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.
Dude, get a clue !!! The bill has no provision that the recipient of health care be a legal resident. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, unwelcome aliens will take full advantage of the U.S. taxpayers. The bill does nothing to streamline the payment process which now sucks up a huge amount of premiums. The bill does not limit the insurance companies from denying coverage for any damned thing. True, they can't deny selling you a policy, but that policy can have lots of loopholes to deny specific conditions. There is no mention of tort reform. That alone is the main reason that many doctors and hospitals are going out of business in my state. This nightmare does not really improve our health care system. There are so many other provisions that could have been enacted to make the system better. Do you see any limitations on Big Pharma in this bill? Neither do I. I am in favor of an improved health system. This bill is not even close to an improvement.
Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
I'm of the opinion that even the current system of private coverage is fundamentally a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality. You've got these insurance companies just itching to monetize any piece of data they can get from their paying customers, such that the half-assed nature of HIPAA really provides no assurance that your medical information won't be used in one way or another that is ultimately against your well-being.
The only way to be sure your information (any info, not just medical records) won't be systematically abused is to make sure it isn't entered into a file or a database in the first place. Unfortunately, there seems to be a real focus on doing just the opposite with these healthcare changes - some sort of magical computer worshipping cargo cult thing where too many people think that if they can just get all our personal info into a database it will be the best thing since sliced bread. I'm tired of sacrificing privacy for the promise of increased efficiency and convenience and I am doubly tired of those promises failing to pan out in the long run. But that's exactly what I expect is going to happen here too.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Considering only around 12 million US citizens aren't covered today (4%) (the same that isn't covered in this bill) it seems all that happened is Government took further control of the system.
Just my prediction, but I think it will be taken to court and ruled unconstitutional (since the court is still majority conservative)
The issue is that many people won't buy health insurance until they need it. That fundamentally breaks the model because insurance depends on having a pool of healthy people paying but not costing anything. The legislation kind of makes up for that by forcing everybody to buy health insurance (with threats of jail or heavy fines if they don't), but ultimately that will screw poor people who don't have money to buy it.
Do you have ESP?
Because the value of some people to society cannot be predicted before the fact, or may even take generations to become obvious. Steven Hawking is a classic example - even though he was hilariously misused during this debate - his motor neurone disease would have caused him to be considered a huge 'burden' during his childhood, and he is clearly someone who cannot produce enough for society to afford his care, unless you take into account the huge contribution he has made to cosmology and the implications that will have for future generations as his contributions to our understanding of the physical universe move from the theoretical to the concrete and produce new inventions and new fields of study, some of which I am sure will result in improved healthcare for others.
You don't need to run for office, just pledge your vote to any candidate that promises to vote against each and every bill that he or she has not read and understood in its entirety, and get a large number of people to do the same. I can think of very few cases where passing a bad law is preferable to not passing any law.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Except in this case, measurements of consumption and production are very obscure.
People will 'consume' healthcare when they go to the hospital or see a doctor. Yes, there is a small hypochondriac percentage of the population that will abuse this privilege, but for the most part, people will only go to the hospital when they are sick. I can't imagine wanting to disrupt my schedule to go sit in a waiting room just because I don't have to pay for it. That's absurd.
The population becomes more productive as a whole when they don't have to worry about the day-to-day problems of food and shelter. It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
If the default state of people was "sick," then yes: they can certainly consume more healthcare than they produce. For an example of this, consider the disabled and the elderly. However, the default state of most of the population is "healthy." This means that when you do get sick, treatment can be had and you can return to your default, healthy (productive) state quicker. If you're sick, and your insurance doesn't cover your condition, you can't return to work until you've had it treated. If you can't afford treatment, then you're an unproductive member of society, no matter how badly you want to get back to work.
This is why nationalized healthcare works. Everyone pays taxes to support the health care system, but not everyone is sick all the time. When you are sick (on occasion), the taxes you have paid and that others have paid cover your costs. When you are healthy (most of the time), you're providing the same safety net that you enjoy to everyone else. And before everyone screams "socialism," note that socialism is not all bad. Military, fire, police, community centres, libraries: all of these are iconic images of American life, and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually, if not immediately.
You just compared us humans with dogs.
When the people fear their government, it is said to be tyranny. When government fears the people, it is said to be liberty.
That said, I'm in favor of a single payer system, one which even covers dental. But this notion that I'm a servant to my government is going overboard. I won't give up my freedom that was won fair and square in such a manner. I'm not my government's pet. I'm my country's law abiding citizen, and liberty is afoot.
Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
Great threats to the U.S.A: Debt? or U.S. Manufacturing jobs going overseas for the last 4 DECADES? I wonder if one caused the other by any chance? Who got rich from that? Is the U.S debt our own special way of financing the biggest corporations who no longer feel that they have to have any dedication to their home country? Fine blame the government, but then you cast a blind eye to entities much more powerful?
Presumably, in the same way that any other tax evasion will. Does the police force, military, court system, fire brigade etc. enslave people?
The Post Office.
