House Passes Healthcare Bill

[Professor S]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34781.html

It's pretty much a done deal. Now it will be interesting how everything ends up after reconciliation. This could be a real procedural/political mess for a while...

[Vampyr]

Been watching this on cspan for hours...

Pretty happy about it overall.

[TheGame]

Lol... So Republicans say this bill has tax payers fund abortions, and Democrats say it doesn't. And as always, the media in their pursuit of being "fair and balanced" opposed to pursueing the "truth".. will not say who is lying and who is telling the truth.

[Acebot44]

The gist of year by year changes brought upon by the reform bill in plain language (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319)

[BreakABone]

Lol... So Republicans say this bill has tax payers fund abortions, and Democrats say it doesn't. And as always, the media in their pursuit of being "fair and balanced" opposed to pursueing the "truth".. will not say who is lying and who is telling the truth.

As fair as I figure, the bill that passed does support tax payers funded abortions, and that Pres Obama is expected to sign in an executive order to get rid of that clause, but could be mistaken.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/12/news/economy/debt_health_care.fortune/index.htm

How the bill will supposedly pay for itself.

[Fox 6]

Welcome to the club USA!

[Professor S]

As fair as I figure, the bill that passed does support tax payers funded abortions, and that Pres Obama is expected to sign in an executive order to get rid of that clause, but could be mistaken.

And there is a lot of debate as to whether or not that executive order will stand up. As far as I can tell, it won't. Executive orders can't supersede legislation. As soon as the executive order is challenged in court it will be overturned.

The was a scheme to allow the anti-abortion dems to vote for the bill and when it the order is overturned, they can blame the courts. Excellent gamesmanship. Lousy governing, but excellent gamesmanship.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/12/news/economy/debt_health_care.fortune/index.htm

How the bill will supposedly pay for itself.

From BaB's article.

How the math adds up

So how much must the government borrow to pay for reform? That's the true measure of future deficits. Let's start with the CBO's "deficit reduction" estimate of $118 billion.

First, we'll subtract the Doc Fix of $371 billion, which Obama does not pay for and must be borrowed. That wipes out all of the theoretical decline in the deficit and leaves a shortfall of $253 billion.

Then we'll subtract the tax revenues that are owed for entitlements, and therefore excluded from paying for the bill: $70 billion from the CLASS Act, $52 billion for Social Security, and $113 billion for Medicare. That subtotal: $235 billion.

So the full amount that must be borrowed by 2019 is $488 billion. (That's 39% of the total cost, composed of the $875 billion official estimate plus the Doc Fix of $371 billion, for a total of $1.25 trillion.) Add in interest, which is excluded from the official CBO cost, and the total amount approaches $600 billion. So the U.S. will need to borrow an additional $600 billion to pay for a new medical system -- one that won't be up and running until 2014.

Only by using the crazy math of health care can a bill both "lower deficits" and enormously raise debt. America's struggling households know what real deficit reduction looks like, and this isn't it. To top of page

This pretty much sums up everything Paul Ryan illustrated in the health care summit.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zPxMZ1WdINs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zPxMZ1WdINs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I still haven't found anyone who can refute the numbers he quotes. The only response I've heard is some nonsense about "But when the CBO says something you like, you love them!" That has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

The authors of the health care bill know this thing can't pay for itself. Its not even close. So instead of doing the right thing and readdressing the issues to make a sustainable plan, they decided it would be better to save face, feed the CBO fantasy figures, and therefore have a chance to save their own asses in the fall elections (a dubious strategy, but the alternative of being soundly defeated is the greater of both evils).

This is a game to these people, and its a game that will likely add the better part of $1,000,000,000,000.00 to the national debt. Right now the only way to stop this debacle is in court. Several states' attorneys general have already combined forces to sue the federal government.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100322/POLITICS-US-USA-HEALTHCARE-STATES/

[Bond]

Well, saw this happening once the bill was passed yesterday:

"March 22 (Bloomberg) -- Twelve states plan to challenge the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul passed yesterday by the U.S. House, according to statements made today.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 11 states that will sue “as soon as the president signs the bill,” claiming it places a burden on already cash-strapped states to pay for an expanded Medicaid program and build an exchange so individuals can find affordable insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli also said in a statement his state would sue on the similar grounds.

