Slashdot Mirror
Landmark Health Insurance Bill Passes House
theodp writes "A hastily-crafted amendment imposing tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies helped pave the way for the House to approve the Democrats' bill to overhaul the nation's health insurance system. 'It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans,' said Rep. John Dingell. Rep. Candice Miller disagreed, calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding' bill. The 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation passed by a vote of 220-215 and moves on for Senate debate, which is expected to begin in several days."
Update — 11/08 at 13:45 GMT by SS: Changed vote totals above to reflect the actual bill vote. The 240-194 number was for the abortion restrictions amendment.
I'm not from the US, but isn't that the main bit of you guys' healthcare system that's most in need of fixing?
In my country, pre-existing conditions just mean that you can't claim anything for 12 months after joining. It doesn't affect premiums or anything, and no health insurance provider can reject your application.
So, I guess, welcome to the 20th century!
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
Maybe the US will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in actually providing medical care to its citizens, instead of taking the, "find your own care" attitude.
Palm trees and 8
The final vote was a lot closer: 220 to 215. Which seems like a mid-20th century vote total. It really is quite remarkable that, in 2009, in the United States, there's still widespread debate and disagreement over the proposition that health care should not be rationed on the basis of ability to pay.
Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail. It sounds like Massachusetts.
How would this get paid for, I wonder? It's written by the same people that brought you "Cash for Clunkers" and the "Stimulus Package", and we know what came of THEM.
The Senate isn't expecting to make a vote on their version until next year. Hopefully it will die a horrible death. This bill has no business at ALL being the Law of the Land.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
So surely this bill, which makes it illegal to charge more for being a woman, also makes it illegal to charge more for being a man with car insurance and life insurance. Right? I mean, god forbid the democrats come up with a good idea and poorly execute it or create unfair exceptions that favor special interest groups that voted them in like they always do. So who read more than 100 of the 1,990 pages of this thing before voting? How do you even summarize something so simply in a matter of a few paragraphs, then someone manage to bloat that to 1,990 pages? Obviously there is a LOT more to this bill than what has hit the press releases.
Well, countdown until this article gets over a 1,000 comments and only the top few become the ones actually read...
For as long as I've read /. there has been news about health, whether that be some health related tech, a new life saving procedure, or some new finding in biology.
/.. There's a sense of quality to the discussion on this forum thanks to the system in place.
Slashdot is not just a news site. That's its primary motivation. Its secondary existence is the discussion, and for some that's their primary reason for returning to
Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill, everyone (except the fat insurance companies) admitted that things had to change, and so this is a start. however, the amendment restricting abortion coverage is HUGE step backwards and another reminder just how much the lunatic Religious Right has taken hold in the US. Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again. so close, but yet so far still to come.
Spot on! Consider garbage collectors; no other profession has had a larger impact on the health of society as a whole. Without them rampant cholera would actually be the least of our troubles.
Error: password can't contain reverse spelling of ancient Chinese emperor
Seems the adults also know that you cannot rely on the private sector to provide for people. Capitalism isn't about compassion.
You will pay for the health care of illegal aliens - period.
Let me repeat that. Whether they come to the ER without coverage or are enrolled in a government subsidized insurance program, you will pay. At least, in the latter case, they will contribute something and, perhaps, get some earlier care that will avoid expensive hospitalizations.
The bone-headed reflexive anti-immigrant nonsense that passes for debate in the US just saddens me. We really need to upgrade our educational system.
...when did "health insurance" become conflated with "health care"? You buy insurance to ensure that you can get past some kind of catastrophic event, say, if you total your car. I don't expect AllState to pay for my gas, tune-ups, etc. It's about spreading risk, rather than a mechanism to take money from one guy and give to another to that you can buy what you want. HSAs for routine procedures is the way to go. Keep the insurance markets competitive and targeted towards what "insurance" actually means IN EVERY OTHER INSTANCE WHERE IT IS APPLIED!
Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance? On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition. We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.
