188 replies to this topic

[Bill Z]

Sir, you mean you really don't know the answer to that question? Our rights are eroding right in front of our face and you don't see it?

Surely you jest.

NO, Surely you Jest. If you checked out my signature, you would quickly realize my political beliefs. If you pay attention to the things I post, you will surely know where I stand on Freedom & Liberty for the individuals.

[bordercolliefan]

I have one question for all of those in favor of this Healthcare bill. And I really want honest thoughtful straightforward answers.

What do you think of the precedence of passing legislation requiring US citizens to purchase a particular service and if they don't, they will get fined?

I think it is a red herring to focus on the compulsion to "purchase a particular service." There is nothing sacrosanct about purchasing -- i.e., unlike, say, religious activity, political speech, or private activities in one's bedroom, "purchasing" has not been recognized by the Constitution as a sphere that should have particular protections from government intrusion.

When you think about it, we recognize that the government has quite profound power to compel us to do certain things. Consider the draft. The government compels young men to: live a certain place, wear a certain uniform, do a certain job, etc. There really could not be a more profound affront to personal liberty.

[Bill Z]

Like car insurance? I know - I can dump my car and I don't have to buy insurance. How about taxes generally? Every day I come to work and am forced to pay for services I neither want nor use.

This is, of course, an argument between two extremes . . . and you have to think there is some middle ground.

Lets say Joe Schmoe has no health insurance - not a smidgen - and little money (perhaps very little). Joe Schmoe runs out into traffic and gets his legs cut off when being hit by some guy driving a tile truck to fast down Blue Ravine Road. It's clearly Joe's fault - so you can't go after the tile company. The police and fire arrive - and a few seconds later and ambulance gets there. The paramedics arrive and determine that Joe needs a life-flight copter. That copter takes Joe to the trauma center - where Joe receives medical care - and spends a couple of days in intensive care - and months in rehab so he can learn to walk with his new prosthetic legs.

Who pays for Joe?

This kind of crap happens all the time. Maybe not as severe as Joe - but it happens dozens of times a day at every hospital in this Country. My wife did her residency at what used to be the Stanislaus Medical Center - and the ER there was a primary care clinic for a good portion of the local population - and was also a dumping ground for the police whenever they would pick up a criminal (eh -"alleged criminal") that ended up hurt (can you say K-9 bite?).

I already pay for this - and I'm sick of it.

You also can post a bond and not pay for car insurance in CA, don't know how other state laws are. Also, driving is a privilege, not a right. Living is a right, dying should be as well, but that's a whole nuther issue. But this bill sets a whole new precedence on governmental powers in my mind. And I don't like it.

[Bill Z]

I think it is a red herring to focus on the compulsion to "purchase a particular service." There is nothing sacrosanct about purchasing -- i.e., unlike, say, religious activity, political speech, or private activities in one's bedroom, "purchasing" has not been recognized by the Constitution as a sphere that should have particular protections from government intrusion.

When you think about it, we recognize that the government has quite profound power to compel us to do certain things. Consider the draft. The government compels young men to: live a certain place, wear a certain uniform, do a certain job, etc. There really could not be a more profound affront to personal liberty.

Yeah, it's nice we went back to an all volunteer force. but even with the draft, it was always a temporary duty, not a lifelong curse. This healthcare bill is lifelong

I'm not sure you see it the way I do, I view not having to buy something I might not want as being very sacrosanct. Uncle Sam telling me I have to buy something is a whole new ball game in my book. Is he going to tell me what groceries I can and cannot buy next? Now that he's going to get his sticky fingers into my medical records, tell me how long before Uncle Sam see's I have high blood pressure and determines it's for my own good and the cost savings of Healthcare that I'm no longer allowed to buy potato chips.

1984 version of Big Brother is coming, step by step, and this healthcare bill is a huge leap in that direction. I pity the world I fear my grandchildren will be born into.

[The Average Joe]

...."purchasing" has not been recognized by the Constitution as a sphere that should have particular protections from government intrusion.

I do not agree... there is no support for Federal Mandate for health care. It is not enumerated in the powers granted to government. All other rights are reserved for the states or the people.
As for the commerce clause, I don't think it is applicable. You are not engaging in commerce by simply existing.
And the "general welfare" issue falls flat:
This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment.-- Law library

Gibbons v. Ogden: Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.

