|
On March 24 2010 08:45 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:11 WWJDD wrote:On March 23 2010 09:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2010 08:34 L wrote:On March 23 2010 08:16 ammeL wrote:
I'm a fan of this reform because it does have many advantages for those residing in the United States; not to mention, I'm an advocate of universality.
However, Obama is still an idiot - he totally ignored the Republicans since he got into office and that's why he had such trouble passing this bill. Even after it passed, the Senate had to put the bill under 'reconciliation' -- showing just how badly Obama has neglected the thoughts of the Republicans. He can't even sign the bill officially, until it passes reconciliation (and it has failed one time in the past and would be hilarious if it fails again). Politics is not a one-way street (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread).
(Also, not to say that I am supporting the republicans, but as the President, he should realize that he needs to listen/gain favoritism of Republicans if he hopes to get something major like this passed again in the future). If someone ignores you when you talk to them it doesn't mean you are ignoring them. The republicans realize they can't come close to fielding someone as charismatic as Obama so their electoral strategy has been to prevent him from making any legislative headway so that when the next election cycle comes up they can throw the "you didn't do anything" card at him. I mean, Obama went as far as to speak in front of the entire republican assembly to ask them to work together and stop downright lying to people and they haven't. What the fuck more do you want him to do? He gutted his pride and joy bill to satisfy their requests, stated numerous times that he was willing to listen to republican points like tort reform, etc. Its sad that this is what America is. America used to be so much more. You should at least get your facts straight before you post something like this. Maybe you haven't noticed, but Obama's chrarisma has proven to be entirely illusory beyond being able to give a speech off of a teleprompter. He has shown a complete inability to work with republicans. Speaking in front of them was a political stunt, nothing more. If he really intended to work with republicans, he would have invited them into the meetings that he had with other democrats and democratic special interest groups where the health care bill was actually drafted. If you still want to blame the republicans and need further evidence of Obama's very apparent lack of charisma, just look at how he has handled foreign policy so far. He has managed to piss off all of our allies during his first year in office, the most egregious offenses being against Britain and Israel. Even French President Sarkozy called Obama out for wimping out when it came to handling Iran. You know that something's wrong when the French basically call the US president a pussy. I posit to you that even Bush, as much of a buffoon as he was, had more charisma than Obama. He actually managed a fair degree of bipartisanship during his tenure. As I pointed out earlier, "No Child Left Behind" is case in point. His handling of the economic crisis during his last months in office is another example. All Obama has managed to do is vex the republicans and galvanize their opposition to him. That's political suicide in the making, the reason why Obama's approval ratings have plummeted, and the reason why he'll be a one term president. Dude. You should stop watching Fox News. It rots the brain. Obama is the smartest President you had in like ever. You can't be serious 
I completely agree with WWJDD.
|
On March 24 2010 08:49 LuckyFool wrote:
This alone violates parts of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, I thought at first the States suing were just stupid Republicans trying to pull a power play but they can literally win a lawsuit over this
It's doubtful that they would win in the supreme court. The majority of Justices, and this includes Scalia, interpret the commerce clause very, very broadly.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 24 2010 08:49 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:12 WWJDD wrote:On March 24 2010 07:45 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
Sorry. No legal scholar with two functioning brain cells finds anything in this bill unconstitutional. Under this bill you will now be breaking the law if you refuse to purchase a health care plan from the federal government. (Boy are the insurance companies licking their chops over that one...) If you make over 14.4k a year and do not purchase a plan you face a fine or higher taxes. This alone violates parts of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, I thought at first the States suing were just stupid Republicans trying to pull a power play but they can literally win a lawsuit over this. I've been reading the actual bill in my free time the past few days and some things in it are rather interesting. I would recommend everyone to look through the bill for themselves. It's far too easy to only hear one or another extremely biased side of this. My personal political viewpoints are moderate and I can say I've never felt my nation more divided than it is today.
You underestimate the power of the commerce clause and Congress's power to tax young padawan...
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/03/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance.html
I'm dead serious about that. If the Civil Rights Act can get affirmed by the Supreme Court because it's justification was the Commerce Clause, I'm certain that the health care bill will also be fine. Trust me, it's constitutional.