Currently operating at a loss thanks to market inefficiencies, high labor costs and rising prices forcing people to seek other means (why spend 44 cents to mail in my bill when I can do it online for free? Ditto for a letter and whatnot. People use the net more, USPS raises its prices in response, which causes people to use the net more).
Road/Highway System
Falling apart in most states as the money is diverted to other projects. Bridges are collapsing, levies fall down and many federally funded highways are simply falling apart due to neglect and disrepair.
The Coast Guard.
Guarding the borders are a mandated federal responsibility. Shall we consider the many other ways border control is messed up?
The FBI (though some may debate this).
You already admit its debatable, but you list it in your enumeration of government programs done right... I'd say you're reaching
Cash for Clunkers was successful; if it made things BETTER is a bit unclear.
It pushed up sales at a cost of billions of dollars. Those sales won't come over the next few years now, meaning the jobs will dry up anyway. As an added bonus, we took perfectly good used cars off the street, driving up the cost to get to work and the doctor for the working poor, students, etc. Definitely a WONDERFUL program. /cough
Schools.
Seriously? The US has some of the worst schools in the first world despite the fact that it costs significantly more to educate children here.
Just off the top of my head. I don't know why people so love the idea of being under the finger of faceless cartels of multinational companies, who not only make their decisions completely in private, but don't even pretend to let you have a say in what they do, over having an elected government with at least some oversight provide the basic necessities to living a productive life. Why is it we cannot use the same system that has worked just fine for the majority of Europe, when ours has clearly failed?
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 (you know you're 1 of about 650k other faces in the best scenario, right?), who not only make their decisions completely in private (see the closed door meetings on health care), but don't 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), over having an elected business (you vote with your dollars) with at least some ovresight (government, you, interest groups, etc) provide the basic necessities to living a productive life (so you're giving me a free house, a $50-100k salary, a vehicle, etc too right?). Why is it that we cannot use the same system that has worked just fine for the majority of Europe (where France has people rioting because they can't get jobs, the UK tells people that they're too old/sick to get needed health services, etc), when ours has so clearly failed (since adopting more and more European philosophy over the last century)?
Didn't we fight a war to separate ourselves from Europe so that they couldn't dictate our way of life to us?
Stop Koolaid Politics
The interesting thing is that it really will fix nothing. All this did was offer up some competition to Insurance (not necessarily a bad thing), but will fund the indigent, which is mostly Illegal aliens here.
What is really sad is that it had NOTHING TO LOWER COSTS. We are in need of tort reform (how much money is paid out for lawsuits); costs of the docs eduction; costs of the drugs; costs of the hospital; etc.
What is amazing is that the neo-cons passed a monster drug bill to help buy old votes. Part of it required the feds to pay TOP DOLLARS for the drugs. Here is the American gov who passed a bill that would make the US federal gov the single largest buyers of drugs in the world, and the neo-cons forbid negotiations for LOWEST PRICE. This is expected to costs something like 400 BILLION dollars, instead of 50 BILLION over the ten years that it was looked at. This is a nice and easy 350 billion dollars to be save. So, did the dems include that in this bill? Nope. They are leaving us at paying the TOP DOLLARS for this.
I swear, The only thing worse than a GD democrat is an elected republican. The republicans are about pure greed and corrupt. The dems are stupid. America is in serious trouble.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
OK. Let's bet on inflation-adjusted DOW (using the Nov 1 value as a base), my offer still stands.
I wouldn't lay the blame for any of these at the feet of an executive who lacks the power to do more than sign or veto any such laws. Rather highlight that all of these massive expenditures have been approved by our locally elected members of congress.
Why do we allow incumbents so much lee-way? Why hasn't there been a strict call for term limits from the people? Why do we tolerate gerrymandering? Why are the campaign laws so difficult that one needs the support of a national party in order to run in a local election? What's the magic of '435' members for the house; why do some represent millions while others thousands?
If we want to be mad about anything, it shouldn't be who signed what in the Oval Office. We should be mad that the people who are supposed to represent us don't.
We rank 37th in infant mortality
The US ranks 37th in *reported* infant mortality. The main difference is what is considered a live birth vs. still birth. Most countries don't count it as an infant death if the baby dies within 24 hours of birth, and in countries with less capable neonatal intensive care that happens a lot. Premies simply die and don't get counted, except in the US.
>>>"The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile)
>>>
Correlation is not causation. The reason Americans die young is because they are so damn fat, and die of strokes or heart attacks. THAT is the cause. If Europeans were as fat as Americans they too would die early. Also consider these stats which *are* directly related to the health system:
UK HEALTHCARE WAITING TIMES (note the US wait time is typically 1/2 month)
8 months - cataract surgery
11 months- hip replacement
12 months- knee replacement
5 months - slipped disc
5 months - hernia repair
SOURCE - The BBC, May 2009
PROSTATE 5-YEAR CANCER SURVIVOR RATE
100%- United States
90% - Canada
77% - United Kingdom
*this* is just one example of why people say the U.S. has the best healthcare in the world, because the cure rate is soooo much higher than in countries where care is monopolized by the government. MEP Daniel Hannan said in early August, "The worst thing to be is elderly under the UK Health System..... you will be denied care and left starving in wards."