The states that say they will sue are Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington."

Source: Business Week (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-22/twelve-states-plan-lawsuit-over-obama-health-overhaul-update2-.html)

Oops, I see Prof already posted a similar article.

Question: What federal government entitlement program has ever paid for itself and simultaneously reduced the federal deficit?

Answer: None in history.

[Vampyr]

There is a small, bitter part of me that is just happy we're going into debt over something I actually wanted for once.

[Bond]

This is a great find from The New Ledger:

For as long as the political fight took over the past year, the abbreviated review process on the health care legislation currently pending on President Obama’s desk is unquestionably going to result in some surprises — as happens with any piece of mashed-up legislation — both for the congressmen who voted for it and for the American people.

One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans — that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

Link to the rest of the article. (http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/)
The link has the quoted relevant text if anyone is interested.

[BreakABone]

This is a great find from The New Ledger:


The link has the quoted relevant text if anyone is interested.

Politics are a dirty business, I'm almost certain all of us know that, so I don't see how that is any different.


Anyhow, I may have misspoken about the whole abortion in the Health Care bill business. I did a bit of research, and it seems like there is no clause in the bill that would actually have the gov't fund abortion.

The executive order would exist just as a safeguard to people. At least according to this

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/21/obama-executive-order-on-abortion-funding/

I could be reading it wrong, but the bill nor the order changes anything on record?

And this article, which states, that directly or not, the gov't already helps funds abortions,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/sorry_bart_stupak_--_the_feds.html?hpid=opinionsbox1%27

[TheGame]

Have states ever sued the federal government before for redirecting how tax dollars are spent? Or are they sueing because of the mandate? That just kinda sounds weird to me...

[Bond]

Have states ever sued the federal government before for redirecting how tax dollars are spent? Or are they sueing because of the mandate? That just kinda sounds weird to me...
The twelve Republican attorney generals who did / will be filling suits on behalf of their respective states are calling into question the constitutionality of the bill, which has to do with the mandates that you mentioned. The issue is addressed in the article I posted a few posts up.

[Professor S]

From what I understand the opponents of the bill will argue using the 10th amendment about state sovereignty and the constitutionality of mandating individuals buy health care (or any other product). Supporters will argue the commerce clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

[TheSlyMoogle]

I realize this will sound odd coming from me, but it seems like a lot of this is a step into the wrong direction instead of a step forward.

I also find it silly that not having health care is grounds to fine someone $695.

[TheGame]

Thanks for the info Bond.

That will be very interesting. The problem now, is that if someone doesn't have insurance, and goes to the ER.. and can't afford to pay their bill... then society as a whole here has to pay for that person. Since the single person without insurance is burdoning the rest of society by not having insurance, is it wrong for there to be a penalty given by society for this action?

Guess we'll find out.

[Professor S]

I also find it silly that not having health care is grounds to fine someone $695.

The silliest part is the thinking that a $695 fine will convince someone to get a $6,000 healthcare plan when they can just wait until they get sick and no one can turn them down.

But then again, Mass. kind of operates the same way and they have a very low uninsured rate, so it may work in reducing the percentage of uninsured, but to me the math doesn't work out.

[Typhoid]

That will be very interesting. The problem now, is that if someone doesn't have insurance, and goes to the ER.. and can't afford to pay their bill... then society as a whole here has to pay for that person. Since the single person without insurance is burdoning the rest of society by not having insurance, is it wrong for there to be a penalty given by society for this action?

Maybe I'm being jaded because I'm Canadian, and you know - nice, ( ;) ) but thats how I believe it should have been going for you guys the whole time.

Any emergency surgery, or needed procedure should be covered by the government/taxes if the person can't pay for it themselves. Every aesthetic procedure is covered by the person who wants it.

What's so bad about helping those who need the help? If my taxes help some little 5 year old with a poor family get heart surgery so he can see his 6th birthday, I have no problem with that. If my tax money also goes to help some college kid who needs life-saving surgery, I still have no problem with that.

I have trouble actually figuring out why people have a problem with this kind of healthcare. Maybe it's because I already have this healthcare.