Edit: Forgot one:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-cant-stop-bill-just-have-another.html
|
On March 24 2010 08:58 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:49 LuckyFool wrote:On March 24 2010 08:12 WWJDD wrote:On March 24 2010 07:45 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
Sorry. No legal scholar with two functioning brain cells finds anything in this bill unconstitutional. Under this bill you will now be breaking the law if you refuse to purchase a health care plan from the federal government. (Boy are the insurance companies licking their chops over that one...) If you make over 14.4k a year and do not purchase a plan you face a fine or higher taxes. This alone violates parts of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, I thought at first the States suing were just stupid Republicans trying to pull a power play but they can literally win a lawsuit over this. I've been reading the actual bill in my free time the past few days and some things in it are rather interesting. I would recommend everyone to look through the bill for themselves. It's far too easy to only hear one or another extremely biased side of this. My personal political viewpoints are moderate and I can say I've never felt my nation more divided than it is today. You underestimate the power of the commerce clause and Congress's power to tax young padawan... http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/03/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance.htmlI'm dead serious about that. If the Civil Rights Act can get affirmed by the Supreme Court because it's justification was the Commerce Clause, I'm certain that the health care bill will also be fine. Trust me, it's constitutional. Edit: Forgot one: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-cant-stop-bill-just-have-another.html
Your post is heavily disputable...but let me ask you this:
Is using bribery to get votes Constitutional?
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 24 2010 09:20 neVern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:58 Mystlord wrote:On March 24 2010 08:49 LuckyFool wrote:On March 24 2010 08:12 WWJDD wrote:On March 24 2010 07:45 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
Sorry. No legal scholar with two functioning brain cells finds anything in this bill unconstitutional. Under this bill you will now be breaking the law if you refuse to purchase a health care plan from the federal government. (Boy are the insurance companies licking their chops over that one...) If you make over 14.4k a year and do not purchase a plan you face a fine or higher taxes. This alone violates parts of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, I thought at first the States suing were just stupid Republicans trying to pull a power play but they can literally win a lawsuit over this. I've been reading the actual bill in my free time the past few days and some things in it are rather interesting. I would recommend everyone to look through the bill for themselves. It's far too easy to only hear one or another extremely biased side of this. My personal political viewpoints are moderate and I can say I've never felt my nation more divided than it is today. You underestimate the power of the commerce clause and Congress's power to tax young padawan... http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/03/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance.htmlI'm dead serious about that. If the Civil Rights Act can get affirmed by the Supreme Court because it's justification was the Commerce Clause, I'm certain that the health care bill will also be fine. Trust me, it's constitutional. Edit: Forgot one: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-cant-stop-bill-just-have-another.html Your post is heavily disputable...but let me ask you this: The historical power of the Commerce Clause is not disputable. The deem and pass issue is a more likely roadblock than the Supreme Court ruling against Congress' favorite toy.
Is using bribery to get votes Constitutional?
Depends how it's defined.
|
On March 24 2010 08:58 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:49 LuckyFool wrote:On March 24 2010 08:12 WWJDD wrote:On March 24 2010 07:45 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
Sorry. No legal scholar with two functioning brain cells finds anything in this bill unconstitutional. Under this bill you will now be breaking the law if you refuse to purchase a health care plan from the federal government. (Boy are the insurance companies licking their chops over that one...) If you make over 14.4k a year and do not purchase a plan you face a fine or higher taxes. This alone violates parts of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, I thought at first the States suing were just stupid Republicans trying to pull a power play but they can literally win a lawsuit over this. I've been reading the actual bill in my free time the past few days and some things in it are rather interesting. I would recommend everyone to look through the bill for themselves. It's far too easy to only hear one or another extremely biased side of this. My personal political viewpoints are moderate and I can say I've never felt my nation more divided than it is today. You underestimate the power of the commerce clause and Congress's power to tax young padawan... http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/03/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance.htmlI'm dead serious about that. If the Civil Rights Act can get affirmed by the Supreme Court because it's justification was the Commerce Clause, I'm certain that the health care bill will also be fine. Trust me, it's constitutional. Edit: Forgot one: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-cant-stop-bill-just-have-another.html
I hope so. You sound so confident all will be well... I wish I could be so confident.
I hear they are going to send it back to the Senate with amendments and shit and it's going to be harder to get through the senate now (than it was last Fall) since Ted Kennedy's seat has been replaced by a republican.
All these work arounds relying on other acts and clauses.....I just want everything to work out for the best and for everyone to agree but that's never gonna happen. This shit gonna bog down in bureaucracy for ages...
|
On March 24 2010 08:58 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:49 LuckyFool wrote:On March 24 2010 08:12 WWJDD wrote:On March 24 2010 07:45 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
Sorry. No legal scholar with two functioning brain cells finds anything in this bill unconstitutional. Under this bill you will now be breaking the law if you refuse to purchase a health care plan from the federal government. (Boy are the insurance companies licking their chops over that one...) If you make over 14.4k a year and do not purchase a plan you face a fine or higher taxes. This alone violates parts of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, I thought at first the States suing were just stupid Republicans trying to pull a power play but they can literally win a lawsuit over this. I've been reading the actual bill in my free time the past few days and some things in it are rather interesting. I would recommend everyone to look through the bill for themselves. It's far too easy to only hear one or another extremely biased side of this. My personal political viewpoints are moderate and I can say I've never felt my nation more divided than it is today. You underestimate the power of the commerce clause and Congress's power to tax young padawan... http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/03/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance.htmlI'm dead serious about that. If the Civil Rights Act can get affirmed by the Supreme Court because it's justification was the Commerce Clause, I'm certain that the health care bill will also be fine. Trust me, it's constitutional. Edit: Forgot one: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-cant-stop-bill-just-have-another.html
I thought that would be pretty straight forward. If you buy healthcare you are engaged in an act of interstate trade, aren't you? So wouldn't it fall under the commerce clause?