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You hide that "general welfare" part behind the Interstate Commerce clause in your sentence so well! It almost makes it seem like it has nothing to do with establishing laws that affect the general welfare of the people. I bet a lot of people who read it actually stop and have a wtf? moment, which makes them miss out on those two little important words!
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. It makes me wonder why we don't just fill all 535 seats of Congress with printed copies of the Constitution.
The answer to your question, then, is "never", at least for a legitimate challenge. It may be "challenged" in court, wherein someone will ask that very same question ("where does the Constitution authorize Congress ..."), which is when the judge will probably have the very same response as Mrs. Pelosi.
you run your own health insurance company?
Oh. So I guess you rely on you to provide for you, except when you rely on other people to provide for you.
I don't run my own space program. Or my own race car circuit. Does that mean I'm not providing for me?
And as an aside, anyone and I do mean anyone who doesn't pay insurance is self-insured. In other words, they run their own health insurance company.
Not really, the meaning of "self sufficiency" is fairly clear. "Self sufficiency, apart from the bits where I make use of other people's labour" doesn't really follow.
Since self sufficiency is quite impractical, we devise systems for how to manage the division of labour. Capitalism is one such system, but not the only possible one, and I don't see why making use of a government resource is any less self-sufficient than hiring someone to do a job for you. There's no reason to believe that the outcomes of free market capitalism (which needs government to work in any case) are fundamentally the correct ones in terms of moral worth and rewarding the right people for their contributions - and quite compelling evidence that they aren't. It works fairly well in practice, but that's a different issue entirely.
My medical insurance has recently gone up to $995 per month, now that I have just recently reached the age of 55. That is almost $12,000 per year that I am paying for medical insurance, just for myself. That is with a $1,250 deductible and no dental coverage.
I once tried to switch to a less expensive plan, but Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona would not let me switch. I have never had any significant health problems, other than being somewhat overweight and having very slight high blood pressure. It was only during the last year, that I finally needed to start taking a mild diuretic to lower my slightly high blood pressure. I am a non-smoker in good health who walks 45 minutes per day, wears my seatbelt, and does not eat junk food. Despite that, I need to pay 1/3 of my net take home income (after taxes) on Medical insurance. How much would I have to pay if I had more significant health problems?
I would like to see more willingness for Congress to ignore the lobbyists, and work on the causes of it being so expensive such as tort reform, big pharma, and the insurance industry.
Is this bill going to make my insurance less expensive, or perhaps subsidise my insurance?
Our government is already spending way more than it collects for taxes, so is this something which our country can afford without having to inflate our money supply more or borrow even money from China and elsewhere? I seem to recall Nancy Pelosi claiming that they had found some way to pay for it all. I have not really been following the news closely enough to know about those details.
The constitution says that a black person is only worth 3/5 a white person. What's your point?
We are in two wars that we can't get out of and can't pay for. Medicare and Social Security are two huge bills from generations past that we can't pay for. We have a financial system that is on an unsustainable course and the viability of our currency is in question. The numbers used to estimate the costs of this health bill came from the very people who promote it. It is most likely the same type of bill that we have seen for at least since the DMCA was passed with a voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate.
If anyone really thinks this bill is going to benefit people beyond big pharma, unions, lawyers, Wall Street, K Street, banks, and insurance companies, they're high on crack. It's the same game, same players, bigger steaks.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
The fact of the matter is that NO ONE "NEEDS" health "insurance". You don't go to a hospital to receive health "insurance", you go there to receive health "CARE". Something that if you were the only payer, and were paying for only those materials and "care" you actually receive, would cost about 1/32nd of what it costs now. The reason health care is so expensive is that most facilities exist to MAKE MONEY, and a health insurance company is willing to pay them WAY MORE MONEY THAN YOU CAN AFFORD!!!!! Essentially you are being priced out of the ability to pay for health "care" by your direct competition...health insurance companies. In my mind, doing something about this makes way more sense than making the Federal government the recipient of your health insurance payments.
-Oz
I'm happy they are here, but they followed the proper procedure of filling-out a Visa. Anyone who does not follow that procedure should (IMHO) be jailed and deported, the same way you arrest an intruder you find in your living room. The intruder does not belong.
I hope you never find yourself in a desparate situation in which you have to leave your family and travel accross the globe in dangerous conditions to try to make them some money because they are living in misery or in a war torn situation. It is easy to sit back and judge people from your comfortable computer. But the reality is that many "illegal" immigrants would much rather stay home with their family and children then go away in dangerous conditions to try to get their family out of misery.
I know several people in this situation. Even "legal" immigrants. They rather stay home with their families. The problems that cause people to take these desparate steps go beyond stupid local legislation in the US. And the dumb little laws people set or don't set in the US don't have a great effect over this. However, working with other countries to improve the situation back home and recognizing the importance of immigrants to the US economy (even guest workers) is a step to releiving the conditions that cause this problem.
Americans are fortunate to live in a country were hard work is rewarded. That is not the case in a lot of Latin American countries and other countries around the world where people face prejudice because of social class. Just as most US citizens came to the country escaping unfair or disadvantageous conditions back home, current illegal immigrants do so as well.