Also, if you honestly find that your concern for corporate incomes trumps your compassion for your fellow human beings, I pity you . Health care is a right. If you think that people who provide for things that are rights are somehow enslaved by the fact that they're rights, you're out of your mind. People always choose what they do.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
The close vote is intentional. The leaders realize that this is a once in a generation opportunity to reform healthcare, so they're going to push that reform as far as they can. They could propose some really minor changes that everybody agrees with. They could propose some really radical changes that almost nobody agrees with. Or they could push the biggest change they could get without failing.
As for the party split, the Constitution does not entitle all political parties to equal happiness. In a time when reality has a liberal bias, the wishes of the electorate are reflected in the composition of the legislative bodies. Aside from their role in achieving a majority of votes in Congress, the Republicans are no more entitled to appeasement than are the Greens, Libertarians, or Communists.
I rely on me to provide for me. Government isn't about compassion either. It's about control. We've pretty much abandoned the intent of the constitution. The federals were never supposed to have this much power. I think it's time for the States to step up and take some of this power away from them.
The 1950s called, they want their red scare back.
Seriously though, you need to get a grip. People who are ill are by definition less able than those around them. Why should it fall to them to help themselves? Do you actually just strive for the destruction of society? If so, there's a group of people in the Middle East who'd love to hear from you.
We have national healthcare in the UK, and, having had both parents working within it for 25 years apiece, it's not slavery. Are the police slaves? The fire department? Your logic is flawed.
Laukei
You can start by explaining how a multi-trillion dollar government program is going to make things better. Perhaps, you can cite the dozens or perhaps hundreds of other programs the government has run that efficiently made things better?
Sigh.
Has it occcurred to you that the argument implicit in your questions, the One Argument To Rule Them All (or, to use Ronald Reagan's words, "Government is the problem"), is not an argument at all? It's an idealogy. And one that's been gradually discredited since the 1980s, and especially so of late.
That said, the following quotation should address your questions about governemnts programs that run efficiently or make things better:
Credits to the orginal poster or writer.
The "federals" also allowed slavery when the constitution was written. The point of it is that it can be changed through amendments as changing times require changing purpose. Wrongs that couldn't originally be righted can through time be resolved.
The adults know that you can't fix the problems of a mostly government-controlled mess by making it fully government-controlled. Keynesians are infantile morons.
1. America has a "free" market for health insurance/care
2. America pays more than most Western countries for health insurance/care
3. America gets worse results than most Western countries
4. Most States have one insurer that has >40% of the insurance market
I'd like to hear your theory on how the current free market de facto monopolies are "a mostly government-controlled mess".
And how those facts, taken together, do not suggest a failure of the current "free" and "competitive" market.
But if you're not actually going to explain your position, don't bother responding.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"Except for every time Keynesian remedies have been tried, you mean?"
WTF?
"The first great depression, the Japanese lost decade, the second great depression that we're heading into right now..."
WTF cubed?
These are examples where Keynsian remedies WERE NOT tried (at first). During the first great depression Keynes has not even formulated keynsianism.
During the 'lost decade' Japan tried the 'fiscal conservatism' policy, by raising the interest rates and stopping the flow of money. So economy ground to a complete halt. Only after many years of low interest rates and various stimulus packages the Japanese economy started to grow again.
You simply don't understand economics.
Wanna to take bet that there will be the second great depression? Say, if in 2 years DOW falls below 7000 for period of more than 1 month then I'll give you 10 grams of gold (or its equivalent in the currency of your choice).
Fuck privacy between you and your health insurer. You have no expectation that your history of leaving open flames unattended be kept from your home insurer, or that your history of reckless driving be kept from your car insurer. If you have an expectation to bill $10K/month in healthcare expenses, I as a fellow premium-payer would expect you to kick a bit more in the pot than I do, since you are certain to pull more out.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
These are examples where Keynsian remedies WERE NOT tried (at first).
What's your next guess?
Most of the "new deal" was continuation of Hoover's interference in the economy. Hoover was the secretary of the treasury in 1920, and he was incensed that he wasn't allowed to interfere in the depression of 1920 (which was over in about a year and a half). When the crash of 1929 came on, he got to try out all of his clever "progressive" ideas and turn the crash into an unmitigated disaster. Roosevelt then dragged it out for the rest of his life.