And yeah, they got Civil Rights legislation through because I believe the Ketchup used in the cafe where an African American group did a sit-in was traded across state borders.
Edit: Redundancy
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 24 2010 09:26 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 09:20 neVern wrote:On March 24 2010 08:58 Mystlord wrote:On March 24 2010 08:49 LuckyFool wrote:On March 24 2010 08:12 WWJDD wrote:On March 24 2010 07:45 LuckyFool wrote:
Can we please get back on topic gentlemen?
This should be a topic about health care in the United States not about who was a super power in the 18th century.
Regardless of if you support the bill or not, America is now deeply divided over the issue and we now have multiple states trying to sue the bill and GOP is going to be pulling every trick they can to delay, alter, and mess with the bill.
By definition parts of the bill are unconstitutional there's no if and or buts about it and it looks like various (all pretty heavy republican) States are going to use that as a basis to get past implementing the bill. They say it's not political... (yeah right rofl)
Sorry. No legal scholar with two functioning brain cells finds anything in this bill unconstitutional. Under this bill you will now be breaking the law if you refuse to purchase a health care plan from the federal government. (Boy are the insurance companies licking their chops over that one...) If you make over 14.4k a year and do not purchase a plan you face a fine or higher taxes. This alone violates parts of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, I thought at first the States suing were just stupid Republicans trying to pull a power play but they can literally win a lawsuit over this. I've been reading the actual bill in my free time the past few days and some things in it are rather interesting. I would recommend everyone to look through the bill for themselves. It's far too easy to only hear one or another extremely biased side of this. My personal political viewpoints are moderate and I can say I've never felt my nation more divided than it is today. You underestimate the power of the commerce clause and Congress's power to tax young padawan... http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/03/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance.htmlI'm dead serious about that. If the Civil Rights Act can get affirmed by the Supreme Court because it's justification was the Commerce Clause, I'm certain that the health care bill will also be fine. Trust me, it's constitutional. Edit: Forgot one: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-you-cant-stop-bill-just-have-another.html Your post is heavily disputable...but let me ask you this: The historical power of the Commerce Clause is not disputable. The deem and pass issue is a more likely roadblock than the Supreme Court ruling against Congress' favorite toy. Depends how it's defined.
Pretty much my responses.
I won't get into a Constitutional argument in this thread. Just know that the Commerce Clause has been used in the past to great leaps and bounds, and this piece of legislation is no different.
|
For all those people who are complaining that the Republican's weren't included, they are wrong. The Republicans were included and when they said no no no to Obama's plan, he asked them what they had and they then put forth nothing. So when they were subsequently shut out it was their own fault for having nothing substantial.
Isn't if funny that the Republican's are talking about bringing in a Public Option to "destroy" the current bill? You know, the thing Obama wanted in the first place??
It's not like the democrats accepted 200+ amendments to the bill from Republicans.....oh wait....
|
On March 24 2010 08:31 Mystlord wrote:Well the thing is that the current health care bill really only deals with reform in terms of existing health insurance companies. Too much lobbying power I suppose  . I still believe that single payer is the ultimate best option. I'm not talking about government control of hospitals and pharmaceuticals, I'm just talking about government taking the role of health insurance companies. And why not? Largest risk pool, no moral hazard (I would hope), and I'm pretty sure that premiums would be much lower if everyone was on the same freaking plan.
What? How does single payer get rid of moral hazard? There would probably be even more moral hazard unless you charge people a significant enough amount of money that people don't go to the doctor every time they are coughing. Maybe with catastrophic coverage. But comprehensive coverage is inherently full of moral hazard whether its government run or not.
Either way woohoo for a fascist/corporatist version of health care reform. Now we have to add health care to our list of government supported monopolies/oligopolies.
|
United States43814 Posts
My experience of the NHS is that people generally don't like to go to the doctor without having a genuine issue simply because they understand that doctors are busy people and that there may be more serious issues they should spend their time on. There is a general understanding that healthcare is a privilege to be respected rather than a right to be exploited. Obviously you get hypochrondriacs everywhere but nobody especially enjoys going to the doctor, even if its free it won't become a popular recreation activity.
|
On March 24 2010 06:57 gilligan wrote:
what about that stealthblue
Nothing just noting all the changes and edits that were made before the speech.
|
Guess I'm going to jail in 4 years, since I won't be buying health insurance...
|
United States43814 Posts
On March 24 2010 10:56 LonelyMargarita wrote:
Guess I'm going to jail in 4 years, since I won't be buying health insurance...