[Dylflon]

In response to Typhnoid:

I concur. I really don't understand this "what about me?" mentality that has people so against paying taxes for social programs and healthcare. I like my tax dollars making people's lives better. That's supposed to be what they're for. If everyone is only concerned with personal gain, it's a lot more difficult to progress as a society. Why would people argue about tax dollars helping someone get surgery but not argue with tax dollars being spent on illegal wars?

Anyways, this may be financially burdening, especially in the short term, but feel good that the quality of living in your country will be increasing.

[TheGame]

Why would people argue about tax dollars helping someone get surgery but not argue with tax dollars being spent on illegal wars?

Trust me, there was an arguement.. down the line anyway. It just wasn't as violent of an arguement as it is now.

(You know... no democrats were yelling out "You lie" or "(Baby) Killer" to republicans over it, or giving a potentially dangerous war protester who breaks into congress a standing ovation..)

What bothers me more, is how do we get away with starting two wars without even questioning how they will be paid for.. but when we're making a change that's supposed to help people, we set this unrealistic expectation that the program shouldn't use a single dime of tax dollars, and that it shouldn't add a dime to the deficit.

[Professor S]

In response to Typhnoid:

I concur. I really don't understand this "what about me?" mentality that has people so against paying taxes for social programs and healthcare.

1) Immense waste
2) Poor service
3) Lack of innovation (Canadian health care depends greatly on investment by for-profit companies to create the newest and most effective drugs)*
4) Can't pay for it, and so it will inevitably be insolvent, and when it does collapse more people will suffer because they've been trained to suckle at the government's teat.

I like my tax dollars making people's lives better.

"Better" is a relative opinion. As for progress, you can thank self-interest for about 90% of societal progress, especially in health care. The latest and greatest equipment and treatments are created by medical companies that operate for a profit. The profit motive has done more to advance civilization than altruism ever could. In the end, we're all in it for ourselves, even if its just to make us feel better.

Emotions are informative. If you gave to charity (time or money) and didn't feel good about it, how would you know you were doing any good? If you felt nothing you would likely stop your activity because there would be nothing to let you know what you were doing achieved anything. In the end, we all GIVE because it makes US feel good, and that is not a bad thing. Motivation is a pointless argument. The results are all that matters, and profit motive has provided us with the greatest leaps known to man, especially in the 20th century concerning communications and again, health care.

Why would people argue about tax dollars helping someone get surgery but not argue with tax dollars being spent on illegal wars?

Legality of the wars aside, currently military spending as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows. This argument is a red herring.

Anyways, this may be financially burdening, especially in the short term, but feel good that the quality of living in your country will be increasing.

Question: If 80% of the country that has health care insurance will likely be asked to either a) lower their health care insurance to fall below the "Cadillac" threshold, b) pay the excise tax if their company elects to not to lower their plans, c) pay considerably more in taxes mandated by a "future congress" (its in the bill) how is this improving the quality of living in America?

Lowering everyone to the same level does not improve society. Lifting those in need does.

FYI - My company already announced its downgrading our health care plan. I now get less care thanks to this bill. My life has improved so much! Thanks Pres. Obama!

But the largest conceit out of all of these arguments are that they inherently deny that there are alternative plans or ideas. No one is saying that reform should not happen. NO ONE. Its an argument about what type of reform that is needed. For an example of an alternative plan, see Paul Ryan's Roadmap: http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

I don't necessarily endorse the plan, as all I know are the Republican talking points on it, but it certainly sounds better than this monstrosity we have now.

The problem is that leftists deny that reform that is not centralized in the government is reform. Apparently without government control, nothing good can happen, and to me that is simply a sad state of affairs. It is the definition of "nanny state" thinking.

*The only good part about this bill is that it does virtually nothing to cut costs, so therefore innovation in drugs shouldn't be affected. The bad part is it does nothing to cut costs, and in fact inherently protects profits and reducing competition, which is unhealthy regardless.

[Typhoid]

Lowering everyone to the same level does not improve society. Lifting those in need does.


I assume that's what the excess tax would go towards, as it does in Canada.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Of course not everyone will be happy with the way it's going if they have to pay a little more, because everyone is thinking "Hey, that's my money" and not "This will help a poor family get health care if they need it."
But the fact remains that health care and access to a doctor if needed without putting your family in financial ruin to save your child/your own life is what everyone deserves. The change had to be made at some point. Better now, than later when more people put themselves into poverty because of injury or general health concerns.