Amendment 10 -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Powers delegated to the US Government by the constitution:

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

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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.

[bordercolliefan]

Interesting discussion. Constitutional law is a whole separate, incredibly complex field and I will readily admit, I am not very familiar with it.

JBailey, is it your position that the states would have the power to mandate health insurance (since all powers not delegated are reserved to the states blah blah blah), but the federal government does not?

If so, then I'm surprised the Dems did not write this law as a quid pro quo: the states must enact it themselves if they wish to receive Medicaid/Medicare funds...

[SacKen]

Do you understand the Massachusetts plan? Since my sister is using it, I am quite familiar with it.

It has a universal mandate, just like the new federal bill. It has penalties for non-compliance, just like the new federal bill. It has subsidies for people who can't afford health insurance, just like the new federal bill. And it has a health insurance exchange, for people who have trouble finding insurance.

So what exactly is your point? It sounds like you just weren't very familiar with the Massachusetts plan.

I will repeat, it is a godsend for my sister, who is not offered health insurance through her employer and would not be able to afford it on her own.

My post stated that I was not familiar with the exact nature of his plan or what is in Massachusetts. So that was not in question. But I did assume that the features you listed were part of it, so I wasn't far off in what I thought.

All those things you listed are such a small portion of this bloated bill. It is not the same bill that Romney proposed and is in Mass. It has similar features, but it is not the same. So it is highly disingenuous to hint that someone is a hypocrite for not supporting this mess if they did support Romney's plan. That's my point.

[bordercolliefan]

My post stated that I was not familiar with the exact nature of his plan or what is in Massachusetts. So that was not in question. But I did assume that the features you listed were part of it, so I wasn't far off in what I thought.

All those things you listed are such a small portion of this bloated bill. It is not the same bill that Romney proposed and is in Mass. It has similar features, but it is not the same. So it is highly disingenuous to hint that someone is a hypocrite for not supporting this mess if they did support Romney's plan. That's my point.

If the things I listed are such a "small portion" of the bill, then what is the major portion??

I know there is some student loan thing in there. But I haven't heard any Republicans come out and say, "If the Dems had stuck with exactly what Mitt did in Massachusetts, I'd be all for it! But I just really can't abide by the student loan provisions in this bill." Instead, the "party of no" has just said no to the whole thing.

In fact, last time I checked, Mitt Romney is pretending he never even heard of Massachusetts. So yes, he is a hypocrite.

[SacKen]

That day can't come too soon. The health care industry is a joke there are certain industries which simply shouldn't be for profit, health care included. When middle-aged men who have been paying into their health plans for decades are suddenly dropped a few days after being diagnosed with cancer, there's something wrong with the system.

It's an embarrassment to this country that we don't already have single payer universal health care, it's a further embarrassment that it took 100 years for this legislation to get through.

Ugh... again with the generalities. Not just you, but just about every supporter of this bill I've come across. Once again, I ask the same thing that I've asked other supporters of the bill and have yet to get a straight answer...

Are you supporting it based on the general principles, like those you listed above, or on the specific details of the bill itself?

Most of the competent people I've talked to that hate this bill, hate it on the specifics, not the generalities. The bill itself is a 5-layer crap cake with a thin layer of icing that is the good stuff that we really wanted.

The way they are paying for it all is terrible. It does nothing to actual decrease health care costs. Plus there are all the unrelated costs that they through in there just because they could... they know that most of us are to stupid to notice it.

The bill itself actually has very little to do with satisfying specific goals that Obama had and what he campaigned on. It also goes against his promise that only those making over $250k would get hit with a "modest" tax increase. It is now a couple making over $250k total, not an individual. And, ironically, people with high health care costs could get taxed more, too, since the limit for being able to deduct the expenses is being raised from 7.5% to 10% AGI.

So, as someone that actually did support and vote for Obama and agreed with some of his ideas, I think this bill is a failure to achieve those goals. Now we'll patch on a bunch of additional bills to get the other stuff, adding to the costs and complexity. So we'll have an even more messed-up health care system, but at least now the government is involved, and that seems to make a bunch of you all warm and fuzzy inside.

[The Average Joe]

JBailey, is it your position that the states would have the power to mandate health insurance (since all powers not delegated are reserved to the states blah blah blah), but the federal government does not?