Tell us how that goes. I've always thought giving up your freedom is a strange form of protest but whatever works for you.
|
Going to jail because you don't buy health insurance.
Just typing that out is like rofl.
wtf is going on here. 14 states suing the bill now...sigh.
edit: how does the Commerce Clause even apply to people who are just sitting there with NO action whatsoever? Doesn't some sort of actual commerce have to be involved somewhere somehow? I'm no political science major and I'm not well versed on it but what's to stop something like this from happening in the future:
"Excuse me sir you just broke the law..."
"What'd I do?"
"You didn't buy health insurance bitch gg no re."
"wtf hax."
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 24 2010 10:23 Incognito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 08:31 Mystlord wrote:Well the thing is that the current health care bill really only deals with reform in terms of existing health insurance companies. Too much lobbying power I suppose . I still believe that single payer is the ultimate best option. I'm not talking about government control of hospitals and pharmaceuticals, I'm just talking about government taking the role of health insurance companies. And why not? Largest risk pool, no moral hazard (I would hope), and I'm pretty sure that premiums would be much lower if everyone was on the same freaking plan. What? How does single payer get rid of moral hazard? There would probably be even more moral hazard unless you charge people a significant enough amount of money that people don't go to the doctor every time they are coughing. Maybe with catastrophic coverage. But comprehensive coverage is inherently full of moral hazard whether its government run or not. Either way woohoo for a fascist/corporatist version of health care reform. Now we have to add health care to our list of government supported monopolies/oligopolies.
Moral hazard when you have single payer does sound intuitive... Unfortunately that's not the case in practice.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact?currentPage=1
http://www.pnhp.org/resources/moral-hazard-the-myth-of-the-need-for-rationing
Perhaps the 2nd source is biased... But they mostly provide links to refutations of moral hazard done by other scientists so I don't think it's that big of a problem.
Summary: What Kwark said. A visit to the doctor is not a recreational activity. People don't want to go to the doctor.
Plus (completely hypothetical) if you have tons of people going to the doctor and waiting times increase, people will be less likely to go to the doctor unless they REALLY fear for their lives.
|
This health reform is a disgrace. All it does is create a government enforced cartel where you are mandated by law to purchase private health insurance. This will increase prices and make problems worse.
I noticed the poll showed non americans are strongly in favor of this reform. This is due to the horrible standard of reporting on this issue. All they say is that it will extend healthcare to millions and so people are favorable of it. Unfortunately no one is reporting how clearly atrocious this legislation really is.
And the fact that they are going to change the bill through executive orders AFTER it is passed is clear evidence of the demise of democracy in the US.
|
I have a friend who is overweight in his 40s, and he currently doesn't have any insurance because he has so many risk factors that he can't afford anyone's policies. How will this affect him, will there now be affordable policies for him or is he just going to have to send 60% of his paycheck to an insurance company?
If affordable health insurance IS made available for him and the many like him, how does this make economic sense for the insurance companies? Is the government going to subsidize them?
|
Imagine your house is burning down, the firetruck shows up, saves your house then asks you to pay 50k for the service.
Imagine you are being mugged, and a cop walks by, sees you probably don't have the money to be worth saving and ignores you.
Now imagine being hit by a car and never fully recovering because you simply can't afford the basic necessity of health care.
How is cheap health insurance socialist? Demise in democracy? SERIOUSLY?
Goddamn I'm a happy Canadian. There's a reason the man who reformed health care was voted the greatest Canadian of all time, people. It had that much of an impact on our welfare!
|
On March 24 2010 10:29 KwarK wrote:
My experience of the NHS is that people generally don't like to go to the doctor without having a genuine issue simply because they understand that doctors are busy people and that there may be more serious issues they should spend their time on. There is a general understanding that healthcare is a privilege to be respected rather than a right to be exploited. Obviously you get hypochrondriacs everywhere but nobody especially enjoys going to the doctor, even if its free it won't become a popular recreation activity.
Emergency room visits are free for many lower-income Americans. I have a friend who owns several pizza stores, and his employees will often take their kids to the ER with some minor complaint so they'll have a doctor's excuse to skip work. Last year I went to the ER with a severe allergic reaction and sat in a waiting room PACKED at 3am with low-income families holding children who did NOT look very sick. I don't see how more free medical services does not equate with more abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