100% off topic:
I'm just going to put this here, it doesn't deserve a thread because I don't know if it's true or not, but if anyone knows, I'd love an answer. It's from a post from another forum a guy in California made:

Some fire departments in the states are now charging people to put out their fires.

They run to the site, put out the fire and then hand the owners the bill. Thousands of dollars.

Ahhh, capitalism at its finest.

If that's the case: God Bless America.

[Professor S]

I assume that's what the excess tax would go towards, as it does in Canada.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Of course not everyone will be happy with the way it's going if they have to pay a little more, because everyone is thinking "Hey, that's my money" and not "This will help a poor family get health care if they need it."
But the fact remains that health care and access to a doctor if needed without putting your family in financial ruin to save your child/your own life is what everyone deserves. The change had to be made at some point. Better now, than later when more people put themselves into poverty because of injury or general health concerns.

And again, no one is arguing against this idea. It's how we go about doing it that we disagree on.

[TheGame]

But the largest conceit out of all of these arguments are that they inherently deny that there are alternative plans or ideas. No one is saying that reform should not happen. NO ONE. Its an argument about what type of reform that is needed.

Well now the arguement should be, is the healthcare system as-is better, or the system with the changes that were made.

[Dylflon]

Prof: Is your company being forced to change their health care plan or are they choosing to because there is a cheaper option?

Also, i'm not saying individualism is evil but consideration has to be made to those who aren't as well off. Your arguments lack compassion and seem to me like the thoughts of one who believes that bad things only happen because people make bad choices so forget about them.

Were your parents well off? Have you ever flirted with poverty? Have you ever needed a safety net to fall back on? I'm not going to make baseless accusations because frankly, I don't know you very well. But I feel like you must have been raised at least somewhat priveledged from the fact that I've seldom if ever seen you put yourself in the shoes of someone less fortunate.

Take a moment and ask yourself if this health care bill might make someone's life better. The life of someone who isn't you.

[Professor S]

Prof: Is your company being forced to change their health care plan or are they choosing to because there is a cheaper option?

The supposition in your question is incorrect. They are choosing to reduce my insurance because the option we had has been made too expensive by this bill. Either they reduce all of our coverage, or they ask us to pay more. Either way insurance costs have gone up, not down, and for many people their care will reduce because of the increased cost combined with the lack of options caused by the over regulation of health insurance competition.

Also, I'm not saying individualism is evil but consideration has to be made to those who aren't as well off. Your arguments lack compassion and seem to me like the thoughts of one who believes that bad things only happen because people make bad choices so forget about them.

In general, what good has been done by such progressive/compassionate ideals? Compassion destroyed the black family in this country. Compassion has created an entire class of poor that don't value education, possibly the single most important component to achieving success from nothing. The compassionate ideals only enslave people and make them dependent on others, and they improve little.

These type of compassionate laws only serve to continue the poverty cycle, and crush the spirit of those who live under them.

Leftists tend to blame the current state of the world on deregulation, pretending that these companies did whatever the hell they wanted. How so? Health care and financial institutions are the two MOST regulated industries in the country, not the LEAST. Out current situation is a RESULT of compassionate ideals, and the fact that WANTING to do good is not the same as doing good. There are such things as unintended consequences.

This is a exact reason why Milton Friedman argued against regulation in general. Why? Because he viewed keeping industry out of government as an impossibility, an observation I think we can all agree has proven true to this point. Now, if its safe to say that industry will always infiltrate government, doesn't government regulation then create an unfair marketplace? Doesn't it create regulations like the ones that prevent competition over state lines, etc.?

His view was that the only way for there to be a fair economic system was to have one completely devoid of government intervention. I don't completely agree with Uncle Miltie, I am for limited regulation to prevent monopolies (Friendman believed 100% open markets would not sustain monopolies. I disagree), but he definitely has a point.

Were your parents well off?

No. My dad was a construction worker, and my mom chose to stay at home and once we grew up she was a social worker. In fact, my did grew up with an outhouse and one communal sink for the entire 9 person family. And by the way, my Mom knows the system from the inside out and she makes me look like Keith Olberman. The system propagates poverty and subservience.

Have you ever flirted with poverty?

Yes. My dad didn't work for over a year in the early 90's. I call it the "Tuna Casserole Year". I have talked about this before.

Have you ever needed a safety net to fall back on?

I was on unemployment for a brief time, and I have no disagreements with unemployment benefits. They are necessary to keep people going until they can find another job, and reduces their income to make the situation uncomfortable enough to make sure they keep looking for work. Its necessary to keep industry moving, which is in all of our own best interests. Welfare is a different matter, as it is self-sustaining poverty.

On side note, I never felt more worthless in my life than while on unemployment. It is not good for people's psyche to be propped up by the government or anyone else for that matter.

I'm not going to make baseless accusations because frankly, I don't know you very well. But I feel like you must have been raised at least somewhat privileged from the fact that I've seldom if ever seen you put yourself in the shoes of someone less fortunate.

There will always be someone less fortunate than I. That's why my arguments have stemmed from analysis of the current health care situation, and not from emotions as yours seem to originate.

You have ignored the crux of my arguments in favor to attacking the "self-interest" philosophy I've shared. I'll repeat:

Question: If 80% of the country that has health care insurance will likely be asked to either a) lower their health care insurance to fall below the "Cadillac" threshold, b) pay the excise tax if their company elects to not to lower their plans, c) pay considerably more in taxes mandated by a "future congress" (its in the bill) how is this improving the quality of living in America?

Take a moment and ask yourself if this health care bill might make someone's life better. The life of someone who isn't you.

Your question assumes that I don't want to reform health care. Can you point out a single argument I've made that states this? No, you can't because I haven't. Once again, the argument is about HOW to reform, lower costs, and increase service. Here is what I've posted earlier in this thread:

But the largest conceit out of all of these arguments are that they inherently deny that there are alternative plans or ideas. No one is saying that reform should not happen. NO ONE. Its an argument about what type of reform that is needed. For an example of an alternative plan, see Paul Ryan's Roadmap: http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Why do people assume that reform has to be government control?

Also, I really think your completely misunderstand self-interest, like most Rand critics do. Example: I want to reform health care, lower costs and make sure everyone has coverage. Now, I want to do this because it will lower costs for everyone, including myself in tax dollars, and can increase the risk pool and potential investment in health care allowing for greater competition to increase care and innovation.

Now, if we meet these goals out of self-interest, or out of altruism, what is the difference? The ends are the same, but I think you'll find that self-interest 1) Is a more effective motivator to most people and 2) makes for sustainable advancement, unlike this fiscal nightmare of a bill we have now which will create dependence and by its own structure eventually fail and then destroy all those dependent on it.

[TheGame]

The supposition in your question is incorrect. They are choosing to reduce my insurance because the option we had has been made too expensive by this bill. Either they reduce all of our coverage, or they ask us to pay more. Either way insurance costs have gone up, not down, and for many people their care will reduce because of the increased cost combined with the lack of options caused by the over regulation of health insurance competition.

Guys, please don't buy into this BS.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032301714.html

No, your care got screwed because of the status quo system, not because this bill that passed less then a week ago. While you wanted to sit on your thumbs for years and get nothing passed, your healthcare coverage was decaying.

Stories like yours is WHY change was needed, and not a result of the change.

I was on unemployment for a brief time, and I have no disagreements with unemployment benefits. They are necessary to keep people going until they can find another job, and reduces their income to make the situation uncomfortable enough to make sure they keep looking for work. Its necessary to keep industry moving, which is in all of our own best interests. Welfare is a different matter, as it is self-sustaining poverty.


I'ma turn into Prof for a minute..

*ahem*

I've never been on unemployment in my life.. sure I've been unenployed many times, but I never took money from the government or from any company, I just know how to save my money in a bank account. I think unemployment just causes people to live beyond their means, if we took it away more people would be saving and jobs would be better because companies would have more money that they'd spend on their employees... or more money to put towards making products cheaper.. and on top of that, banks would have more money, so getting loans would be less of an issue.

Once again the government fails for starting this program, and forcing companies to pay out worthless slackers who probably got fired for a good reason.

*ahem*

Back to TheGame... maybe you don't agree with welfare, but agree with unemployment because you've actually BEEN there? Just a thought... And the vast majority of people on welfare don't feel great about taking it either.