We didn't get out of the first great depression until 1946, when a million men were released from military service, the federal budget was cut by 2/3, and most of Hoover and Roosevelt's insane economic policies were lifted.
During the 'lost decade' Japan tried the 'fiscal conservatism' policy, by raising the interest rates and stopping the flow of money.
No, the Japanese government refused to let failed banks go out of business. They poured money into them, just as the congress did in the TARP program.
You simply don't understand economics.
Project much?
Keynes didn't understand economics, either. He understood how to curry favor with politicians by lending an air of "scientific" justification to their power-grabbing. He was the Lysenko of economics.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This is how I would fix the problems:
1.Eliminate company health plans (the providers of these plans have little to no incentive to offer any actual benefits to the employees as the companies cant change to someone better due to lock-in contracts and the huge costs of changing, nor can the employees generally switch without paying a lot more)
2.Give every citizen a certain amount of tax-free money they can use to buy health insurance. i.e. the first $x of their health insurance costs are tax free. This makes up for the loss of company health plans (which are generally tax free)
3.Make it super-easy for people to switch to another health provider anytime they choose without penalty (i.e. if they switch to a similar plan from a different provider, the new provider cant suddenly deny coverage for all your pre-existing conditions just because you switched providers)
4.All health care providers must charge the same amount for the same treatment no matter who is paying. If a hospital charges $2000 for a procedure to one person, they must charge the same $2000 to everyone who gets the procedure (no matter if its the government via medicare, a large health plan, a small insurance company, an individual paying out of pocket or whatever else). Obviously they can increase the price anytime they want but again they need to charge the same new price to everyone
5.Take away all incentives for doctors and hospitals and others to order "unnecessary" tests (including a reform of medical malpractice law so that lawyers cant argue "I sue the hospital for $$$$$ for failing to carry out when carrying out would have saved my clients life/heart/kidney/good looks/whatever")
6.Remove any laws and red tape that make it harder to start up a health fund. Making it easier to run one (and reducing the administrative costs) may encourage new players into the market who offer better value much the same as what companies like Jet Blue did for air travel)
7.Remove any rules/laws/etc that in any way restrict what health insurance companies are allowed to offer coverage for. If an insurance company wants to offer coverage for prescription glasses (for example), they should be allowed to do so.
8.Low income earners and the poor (who cant afford health insurance) would get subsidized cover. Not government run cover but money from the government paid to the individual to cover part or all of their health insurance costs
9.Health insurance companies would be banned from doing deals with specific hospitals or doctors (i.e. "you will only get coverage if you go to OUR hospital"). Further to this, companies that own health insurers would be prohibited from owning any operation involved in the provision of health care (e.g. hospitals, drug companies, medical equipment makers etc). Also, Health insurance companies would be banned from dictating treatment terms to doctors (i.e. if you want us to give coverage for this heart operation, you will do it the way we specify)
and 10.Health insurance companies would be required to disclose upfront how much they will pay on a given treatment before the treatment is carried out and they must pay up. No more cases of saying one thing before you go into hospital and then changing their mind and denying payment AFTER the patient has racked up the big medical bills.
I'm not going to do a bulleted rebuttal of the programs, but I will say that for any inefficiencies or problems, I cannot imagine life if they were controlled by private interests, which is what we are talking about; if healthcare is on the level of roads, schools, and mail, and should be at least available to anyone who needs it.
"Just off the top of my head. I don't know why many people so love the idea of being under the finger of faceless bureaucrats and Congresscritters"
Because it is at least marginally better than being under unelected CEOs and millions of nameless managers and directors, whose only goal in life is to suck more money out of the economy for their own gain.
"even pretend to let you have a say in what they do (see people like Rep Eric Massa (D-NY) who said he will vote for the health care bill even if his constituents don't support it)"
They elected a democrat, fully aware of what that would probably mean. Cry me a river.