Yes, that is my position. I am all for the states as "experiments in democracy." I hadn't really considered how I would feel if the feds extorted, er, tied federal funds to states medical programs. I guess i would like it better, but I still don't like,
a) another level of government bureaucracy (ala Dept of Ed)
b)the extortion factor
c) the federal government insinuating itself into yet another aspect of my life.

I have no problem with Mass. adopting its own healthcare...that is their prerogative and none of my business unless I live there and pay the taxes.

Now the idiotic 200 billion dollar a year plan floated by Ca reps, I am wholeheartedly against.

[SacKen]

If the things I listed are such a "small portion" of the bill, then what is the major portion??

I know there is some student loan thing in there. But I haven't heard any Republicans come out and say, "If the Dems had stuck with exactly what Mitt did in Massachusetts, I'd be all for it! But I just really can't abide by the student loan provisions in this bill." Instead, the "party of no" has just said no to the whole thing.

In fact, last time I checked, Mitt Romney is pretending he never even heard of Massachusetts. So yes, he is a hypocrite.

Ok, if you were only implying that Mitt is a hypocrite, or any other politician, then I'll give that to you. Franky, I don't care about them and have a feeling you were generalizing about anyone that is against this that might have supported Mitt's ideas in the past.

I know you don't really care about the bill specifics, so I won't even bother breaking down all the other junk in the bill that made something that had some pretty good aspects into something that is a pile o' poo. I've already mentioned some of it in my other posts. If I thought it would change a single point of view or be able to stop this thing from going into effect, I would step through every item and break down the entire bill. But it won't.

[SacKen]

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 13% of Republican support health care reform.
If 178 Republicans voted on the issue, statistically, you'd expect about 23 to vote for it.
By voting as a block, 13% of their members are disenfranchised.

Ken,
Good points, but you are missing the big picture.
For years the way it has worked is that:

"insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment companies, successful business people" made so much profits, they paid some of their windfall to the politicians to keep that golden goose alive. Just look at their profits in the past few years.

This legislation favors the consumers instead of the profits of the large corporations.
It levels the playing field. Why should execs get $$ Billions while medical costs
approach 20% for Americans? (When its only 10% in other countries).

Besides . . . I KNOW the people here on the forum are intelligent and articulate.
Is it so bad that some portion of our population wants to focus on one of the
BASICS of life - that we are taken care of physically? Why be so begrudging
of of a policy that improves the lives of our fellow citizens? Is that so bad an ideal?

Is it so bad of an ideal that we have transportation that produced zero pollution and never caused an accident that killed someone? Of course it is. So, if a bill was passed that did so, but also specified that these new vehicles would do so by converting and making use of 100% of the energy and by-product of vaporizing kittens and puppies, should we still support it because of the one ideal that it did satisfy?

Please, I beg of you to enlighten me with some specifics of how this levels the playing field. Not general grandstanding, but references to specific portions of the bill. I honestly, truly want to know and hope there is something that I am missing and this thing isn't that bad. I want to be wrong.

This bill does NOTHING to reduce the cost of health care. It subsidizes the costs for the "poor", but does not reduce the true costs.

It also doesn't specifically stop companies from earning billions in profits, nor does it stop execs from making millions. It only ties that stuff to a bunch of formulas with a bunch of variables, including health care costs as a percentage. So if health care costs increase, so can profits and executive pay (as long as they don't violate the one clause that does restrict pay to $500k as a punishment for a certain circumstances... I need to go back and remind myself of those specifics).

So even the generalities you are flaunting apear to have little to do with the specifics of this bill.

[bordercolliefan]

SacKen, now that you have explained your position more, I actually will agree with you on your main point: No, this is not the ideal bill to expand health insurance to the poor and working poor.

In my mind, the ideal bill would be a single payer system so we don't have to spend so much money -- tax money and personal funds -- on 100 different yet overlapping bureaucracies.

Obviously many people disagree vehemently with a single payer.

I guess Repubs would want a totally free market and tort reform.

Since the Repub plan would leave everyone who was poor, sick, or both out cold... we Dems object vehemently to that.

So... what we get is a compromise bill that is not ideal from either side.

Kind of reminds me of a settlement in litigation. You know what they say, "If both sides are unhappy, then it's a good settlement."