your property when that happens, or are you just its custodian, and liable to be shot if you misuse it (i.e. don't do what they say)?

The health plan is a combination of fascism and socialism. Either way, its not American. Anybody who supports it, is not American.

[Maui]

Being paid for?

Could you kindly tell me HOW?

I realize that I'm no mathmetician or scientist, but it seems pretty plain to me that if your income is $2 trillion, and your expenses are $4 trillion a year, you're NOT paying as you go.

I'm not sure how to explain your numbers because I'm not sure where you got them. $4 Trillion? Where is that from?

All I can do is point you to the CBO analysis here

Most people are handling their own health care w/no problems. Government 'efficiency' being what it is, if the government takes over payment we're looking at probably 20% losses internally due to bureaucratic 'friction'. That leaves 80%, spread out over a larger number of people than before.

This is the original point I was railing against. The government is not taking over healthcare. They are mandating that people buy it, mandating that insurance cover pre-existings, and subsidizing the cost of *private* insurance for low income families or businesses who don't already have it, and creating direct competition between insurers that doesn't really exist right now. The parts that are government run (medicare and medicade) are already government run... its not adding anything government run that is not already.

I will grant you that I'm leery about the bill mandating what insurance must cover (beyond pre-existings), but at the same time if it didn't the mandate to buy insurance would be pretty meaningless.

[Maui]

The health plan is a combination of fascism and socialism. Either way, its not American. Anybody who supports it, is not American.

Wow, that's pretty hardcore. I thought we were a republic founded on the basis that we would elect representation in congress to make our laws. I'm pretty sure the phobia of communism stems from the 50's not our founding fathers (seeing as the constitution pre-dates communism by over a half century).

[IntLibber]

This is the original point I was railing against. The government is not taking over healthcare. They are mandating that people buy it, mandating that insurance cover pre-existings, and subsidizing the cost of *private* insurance for low income families or businesses who don't already have it, and creating direct competition between insurers that doesn't really exist right now. The parts that are government run (medicare and medicade) are already government run... its not adding anything government run that is not already.

I will grant you that I'm leery about the bill mandating what insurance must cover (beyond pre-existings), but at the same time if it didn't the mandate to buy insurance would be pretty meaningless.

Ok, Maui, please tell me, looking at another insurance market, (auto insurance), of a SINGLE time that state mandated auto insurance ever resulted in lower premiums without drastic draconian things like mass de-licensing of persons who get in accidents, or price controls that results in a mass exodus of insurance companies from the state, leaving one or two companies in monopoly status.

I live in New Hampshire, and we've never mandated car insurance. I dare you to find a state whose premiums are lower than mine already are.

[IntLibber]

The health plan is a combination of fascism and socialism. Either way, its not American. Anybody who supports it, is not American.

Wow, that's pretty hardcore. I thought we were a republic founded on the basis that we would elect representation in congress to make our laws. I'm pretty sure the phobia of communism stems from the 50's not our founding fathers (seeing as the constitution pre-dates communism by over a half century).

Communism is merely a means by which a group of intelligentsia can set themselves up as a new feudal aristocracy.

Yes, we are a republic, with a constitution that limits the authority of congress to make laws. There are things they cannot do no matter how much they want to. They cannot restrict free speech. They cannot take away my firearms. They cannot prohibit me from assembling with others. And they do not have the authority to expropriate or otherwise commandeer the private property of private citizens for any purposes not explicitly stated in the Constitution, and may not do so without proper legal process.

Congress cannot claim it has passed a law when the exact same language has not passed both houses (William Jefferson Clinton vs City of New York, 1998, SCOTUS). In the case here, the health care bill will not have the same language passed by both houses. The president of the united states cannot amend a bill by executive order, either.

The number of unconstitutional things that the democrats are engaging in to get this bill passed into law is so eggregious that there is no other way to describe them except that they are traitors to the constitution, they have given false oath in their oath of office to protect and defend the constitution, and they have become a domestic enemy of the constitution by their actions.

[Maui]

Ok, Maui, please tell me, looking at another insurance market, (auto insurance), of a SINGLE time that state mandated auto insurance ever resulted in lower premiums without drastic draconian things like mass de-licensing of persons who get in accidents, or price controls that results in a mass exodus of insurance companies from the state, leaving one or two companies in monopoly status.

I live in New Hampshire, and we've never mandated car insurance. I dare you to find a state whose premiums are lower than mine already are.

Wait a second... I'm not claiming the mandate will make insurance cheaper. (along with the ban on basing premiums on pre-exisitings it will make it cheaper for some --the sick-- and more expensive for others --the healthy--). These two ingredients are what makes it possible for most of the currently uninsured to get health insurance.

Admittedly, much much more needs to be done on the issue of cost (the reductions in medicare spending are a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done). My argument (which you seem to have forgotten) was that the gov is not taking over your healthcare.

[Diogenes]

Mau, perhaps Aristotle can explain it to you.
(by way of Ed Kaitz)

From its origins in Athens some 2,500 years ago, it has been obvious to some astute observers that democracy, like all other forms of government, carries with it a certain type of energy. Barack Obama rode this unique democratic energy into the White House over a year ago. He called it a "righteous wind" and promised something rather vague that he called "change."

To many otherwise innocent American voters, "change" likely meant the change from Bush-era recession to a vibrant new Obama-era prosperity. But when candidate and President Obama began stirring up class warfare against Wall Street, bankers, insurance companies, and the "rich," my instincts led me to Aristotle, who saw and wrote about various populist "demagogues" and their effect on democratic society many times during his lifetime in Athens.

In democracies the rich should be spared. Not only should their estates be safe from the threat of redistribution: the produce of the estates should be equally secure; and the practice of sharing it out, which has insensibly developed under some constitutions, should not be allowed.

Demagogues are always dividing the city into two, and waging war against the rich. Their proper policy is the very reverse: they should always profess to be speaking in defense of the rich.

Those who hold office with a short tenure can hardly do as much harm as those who have a long tenure; and it is long possession of office which leads to the rise of tyrannies in oligarchies and democracies. Those who make a bid for tyranny are either the [demagogues] or else the holders of the main offices who have held them for a long period.

There is no advantage in the best of laws, even when they are sanctioned by general civic consent, if the citizens themselves have not been attuned, by force of habit and the influence of teaching, to the right constitutional temper.

If the universities -- the supposed citadels of reason, knowledge, scholarship, civilization -- can be made to surrender to the rule of brute force, the rest of the country is cooked.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/ ... rning.html

[Maui]

Yes, we are a republic, with a constitution that limits the authority of congress to make laws. There are things they cannot do no matter how much they want to. They cannot restrict free speech. They cannot take away my firearms. They cannot prohibit me from assembling with others.

As somewhat of an aside, they also understood that they could not possibly write law that would anticipate everything and that would always be appropriate. They intentionally made the constitution editable. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms (whether it be for a militia or individual) are, in fact, edits themselves.

Point being, the constitution is not the ten commandments or something. The only thing that would be "Un-American" would be a law the courts upheld violated the current version of the constitution. Congress voting in legislation that goes against someone's own idea of what "American" is not "Un-American"

Congress cannot claim it has passed a law when the exact same language has not passed both houses (William Jefferson Clinton vs City of New York, 1998, SCOTUS). In the case here, the health care bill will not have the same language passed by both houses.

I disagree with the use of the reconciliation process. But this is not the first time it has been used, so I'm guessing it stands up to challenges.

Keep in mind that there never was an intention by the founding fathers that 60 votes be needed in the senate to pass a law. The constitution allows for the houses to set their own rules and it was basically a perversion of one such rule that gave rise to the filibuster.

That being said, I think the filibuster is a good thing and wish it weren't being circumvented here.

The president of the united states cannot amend a bill by executive order, either.

If you are referring to the changes he proposed following the summit, those weren't an executive order, but a suggestion. Unfortunately, the house only implemented a tiny bit of these.

If you are referring to the order on abortion, that is no different really that the president leading negotiations on the drafting of a bill in the first place. He's not amending it by decree after passage. In effect, the house voted on his "amendment" if you want to call it that. But really, its not that. It was simply a deal... I'll do this if you do that. This argument is desparate and completely baloney, IMHO.

[Maui]

I can say without question that Aristotle is un-American... he was Greek

I'm not saying that Aristotle is not an important man, but the civilization he lived in is a far cry from ours and frankly, not very relevant nor are the quotes you provided all that relevant to the discussion here.

[MSimon]

Sure, I'll buy a lot of that. That's not the part that irks me. The part that irks me is the people whining that government is taking over their healthcare. That to me is just scare-tactics that bears little resemblance to what is being rammed through congress.

So true. That is not what will happen. The first order of business is to put the insurance companies out of business by forcing them to pay for people who formerly didn't qualify for insurance and other similar mandates.

The immediate effect will be a steep rise in insurance rates or employers choosing to pay the opt out fine.

And then you will have doctors who choose to retire or no longer take government patients. Thus improving care for all.

Then when it gets bad enough - government to the rescue.

We have the cleverest government in the world. At least until November.

[Maui]

So true. That is not what will happen. The first order of business is to put the insurance companies out of business by forcing them to pay for people who formerly didn't qualify for insurance and other similar mandates.

The immediate effect will be a steep rise in insurance rates or employers choosing to pay the opt out fine.

I love the mentality that if its good for capitalism, the hell with what it means for a human being .

Basically, if you are not lucky enough to work for a company that has health insurance, (or loose your job), you are okay with someone being F'd over just because they are diabetic? If you are healthy, your rates will go up. If you aren't, your rates will go down. Overall they won't change all that much (outside of partisan scare-tactics, can you point me to objective info saying they will?).

[Maui]

I think this best sums up my feelings on healthcare reform:

The bill doesn't do nearly enough to control long-term health costs, but it at least makes a modest start. For example, the Senate would create an independent Medicare review board to recommend ways to run the program more effectively.

I never thought I'd see the day when a Democratic president would propose constraining the growth of Medicare, but would be unanimously opposed by congressional Republicans.

In an environment where cost effectiveness research was demonized as government "death panels," it was never possible to make much progress, but something is better than nothing.

-Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at the Urban Institute and former senior correspondent at Business Week.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/21/news/ec ... htm?hpt=T1

[hanelyp]

...
We have the cleverest government in the world. At least until November.

I'm not sure the outrage will be contained until then.

[IntLibber]

Yes, we are a republic, with a constitution that limits the authority of congress to make laws. There are things they cannot do no matter how much they want to. They cannot restrict free speech. They cannot take away my firearms. They cannot prohibit me from assembling with others.

As somewhat of an aside, they also understood that they could not possibly write law that would anticipate everything and that would always be appropriate. They intentionally made the constitution editable. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms (whether it be for a militia or individual) are, in fact, edits themselves.

Point being, the constitution is not the ten commandments or something. The only thing that would be "Un-American" would be a law the courts upheld violated the current version of the constitution. Congress voting in legislation that goes against someone's own idea of what "American" is not "Un-American"

Sure, go ahead, try to amend the constitution to give the congress authority to regulate health care. It will only take a supermajority and most of the states approval first... I am perfectly in approval with this approach to trying to pass health care reform.

Thing is, anything else is unconstitutional, and yes, treasonously unamerican.