"over having an elected business (you vote with your dollars)"
Yeah, I'll vote with my dollars when I have none, penniless because my job went over to China. I'll vote with my dollar when every choice in town is a member of the same cartel, just like ISPs, phone companies. I'll vote with my dollars when no one wants it, because of a condition that makes me "not worth" selling to. I'll vote with my dollars when my coverage is dropped because I wasn't quite as profitable as the guy next door, and profits had to be raised this quarter.
Yeah, my dollars may be powerful, but how about my voice instead? How about the other things the founders of the country gave me?
"with at least some ovresight (government, you, interest groups, etc)"
That is really the issue here, isn't it? The government putting in some oversight, and the fat cats not liking it one bit. So your argument is at best paradoxical; at worst, hypocritical.
"so you're giving me a free house, a $50-100k salary, a vehicle, etc too right?"
Ever hear of unemployment, social security? Probably; those are evil socialist systems designed to rob you of your hard earned money, too..
"where France has people rioting because they can't get jobs"
Right on topic.
"sick to get needed health services"
You mean like the vast majority of those with "pre-existing conditions" in the US? I'd say they are probably still better off than us!
"Didn't we fight a war to separate ourselves from Europe so that they couldn't dictate our way of life to us?"
There is the spirit! The not-made-here, blindly nationalistic spirit that permeates US politics. Because at one time we had a war with them, no matter what they do, we are superior and should do things even when they are proven to be wrong just to avoid being like them.
Is it any wonder why we are quickly headed towards third world status?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yup, everyone likes the freedom to get sick and die at the whim of big business that desperately wants to find any way not to cover you when you need it.
The poor, of course, also don't deserve to live. They're free.
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of
Energy.
[Electricity was generated before there was a public monopoly. Most electric power is still generated by private companies. I own stock in many utility companies. You don't think government involvement degrades the efficient generation and delivery of power?]
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal
water utility.
[Local government is greatly preferred over federal government. Water was clean before government got involved.]
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated
channels
[What exactly has the FCC done for you?]
to see what the National Weather Service of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was
going to be like,
[These are very small government organizations linked to one of the legitimate functions of government - provide for the common defense]
using satellites designed, built, and launched by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[There are more private satellites than public. NASA doesn't design anything. Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed, and Boeing, and raytheon design and build satellites to meet Nasa specifications.]
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of
Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined
as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
[USDA is one of the most dysfunctional government agencies. It does not inspect a statistically significant amount of food, and it is horribly inefficient at regulating drugs.]
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept
accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
U.S. Naval Observatory, [provide for the common defense]
I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-approved automobile [what is better because it is "approved"?]
and set out to work on the roads build ...
by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation,
[Local and state are one thing. The federal highway system has been a mixed blessing]
possibly
stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency, [Think about that one for a moment]
using legal tender issued by the Federal
Reserve Bank. [for which a constitutional amendment was required and which was complicit in every financial scandal since inception.] On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be
sent out via the U.S. Postal Service [Shining example right there] and drop the kids off at the public
school. [Another shining example]
Clown comments like that are why libertarianism will always be a joke philosophy, confined entirely to Internet conspiracy theorists and anti-social hillbillies.
Remember all that Ron Paul crap that infested the Internet all the way up to the last election? You'd have thought the absolute trashing of their candidate would have silenced the Randroids, but they're back like a really stubborn weed.
Real adults realise the benefit of society and the welfare state over 'fuck you got mine' anarchy. Libertarians want to turn the US into Brazil, or Victorian England. Maybe they should re-open the workhouses, or is that too much government interference?
The point of it is that it can be changed through amendments as changing times require changing purpose.
Yes, if the government cared at all about the rule of law, they'd be trying to amend the constitution to permit this kind of blatant power-grab. The problem is that the people let FDR get away with all kinds of things that should have gotten him hanged, and now the power-grabbers see no need to even consider the constitutionality of anything they want to do.
When someone asked Pelosi where in the constitution the authority for this monstrosity could be found, she asked "are you serious?", and then fobbed the question off with the old commerce clause excuse. The commerce clause exists to prevent the states from erecting trade barriers against each other, not to give the federal government authority over anything and everything that is bought or sold. If the commerce clause gave that kind of power, then the rest of the constitution would be moot.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
that's great, until you can't, or otherwise fail to. Then what?
Then we all have to deal with you, one way or another. Most of us have decided we're not ok with letting people die on the streets, or more accurately we have to deal with people who are faced with either dying on the streets OR doing other stuff that is unpleasant to others to avoid dying in the streets. Such as fraud, theft, murder, etc.
it would be great if, having failed to provide for yourself and all of your needs (including health care no one can afford), you just would decently wander off and shoot yourself in the head so as not to cause any more problems for anyone. Oddly though, that's not what people DO when they are faced with either bad luck or the results of their own bad decisions. No, they typically try to survive by any means necessary.
and if they fail, I am STILL not ok with watching them die in the streets. I guess I'm just one of those frail, lily-livered human beings, who thinks maybe the world is improved by reducing desperation as much as possible. There are downsides to that as well, but none as bad as the alternative.
And that's the rub, isn't it. Even the UK, with its hybrid system, shows far better universal results than the US. The US is pretty much a half a century behind the rest of the industrialized world, and yet what's the arguments I'm seeing here against it? Ayn Rand? Keynes was a moron? The Constitution is shredded? The rest of the First World is watching the US with their jaws on the ground.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The infant mortality statistic has a lot of things that affect it and make it appear much worse in the U.S. than it really is, if you actually read the scientific literature on the topic, such as the CDC's infant mortality data rather than just regurgitating propaganda. First, not all industrialized countries even calculate infant mortality the same way. Secondly, American doctors are much more likely to deliver the infant in a pre-term threatened pregnancy, while in Europe they are more likely to not intervene and the fetus is miscarried. A delivered infant that dies counts in the stats, while a miscarriage generally does not. The U.S. has the some of the lowest pre-term infant mortality rates in the world according to the literature, but that fact is certainly NOT being publicized. Yes, term infant mortality rate could use a little work here, but some of the biggest risk factors for that one are solved culturally (i.e. reducing the number of teen pregnancies, which are correlated with higher infant mortality rates) rather than medically.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
I'm Canadian, and while a lot of health care delivery is Provincially delivered, it's not that different up here. While we don't yet have a "fat" tax, per se, we do have high taxes on cigarettes. I'm in British Columbia, and drugs are covered to some percentage for seniors or those of low income. However there is a cap so that if I, for instance, were to get cancer or HIV, once my med costs hit a ceiling (I think for me it's something like $2000 or $3000 a year), the government would begin subsidizing me (there is also a provision for applying for disaster coverage if you have to take very expensive drugs for life-threatening conditions).
I'll say this about our system. It isn't perfect. There tend to be a lot more backlogs, particularly for the less medically-necessary procedures (ie. orthopedic surgeries). There is provisioning based on need. But when my wife got thyroid cancer in 2006 around the same time I lost my job, I didn't lose the house we had just bought. She was diagnosed in April of that year and had a thyroidectomy in June. She is alive and well three years later.
The system works, not always as well as I'd like, but I absolutely shiver at the thought of being in the US during that period.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Once the government is paying for your health care, they can pretty much mandate what you eat, what you smoke, what you drink, how long you live, etc. Hey, the repercussions of "bad" behavior are on their nickel, right?
Funny you mention that. We have universal health care up here in Canada, and last time I checked, we can still buy cigarettes and unhealthy food, we can buy alcohol at a younger age than you can, and anything that is controlled as illegal (e.g. marijuana) is only illegal because of pressure the freedom-loving Americans.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
You are trying to make it seem as if Congress has no power to do anything other than that which is explicitly granted in the Constitution, which is comically untrue.
So what the hell does the 10th Amendment mean, then?:
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.
The Virginia Resultion of 1798, written by James Madison (the main author of the Constitution and the author of the Bill of Rights, including the 10th amendment) says:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Plus, the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson says this:
"Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Is that why American women are 11 times more likely to die in childbirth than a woman in Ireland? Too much giving birth while driving?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace