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.

Comments

What's in it?

[serps]

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history.

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!

Re:What's in it?

[Igarden2]

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.

Re:What's in it?

[Igarden2]

I forgot to mention the ultimate hypocrisy in this bill. Every member of the legislature is exempt from the bill. They have their own luxury system that is fully paid for by the taxpayers for life.

Re:What's in it?

[Trailer Trash]

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.

Re:What's in it?

[pla]

Pre-existing conditions is a wonderful way of saying that none of your previous doctors noticed it so we're not paying either.

Come again?

Preexisting conditions mean exactly the opposite of that - It means you did have the condition diagnosed before getting your current run of uninterrupted insurance coverage. The original idea behind such clauses actually had some merit - You couldn't skip out on having insurance, find out you have cancer, then get insurance solely to pay for your treatment.

Of course, the insurance companies, interested solely in profit rather than patient outcomes (hey, I hate them as much as anyone, but won't fault them (just) for doing exactly what they exist to do - Make money), discovered they could use this not just for acute conditions, but to deny treatment for things like diabetes or the standard cardiac cocktails most older males take, based on nothing more than the fact that you went one day too long without coverage between jobs.

But if no doctor ever diagnosed your condition, consider yourself good to go. Now, we do have some grey area here... If you had an X-Ray for a broken arm ten years ago, and it has a fuzzy patch near your current tumor, well, the insurance companies have whole teams of people looking for just such meaningless data as an excuse to deny benefits.

Re:What's in it?

[MrKaos]

Regardless of protestations to the contrary, unwelcome aliens will take full advantage of the U.S. taxpayers.

Isn't that what U.S citizen do to Canada now? and wasn't America built on immigrant labor?

The bill does not limit the insurance companies from denying coverage for any damned thing.

Seems to me insurance company profits would be better spent on just providing health care.

What happened to the nice America that looked after all her children?

Re:What's in it?

[Martin Blank]

I thought it was interesting that Associated Press published an article recently on the profits of the health insurance industry, something railed against persistently by various politicians. They found that the usual average profit margin for health insurance companies was 6%, and last year it was only 2%. From 2003 to 2008, the growth in their costs exceeded the growth in their profits.

But then, as the article itself notes, no one seems interested in the actual facts of the debate.

Re:What's in it?

[fredjh]

Yes... and then that gets back to pre-existing conditions.

You don't get in a car accident and THEN buy insurance expecting them to cover it. You're supposed to have insurance BEFORE something happens.

All this (requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions) does is encourage people to wait.

Re:What's in it?

[commodore64_love]

Under the old system there were only 8 million citizens (key word) that were not already covered by existing government programs (medicare, schip) or private insurance (typically provided by the employer). The 42 million number that keeps getting cited is pure propaganda, includes ten million illegal non-citizens, was derived from a mail-in postcard, and therefore highly inaccurate. The number was derived non-scientifically, and you can not trust it.

Under the new system, families will be fined ~$2500 for not buying an insurance plan. The last thing a poor person or a laid-off person needs is another major bill. That's completely outrageous. Furthermore it takes away the freedom of choice. And what's next? Will Congress start fining people because they choose not to buy a hybrid car? Once the legal precedent is set, there's no limit to their power to control what we buy or don't buy.

I will not pay. Congress can shove that fine up its marble ass.

Re:What's in it?

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:What's in it?

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020. Mr. Frank probably won't be there on that date, but that's the roadmap the Democrats have laid-out. They want the US to have a UK-style government monopoly.

Re:What's in it?

[_LORAX_]

Not necessarily. "Pre-eisting condition" means ANYTHING in your hisotry that may make you at higher risk.

Were you raped and put on anti-virals just in case, no coverage for the pre-existing condition of 'possible aids'.

Had some interesting test run in the past few years, no coverage for the unknown chance you pose.

Need glasses, no or higher coverage for your pre-existing eye condition of eye problems.

Diabetic, you are out of luck for your needed supplies.

Pre-existing condition is currently used as a blanket denial for anything they decide, in their own discretion, might pose a risk to their profits.

Re:What's in it?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Isn't that what U.S citizen do to Canada now?

Uh... no. Canadian hospitals ask for ID, and if you wave a US license the hospital will refuse to serve you. The only exception is in cases of emergency (like a car accident), in which case the American will be handed a bill.

>>>wasn't America built on immigrant labor?

LEGAL immigrant labor. Illegals that were rejected at Ellis Island were sent back home. We have the right to control who enters our land, just the same as you can stop me from walking into your living room.

Re:What's in it?

[bennomatic]

Illegal aliens: This is a non-issue, made up to inflame the ignorant. The right way to deal with illegal aliens is through immigration law reform.

Streamlining the payment process: I thought that 40 years of private industry handling this--y'know, competition--would have solved this! If you think there was resistance to the bill as it is, imagine what it would have been like if Congress had told private companies how to change their business processes.

Denying coverage: Thank you Republicans.

Tort reform: Whatever. This accounts for a teeny, tiny portion of health care costs. It's highlighted by right-wingers, but you could eliminate all unjust lawsuits and you'd be saving pennies.

It could have been so much better: True, but the opposition mob has been focused on stopping any change, and they're a loud and angry bunch.

Re:What's in it?

[Eskarel]

The problem with that is that in the US system, if you're unemployed, unless you're also independently wealthy, you almost certainly will not be able to afford to maintain your insurance premiums. Self insurance is insanely expensive, most employed people wouldn't be able to cover it.

This means that if John Smith is covered by his parents till hi finishes college, gets a job works hard and pays his premiums for 20 years, and then gets cancer and can't work(and therefor can't continue to make his insurance payments) he's screwed. If he passes that time limit and they're allowed to call it a pre-existing condition no HMO will cover him.

It's one thing to say you can't get in a car accident and then get insurance to cover it, that's perfectly fair. It's another to say that because you lost your job, or your husband or wife lost their job through no fault of their own that you're not going to be covered even if you paid premiums your whole life.

There are some pretty easy ways to solve patients rorting the system anyway. You can either make coverage mandatory and pay for it with taxes(which is what we do for our public health insurance here in Australia) or you can put a waiting period for hospital cover(which is what we do on our private insurance).

The US pays an absolutely extraordinary amount for health insurance, far more per capita than pretty much any other nation in the world. Which is pretty damned impressive when you consider how many people in the country are uninsured. If you took all that money that everyone is paying, and pumped it into a public system, like the one which pretty much every western nation in the world other than the US has and runs reasonably successfully, you could have a top notch system with great coverage for everyone without anyone paying one dime extra. You could probably distribute the costs better and get some better efficiency and offer a great system and cut the expenditures it costs an awful lot to run an HMO after all, not even counting profits.

That won't happen of course since the US is so desperately afraid of actually letting their government do anything actually productive with their tax dollars like actually offering halfway decent public services and would much rather pay for guns or bailing out wall street millionaires, but at the least this new system might not screw over people who just have bad luck.

Re:What's in it?

[Anpheus]

Actually, the health insurance exchanges are very similar to the federal health plans. All federal employees are given a choice of option and able to pick what benefits they consider most affordable. Everyone in federal government gets these options.

In addition, the government, being so large, has been able to negotiate terms like bans on "pre-existing conditions" out of many of the contracts, for the benefit of all federal employees.

So, basically, this health insurance bill gives we, the people, the same health insurance options they have. That all federal employees have. And it gives us their protections, and potentially a public option in states where the local monopoly or duopoly has control of the market.

How horrible.

Re:What's in it?

[internic]

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.

On what basis are you concluding that? A quick look suggests that a good estimate of the poor (by official poverty line) in the US is 39 million, while the illegal immigrant population may be something around 11 million. That says that at the most about a quarter of the poor are illegal immigrants, and that's assuming that all illegal immigrants are poor (which isn't strictly true, though I don't know how far off it is). In any case, the bill bars illegal immigrants from getting aid in buying health insurance, although it remains to be seen how that would be enforced.

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.

While the situation with malpractice suits may be unreasonable, it's probably not a major contributor to health care costs. It sounds plausible on the surface that it would be, but apparently the total expenditure on malpractice insurance is less than $7 billion per year, which is totally dwarfed by total healthcare spending (something like $2.5 trillion). The cost of doctors practicing defensive medicine is, of course, harder to pin down, but it sounds like most studies still peg it as small. In any case, the CBO is estimating the savings on healthcare spending from malpractice award caps at 0.5%. I think this gets talked about a lot by politicians because it sounds plausible, there are some legitimate problems with malpractice suits, and, most importantly, people making malpractice claims are a convenient scapegoat since most of us won't ever be one or probably even know one.

In terms of the other costs I agree, though. We pay an absurd amount for drugs and a lot more for medical procedures than most other developed democracies. I'm not certain of all of the reasons for that, but the most likely major reason is that in most of those places the government collectively bargins with providers on behalf of all citizens, setting prices for drugs and medical procedures (even in many countries where insurance is still provided by private companies, like Japan and Germany). You can certainly debate the merits of such a system, but its one indisputable advantage is cheap prices.

...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 don't know what the will was among the Democrats to change the rules on drug purchasing by the government, but I'm sure that even those who supported it would not have lobbied for inclusion in this bill only because this bill had uncertain prospects in the first place, so adding something else potentially controversial probably would have killed it. It's bad strategy. If they want to make that change, it should come in a different bill.

Re:What's in it?

[Macthorpe]

The young college-aged British woman who had a family history of cervical cancer, and tried to get a PAP smear, would probably disagree with you. Why? Because at ages 21, 22, 23 they refused to give her the PAP screening for early detection/prevention.

A policy that has now changed because of that exact instance. Are you honestly saying that a US insurance provider would have provided her insurance? And that if they hadn't and this had happened, that their policy would have changed one iota? Shall we compare this one high-profile incident of a failure in a government-sponsored healthcare system against the hundreds of thousands of people who have been denied medical insurance in the US for exactly that reason? Do you honestly believe that the free-market would force insurance companies to insure people with a high-risk of cancer against cancer?

(according to MEP Daniel Hannan).

Daniel Hannan is a liar, then.

A government monopoly is no better than one run by Microsoft, Comcast, or Exxon. It still takes-away choice.

If you don't understand the difference, then there's no helping you.

Re:What's in it?

[WindBourne]

On what basis are you concluding that? A quick look suggests that a good estimate of the poor (by official poverty line) in the US is 39 million, while the illegal immigrant population may be something around 11 million. That says that at the most about a quarter of the poor are illegal immigrants, and that's assuming that all illegal immigrants are poor (which isn't strictly true, though I don't know how far off it is). In any case, the bill bars illegal immigrants [factcheck.org] from getting aid in buying health insurance, although it remains to be seen how that would be enforced.

First, that poverty line INCLUDES ALL PPL LIVING HERE. That means citizens, legal immigrants and illegal aliens. Second, most of the #s for illegals in the states show 15-30 million, not the low 11 million that you claim.
Second, we have a law that says that no alcohol will be served to 21 and under. BUT, what happens if all the bars are told to NOT check IDs. That is the same situation that is happening. When you can not check the legal status of a person, then the law is worthless (and the dems know that). All that is required is to simply require hospitals to call in ICE for every person that does not have insurance or public options, and require a legality check on ppl signing up for public options, but the dems fought that (i did notice that pubs have not pushed it either; IMHO, they are worse then dems since they claim to be against illegals, while dems claim to love them).

ANY reform on medical costs is worth it. several OB-GYN and and an anesthesiologist that I know (none with any previous issues) are paying over 100K/year for malpractice. That is outrageous.

I can see you point on the last one, except that all who are fighting against this bill are the same idiots that will fight against the lowering of the drugs costs. IOW, it should not change the situation.

Keep in mind that the Senate is not likely to pass this monster. Personally, I do not think that it should be passed, unless we really lower medical costs. And nothing in this does.

Re:What's in it?

[RiotingPacifist]

Why are bills so big and all encompassing?

Somebody should demand they be split up and be resubmitted as individual patches!

Re:What's in it?

[CrimsonAvenger]

It'd be a shame to make the bill comprehensive and have it tied up in wrangling for the next 8 years.

If the bill, as written, were signed into law by Obama tomorrow, it wouldn't take effect till 2013.

Given that four year delay, I'm not sure I really see that they needed to hurry the bill through. And yes, voting late Saturday evening is attempting to hurry the bill through - the House doesn't work weekends any more often than the rest of America.

Re:What's in it?

[Rick17JJ]

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.

Re:What's in it?

[TrekkieGod]

You forgot to read the part where it says the SCOTUS is the supreme arbiter of constitutionality. If congress does it, and the Supreme Court says it's okay, then it's defacto constitutional, so says the constitution.

Yeah...I don't remember much at all from my High School US History / US Government classes, but I do remember some of the major stuff. This would be one of them: the Constitution has no clauses that specify the right to judicial review, and this right was established only years after in the Marbury v. Madison case.

Not that I'm saying I'm against judicial review. Somebody has to do it, and the judicial branch doesn't really have a strong role in the "Checks and Balances" philosophy without it. However, it's not a function specifically outlined in the constitution.

Re:What's in it?

[squiggleslash]

That's an almost-exact quote from Congressman Barney Frank's mouth

By "an almost exact" you mean "not", pretty much by definition.

Here's the bad news for all those who think as you do: if the Democrats wanted single payer healthcare, they could do it in a heartbeat. It would actually be easier than the travesty of a half-assed "reform" they're doing at the moment. All they have to do is extend Medicare to cover everyone.

Think that's hard? Think again: the votes would be there in Congress, and they wouldn't need Lieberman's vote in the Senate, as the proposal is easily shoved through via reconciliation, something that'll be harder with the Public Option.

The problem is the Democrats are too big a bunch of wusses to actually do what needs to be done with the country's healthcare system. They're scared of not being seen to appeal to the whole country, they're scared of the big bad "Socialism" word.

Trust me, if the Public Option were a "first step" towards something the Democrats really want, the Democrats wouldn't need to bother. They don't want what you want.

BTW, why do you wingnuts have a problem with forcing illegal immigrants to pay for their healthcare? Right now, anyone who's here illegally just needs to go to the emergency room and can get out of the country (indeed, have the INS pay for the airfare!) without the hospitals being able to claw a penny back. Now a law change is proposed where, like everyone else, they have to pay for health insurance, and you're up in arms about that? WTF?

Re:What's in it?

[Omestes]

I should also add that the "public option" is, according to Congressman Barney Frank, just step one. He was caught on camera saying that healthcare will be completely taken-over by government circa 2020

I love how people bandy this sort of statement around like everyone will find it some a priori bad thing, it just shows that the user really does think that everyone thinks exactly like him, and never took the time out to consider that other have views different than his own. These people also, generally, believe their views just as much as the person making the statement, and generally have as long a list of evidence/opinion/etc... as to why they believe the opposite (i.e., they feel just as justified).

Its the same story as people on the right dismissing things (or worse, people) as "socialist", expecting me to feel some innate Joe McCarthy-esque reptilian dread, where my actually response is more along the lines of "so what, why is that bad?". Appearently I'm not a good American, I'd like a reason to oppose things, and not just some sound bite opposed to a 1 dimensional party slogan that some portion of the public hold to be gospel. Give the people REASONS why having a government option is bad. I personally don't think that the government handling something is in-itself a bad thing, that bit of doubleplus good conservative group-think never infected me. I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants, so I find it hard to buy that having the government in charge of something is a bad thing just because the government is involved. I'd rather be a reasonable citizen and take it on a case by case basis, even if it involves violating tenets that some portion of the population hold as sacred dogma.

To be honest, I'm more suspicious of all things that smell like dogma, or unflinching conviction of the truth of some proper-noun ideology, or mere idealism. Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.

To me I'm completely against the current health-care bills, since they don't go far enough. I don't really care about capitalism or socialism (both are nothing more than means towards and end, and not the ends itself), I don't think that insurance companies have the "right" to make money (or anyone, actually, profit is not a right, and should not be protected), I don't think I have the obligation to give them money either (hence my opposition of the current bill). If it served the greater good of individuals, I'd see all insurance companies die, gladly. If it increased the health of myself, and my country men, I'd support a government run option, if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed. I'd gladly trade the health of the people for the bottom line of some multi-billion dollar corporation.

  Though we must get rid of some FUD here. You realize that all of these evil socialist countries with public healthcare still have private doctors and insurance, right? The idea of a public plan, and private coverage are not mutually exclusive. You realize that having a private practice, or having independent insurance isn't illegal in the UK right? Hell, even if it was, who cares, as long as it works?

I'm not sure, though, that a decent, logical, comprehensive, and rational case has been made either way, though. As the bill stands, right now, I don't think it should pass, and yes, the liberal group-think annoys me as much, or more, than the libertarian/conservative flavor.

Also, so we should let that mere 8 million people suffer? Who cares, they are a minority. Seriously, its hard to make a case stating "but it only helps 8 million people", 8 million is a VERY large value of "only". Also, you should provide some evidence on how this is going to waste money on our umpteen million illegal immigrants, even while the bill (both versions) state explicitly that it only applies to citizens. Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.

Re:What's in it?

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Legal immigrant labor. I got it that illegal immigration is a problem. So if we have the power to topple Saddam Hussein to make Iraq a better place to live, then we can do the same thing to Mexico so that people will want to stay there and earn a living.

Re:What's in it?

[falconwolf]

Then deny the illegal aliens that to which they are not entitled. People dó have to identify at the hospital, don't they? Do not let the legit US population suffer.

I've been hit riding my bike, which does not require a license, and was rushed to the hospital. Once I was unconscious and another tyme I was in a coma. Now would you require me to identify myself in order to get medical care? How would I do that when I'm in a coma? Would you require people to always carry their papers, Papers please?

Either you haven't thought this through or you don't care.

I'm not and never have been a US resident, also and like most /.-ers I'm not an expert on insurance systems: what would you suggest should be done to have fixed the old system?

Allow people to go across state lines to buy insurance. Right now each state can say who can and can not sell insurance in that state, I can not go across a state line and buy insurance in another state which may have lower insurance premiums. In other words there is no competition. Another thing, in the US most people who have health insurance get it through their employers. Those employers get tax deductions for offering insurance. If I buy my own insurance I do not get those tax deductions though. So, there is no free market. Quite simply, if controlling health care costs is the goal then what will work is to allow a free market.

Falcon

Re:What's in it?

[ev0l]

I am an American living in Canada with a legal permit. I have been here 4 years working and paying taxes. I am completely ineligible for Provincial insurance. I pay for my own insurance (I am required by law) and I am extremely limited to who I can see. An American in Canada, with out insurance, would simply be turned away unless it was an extreme emergency situation. The inverse in not true. Canadians, who can afford it, go over the border for medical services that are difficult to come by in Canada.

The health services in Canada are not as good for the average Canadian as the health services in America are for the average American. It seams to me that most Canadians don't care as much about the quality of care as they do that everyone receives the same care. As long as those people are not new immigrants of excluded types.

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ohip/eligibility.html

   

Re:What's in it?

[VirginMary]

Actually I was sick frequently when I still lived there and even spent some time in the hospital. All I ever here from people here, is how insurance companies deny claims and the huge amounts of co-pays. Also I have to pay $50 in co-pays for my meds every month while in Germany it would be capped at 10 euros irrespective of total amount. I also still visit Germany every year, watch German news every day and have strong contacts with friends and family over there. Here people constantly live in fear of being bankrupted by a serious illness but not there! And my insurance here is over $500/month of which my employer pays the bulk and yet, I still have to pay $20 every time I see a doctor. This kind of nonsense strongly discourages seeing a doctor especially for poor people which in the long term only increases costs because serious illnesses won't be caught early when they are typically much cheaper to treat. Also, I have never met a German here that didn't think that the health care "system" in the US was a sad joke!

Re:What's in it?

[Macthorpe]

Since government care is so damn wonderful, why is there a need for private car in the UK?

Nobody is saying that the NHS is perfect, or even wonderful. However, it is a good baseline for people that need it in an emergency or can't afford better. If you want more than that, you have the option to pay someone else to provide it. It's as simple as that.

And second, why did the college girl let herself be denied access to a PAP smear when the UK Health service said no? Why didn't she go get a PAP smear from the private option?

I don't know, I'm not responsible for her decisions and I don't know her personally. Maybe she couldn't pull together the £60 it would cost her to get one, or maybe she was incredibly stupid. So many possibilities.

Overall it sounds like the UK's not the promised paradise either.

That's because you'll infer your preferred conclusion from any data, even if it doesn't make sense. "Didn't think to go to a private hospital? That's the government's fault! I knew it wasn't a perfect system, even though nobody claimed it was!"

I'm pretty much done with arguing with you, because it's patently clear from your last few comments that you have no idea what you're arguing against and you have no willingness to find out. I could speculate as to why you're so invested in the current system, but as the answers range from somewhere between being paid to advocate for the insurance companies right the way down to the possibility that you'd rather other people die than you have to pay for health insurance, I don't really want to know the answer.

Re:What's in it?

[bfields]

If your test of a good medical system is whether it lets anyone die that might have been saved under some other system: they all fail. Medicine is far from perfect.

We could also find examples of US citizens whose insurance companies didn't provide some test or procedure that might have saved their lives. (Not to mention, cases where someone would have been better off had they *not* gotten that additional test! Nothing is risk-free.)

Both the UK and US systems provide good care most of the time. But I also think the US should move towards universal coverage, and close "preexisting condition" loopholes. The legislation under consideration takes steps in this direction, which I applaud.

Re:What's in it?

[Rakarra]

There are liberals in the party but not nearly as many as conservative media would lead you to believe.

In the United States, "conservative media" would have you believe that anything to the left of far-right extremism is socialism.

Re:What's in it?

[Jeremi]

So wouldn't it be logical to remove the illegals, and hand those jobs to actual citizens?

Yes -- just like the logical answer to the the problem of illegal drugs would be to remove the illegal drugs, so that people won't buy them anymore. And you can see how well that's worked out.

Unfortunately, the logical answer isn't always practical, or even possible.

Re:What's in it?

[falconwolf]

>>>wasn't America built on immigrant labor?

LEGAL immigrant labor. Illegals that were rejected at Ellis Island were sent back home.

No, illegal immigrants. The native American Indians didn't stamp the visas of any Europeans who came. The same Europeans who then massacred the native Americans, stole their land, then shoved those who lived onto small reservations.

Falcon

Re:What's in it?

[falconwolf]

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.

What American Indian tribe stamped your, or your relative's who immigrated here, visa?

Falcon

Re:What's in it?

[cowdung]

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.

I think I can I think I can

[betterunixthanunix]

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.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Not bloody likely. At least, not with this bill.

But thank you for the kind thoughts. Check in again a a decade or so, maybe we will have managed to drop to third world status by then and even Congress will realize that something drastic needs to be done.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[nanoakron]

Doesn't sound like they will.

So this new bill leaves 4% uncovered - that's 4% of nearly 300 million people!

Whereas the healthcare systems of all other civilised nations leave no-one uncovered. Not even the tramps in the street.

NB UK NHS user here - Our system has its faults, but at least one of those isn't "Sorry, we can't give you that treatment because you can't afford it...so just hurry up and die."

-Nano.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[JAlexoi]

A) Health care is a right, that is logically derived from the right to live. And the lack of the right to kill yourself.
B) You probably don't understand that a healthy person will contribute more to society than an unhealthy one. In my country, there is some abuse of the medical system, but we are ok to have it. Because we all understand, that that is what it takes to have a population that is not afraid to go to a doctor at an early stage of an illness(to have the illness shortened). Out of that, there are more healthy people that contribute more and longer in form of taxes and other common wealth.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Raisey-raison]

When I hear comments about how it's not right that the government provides 'free' things I sometimes wonder what people are smoking. Look, health care is a necessity and because we have such an insanely high gini coefficient, without either employer or government help most households could simply not afford it. And yes people do DIE when they lack proper health care, its not just a matter of going to the ER. They will stabilize you but not provide long term treatment. Good luck getting chemotherapy if you don't have insurance.

It's easy to go about limited government if you are in the top 25% in terms of income in the population. But median family income is $50,000. That is not a lot. How is a household in the 35% percentile earning $33,000 supposed to fork out $13,400 a year? And that figure is assuming that they get the same discount that a large business gets which for an individual is not going to happen.

Why don't the limited government crazies say the same thing about medicare? After all why should the government provide free services? The most f**ked up thing about it all is that those without insurance are expected to pay taxes (medicare tax) to provide other people with the very thing they lack.

And for those who love to go on about what the government should or should not do get this: Why do we spend over 4% of our GDP on defense and spend insane sums in Afghanistan and Iraq... ans: supposedly to protect our country. Now what does it mean to 'protect'. It means to prevent death and destruction. Well what is the point of spending $651.2 billion to maybe prevent an attack when way more people are suffering and dieing because of lack of adequate health care?????

The whole issue is insane. The free market simply does not work in health care. And I am some one who is pro free market. But at some point you have wake up and smell the coffee.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Wonko the Sane]

The fact that you are missing is that government interference in the free market back in the 70s caused the high prices. Hospitals, doctors and drug companies charge such high prices because they know that due to HMO-style insurance people can spend more than they otherwise would. Without that subsidy, prices could never have risen faster than inflation.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Raisey-raison]

I hear this theory a lot - that despite the fact that no other country in the world has figured out how to use the free market to provide health care for all - somehow we could, if only the government was not in the way. OK well how about this? Let's follow you deregulatory path for 20 years as an experiment and if we have significant numbers of Americans without adequate health care then you admit it was a failure and it's immediately back to some government based system for everyone. How about that?

By the way if you are earning $8 how are you going to afford health care without government help under any system?

Re:I think I can I think I can

[VincentFreeman]

Health care in this country is about the best in the world.

That is a lie.

"The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is two-and-a-half times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland."

"Yet another study, cited in a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, looked at how well 19 developed countries succeeded in avoiding “preventable deaths,” such as those where a disease could be cured or forestalled. What Senator Shelby called “the best health care system” ranked in last place."

It's early, I'm lazy, but the facts match up. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html?em

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Wonko the Sane]

You are begging the question. "Health care for all" is your goal and you claim the right to do whatever is necessary to achieve it.

Let's follow you deregulatory path for 20 years as an experiment and if we have significant numbers of Americans without adequate health care then you admit it was a failure and it's immediately back to some government based system for everyone. How about that?

No. I will never agree that it is right to steal from one person in order to grant some kind of "right" to another person.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Nidi62]

A)No, it is not. The government is NOT here to protect your right to life. They are here to make sure no one else infringes on your right to life, ie, no one can kill you. In certain circumstances your right to life can legally be revoked, usually because you denied someone else their right to life. It does not mean you have the right to have little Jimmy's trip to the doctor every time he has the sniffles paid for by everyone else.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[commodore64_love]

>>>"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."

Re:I think I can I think I can

[misexistentialist]

The health-care market is, however, connected to the rest of the market. Countries with socialized medicine also have socialized hospitals and socialized medical schools. And they pay for it by having high VAT taxes, greater government ownership of industry, and reduced military spending through general conscription. The welfare-state has its appeal, but the US's current health-care costs are related to poorly implemented government regulation, which doesn't mean that total regulation is "necessary" any more than it means that there should be a medical "free market."

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Ma8thew]

That's the cost of society. You get taxed when you are able to contribute to society. But you get all sorts of benefits. Like roads, police and fire services and (in most places) health services. The alternative? Try living in Somalia. I really don't understand the extreme libertarianism you exhibit. The only possibility is that you are astonishingly antisocial and totally unable to see that some people are, through no fault of their own, far less fortunate than you.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[moortak]

We have both the best health care on the planet and awful health care. If you can afford to go to the Cleveland Clinic for heart troubles Johns Hopkins for cancer and so on you will receive unparalleled care. If you have to rely on what you can afford at Metro hospital in Cleveland or Bon Secours in Baltimore then you are out of luck. God forbid you actually live out in a rural area.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way if you are earning $8 how are you going to afford health care without government help under any system?

I am old. I remember the days before the federal government became involved in health care. It wasn't that long ago. You kids today who think that the last Bush was a terrible president should have seen things under Johnson, who made Bush (who really was a terrible president) look Utopian. Back then, some people made claims that the Medicare & Medicaid might cost tens of billions, just like people today are claiming that this current bill will cost over a trillion. What you kids don't realize is that even the pessimists are underestimating the costs by a great margin. The economic costs of this legislation is going to be at least tens of trillions.

Anyway, your question was how to afford health care without government help? That's easy. You just pay for it. The biggest reason for the out of control costs of health care is government interference in the first place. Back before there was interference, we could get medicine just by paying for it, and it was always affordable. Expensive, certainly, but not so much that even a poor worker couldn't afford it. Back then, we even had something that most of you would find hard to believe. It was called a "house call". Instead of going to a doctor's office, he would come to your house to take care of you there. It costs $.50 (that's fifty cents, not fifty dollars) extra. Granted, we only made $7000 or so a year, but even considering how much value the dollar has lost it was still inexpensive compared to today, where I don't know any doctor who offers service like that.

And that's why you kids today are all stupid. You don't understand that things cost money. The government can't simply wave a magic wand and conjure up some health care. Every dollar it spends is a dollar that has to be extracted by force from somewhere, and that extraction carries a price too. Government thugs have to be paid, and that bureaucracy of drones gets paychecks too. Adding government control or even oversight to health care makes it more expensive, probably by at least an order of magnitude over its natural price. If you want to know why people can't afford health care, look in the mirror. All of you people wanting the government to "do something" are the cause.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Bitmanhome]

A) Life is a responsibility, not a right. "Right to life" simply means no one can take your life away. But actually staying alive is your responsibility.

B) Actually a decent point, too bad science is forbidden in politics.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Ozlanthos]

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

On behalf of rest of the civilized world

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to offer our congratulations to US of A.

That said, I don't know why this is on /.. This has nothing to do with technology, geeks, etc... And everyone interested in this can read about this from every other news source in the world. I live in Finland and our massmedia caught this before Slashdot. In addition to that, this isn't even final yet (still needs to be signed by a lot of folks, if I understood correctly, so this still might not pass) so we will certainly be able to read about this numerous times more, even in /..

Every single argument that will appear in this comment section will be repeated in almost identical manner when the senate signs (or doesn't sign) the bill, etc...

Re:On behalf of rest of the civilized world

[Starlon]

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.

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 /.. There's a sense of quality to the discussion on this forum thanks to the system in place.

Bill Itself: 220-215

[BBCWatcher]

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.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[SigILL]

Why should anything be rationed on any basis other than your ability to produce enough for society to afford it?

And why should your ability to produce enough for society be measured by how much money you have?

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[Exception Duck]

I think the reasoning is that it benefits society as a whole.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

The reason that deciding who gets healthcare on the basis of ability to pay is that what when demand for medical services goes up, the best way to get more providers of medical services is to increase what they get paid. Under this law, how will they increase the number of medical providers?

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[Hognoxious]

Why should anything be rationed on any basis other than your ability to produce enough for society to afford it?

What does Paris Hilton produce? I'm no communist, but the mere fact that she exists makes me think again.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[MartinSchou]

And why should your ability to produce enough for society be measured by how much money you have?

Because that's how society works.

Are you one of the investment bankers who caused stockmarkets to crash, housing costs to soar and then crash and burn leaving people homeless and cause huge ripple effects in the world wide economic markets leading to millions and millions of people losing their jobs, money and homes?

Congratulations, you have had such an impact on society, that you will be rewarded with insane bonuses. You are worth saving.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[beelsebob]

Why should someone who is sick, and hence can't produce anything for society not be allowed to get good quality health care that will lead to them being a productive member of society?

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[zevans]

Yes, the markets work wonders for the medical practice.

Absolutely. After all, the poorest will all be dead. How's that for perfect information?

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[WhiteWolf666]

Now, who is more likely to afford a heart transplant?

Without question, its the factory worker who puts cars together. Have you seen the UAW health care plans?

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[uglyduckling]

And that is a circular argument. "Why should x be y?" "Because that's how it works."

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[uglyduckling]

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.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[jcr]

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.

Yes, quite remarkable given the obvious failure of rationing by congestion, as you see in the UK and Canada.

-jcr

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[Anne Thwacks]

rationed on any basis other than your ability to produce enough for society to afford it

The logic here in the UK is that

a) You might be able to pay for it, but not when you are sick

b) People contribute to society in other ways than materially

c) Desperate people may be driven to commit crimes "I stole it to pay for my sick other/child's operation"

d) The disease might spread to _ME_

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[SigILL]

Are you one of the investment bankers who caused stockmarkets to crash [...] ?

What does that have to do with taking care of people who happen to not have the money to pay for it themselves? If any one group has proven to be able to take care of themselves it's investment bankers.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[Nevynxxx]

e) I'm not a complete arse, I don't mind paying a little for that person over there to *not die*.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[caluml]

Without question, its the factory worker who puts cars together. Have you seen the UAW health care plans?

No, I haven't. I have no idea what health-care plans look like. I get ill, I go to my NHS GP. He/She if it's important will refer me to a specialist at a choice of local hospitals, or if I happen to be living in hotels across the other side of the country, a hospital near where I'm working.

I can't see why ability to pay/earn should make you more or less worthy or deserving of treatment. It's just a complete no brainer. No-one should be left untreated because they can't afford it.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[phantomfive]

Do you have a better way to do it? I would love to hear. Because I've never met anyone who produced things of worth to society who wasn't capable of supporting him or herself.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[sp3d2orbit]

And why should your ability to produce enough for society be measured by how much money you have?

What is the alternative?

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[sp3d2orbit]

You are looking at it completely wrong man. Paris Hilton is a perfect example of capitalism working beautifully. Here is why:

1. Paris Hilton is a worthless bitch who inherited all of her wealth from others.
2. Paris Hilton spends untold amounts of money on utterly worthless crap: clothing, parties, drugs, herpes medication.
3. Paris Hilton will never, ever contribute anything of value to this world. Her movie, The Hottie and Nottie made like $5 in the theaters.
4. Eventually Paris Hilton will transfer all of her wealth to others. The system works without government intervention.

I think it is a wonderful system. Easter island was destroyed by rich people consuming all natural resources in a bid to out do their rich neighbors. In the United States that wealth gets harmlessly diverted into things like shoes and handbags that cost 20,000 bucks. Society is preserved.

Fixing all the WRONG problems

[Timex]

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.

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[Lakitu]

I read the link to the Ways and Means Committee where this idea that you will "buy or go to jail" has come from, which cites IRS tax codes for the reasoning you might go to jail.

The Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee, and various media outlets, like the Drudge report, have spread this idea that you will go to jail if you do not want this health bill passed. It's not true. You will face civil and/or criminal penalties for failing to pay taxes. That should be obvious.

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[Teckla]

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.

When it comes to this recession, the first stimulus package happened on George W. Bush's watch.

Also, Ronald Reagan passed a massive stimulus package as well. When inflation is factored in, it was larger than Obama's stimulus.

Even factoring in the Obama stimulus package, the vast majority of U.S. debt was accrued under the watch of Republican presidents.

Let's try to stay grounded in reality and realize that both dominant political parties in the U.S. spend too much. There is plenty of blame to go around. Partisan bickering is blinding Americans to the fact that the real problem is that the government is even allowed to spend money it doesn't have.

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[ScentCone]

It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!!

Which, as you surely know, is complete fiction.

The cash for clunkers program gave certain people a discount off of a new car (most of which were made by foreign companies, as it turns out), and cost the future taxpayers (who will have to pay for it, with interest to the Chinese) roughly $20,000 per car to administer. All of that (including the junking of thousands of useful vehicles that could have gone to people who cannot afford to buy brand new car, even with a discount, and for a very spikey, extremely temporary boost in sales that was more than made up for weeks later by the complete collapse of the same. It was an expensive, wasteful, absurd stunt that achieved nothing except to force a bunch of lower-middle-class tax payers who can't afford to buy new cars hand some fresh debt to their children so that other people could get a fake discount on a nice new vehicle.

Jobs were not saved or created. Money was not saved. The environment wasn't impacted in any meaningful way. All we have is the normalization of more government involvement in dealings between people who make something, and the people who buy it. All at the expense of everyone's grandchildren. No, they can't get anything right. And you know it.

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[Eightbitgnosis]

We destroyed perfectly working cars and then gave out freshly printed money to replace them. This is fiscally sound?

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[sycodon]

"under the watch of Republican presidents"

Repeat after me: "Congress is the only government branch that can raise money and spend it."

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[Felix Da Rat]

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.

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[blueg3]

The only branch that can pass laws, too. So how does Obama always get mentioned with health care and economic stimulus?

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[Vaphell]

when FED buys treasury bills and bonds, it does exactly that. There was no dollar, puff, there is a dollar. They don't pay with existing money, they simply announce: ok, we take these papers and you add 100 billion to your account. Pool of money is increased (printing money) thus watering down value of money already in circulation (inflation)

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[NeutronCowboy]

Then why is this called "Obamacare" by the Republicans and Conservatives?

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[Artifakt]

And it's not like Bush had a Republican congress for most of both terms, right? And he didn't make that speech where he told congress immediate action was vitally necessary in under seven days or the whole economy was threatened with total collapse, did he? So let's, by all means, rewrite history to make it all the Democrat's fault.

Oh sweet

[JimboFBX]

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...

Don't forget ... privacy destroying

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Don't forget ... privacy destroying

[TheGavster]

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.

Re:12 million people excluded?

[mustafap]

>What's with the remaining 4%? How come not everyone will be covered?

That 4% will be lawyers.

1.2T = 120B per year

[volt4ire]

Let's be clear: 1.2 Billion is the cost for 10 years, not 1 single upfront cost (like bailouts or emergency war funding supplementals)

A Step Into the Dark Ages

[TheMonkeyhouse]

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.

Re:Those aren't the same

[SigILL]

Your wage does not correlate with how necessary you are to our society.

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.

Amount Covered

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Strikers Vow

[jcr]

the adults are trying to make things better.

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.

-jcr

The supreme cout will rule it unconstitutional

[Danathar]

Just my prediction, but I think it will be taken to court and ruled unconstitutional (since the court is still majority conservative)

Re:The supreme cout will rule it unconstitutional

[stinerman]

Not in a million years.

The courts have consistently ruled that the commerce clause gives congress very broad authority to poke and prod at the economy, regardless if what they're poking and prodding is interstate or intrastate or even a commercial transaction.

Read Gonzalez v. Raich sometime. Raich grew marijuana legally under California law. The marijuana was for personal use, never crossed a state line, and was never sold. However, the SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that this was a permissible exercise of the commerce clause.

Pardon the pun, but believing that this will be knocked down is nothing more than a pipe dream. It won't even get an appeals court hearing, much less to the SCOTUS.

Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo

[spankus]

Or how about the fact that government is responsible for the state of healthcare in the country right now!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/understanding_the_cause_of_hea.html

They're the ones that started cost inflation in the 1970's that has gotten us to this point. They don't even know they screwed it up...and we expect them to fix it?

It makes me think of the classic demotivator: http://www.despair.com/government.html

Sigh.

Oh well, at least we don't have any money to pay for it....(not that it matters, apparently)

Re:Strikers Vow

[atriusofbricia]

And this is why Ayn Rand was a useless bitch. Take your broken pop philosophy somewhere else, please; the adults are trying to make things better.

If you're going to toss around words like "useless bitch" you really need something more to back it up than "the adults are trying to make things better." 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? You can also elaborate on exactly how trying to make health care/insurance a government mandated "right" doesn't effectively enslave those who provide such services?

In short, if all you've got are insults, you need to take your socialist government loving self somewhere else. Real adults take care of themselves and don't look to the government for handouts. Understood?

Re:Strikers Vow

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the adults also know that you cannot rely on the private sector to provide for people. Capitalism isn't about compassion.

Re:12 million people excluded?

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Let's see..

[millennial]

If you think that free market forces will magically make everything perfect, you've got more faith in your economic model than a fundie Christian has in his god.

Banning illegal aliens is shortsighted

[gordonb]

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.

Re:Banning illegal aliens is shortsighted

[TarPitt]

How will illegal non-citizens support the government program when they are (1) not paying income or social security/medicare taxes

WRONG!!

Very few illegal immigrants are paid cash under the table. Most are paid in the same fashion as legal employees, and have taxes and social security withheld.

In fact, illegal immigrants are a net contributor to the social security fund, as many use fake social security numbers for which they will never be able to collect benefits:

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articl
Illegal immigrants pay taxes, too

He calculates that illegal immigrants contributed $428 billion dollars to the nation's $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006. That number assumes illegal immigrants are 30 percent less productive than other workers.

The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

"Overall, any type of immigration is a net positive to Social Security. The more people working and paying into the system, the better," Hinkle said. "It does help the system remain solvent."

Re:Banning illegal aliens is shortsighted

[tsm_sf]

Yes, he said it would end up costing us more money in the long run.

I don't pretend to understand the right's raging hard-on for mexicans, but I can appreciate that border security and immigration control are necessary components of a functioning government. That being said, going after them in a health care bill is inappropriate. Denying someone access to health care is reprehensible. Denying it to them out of spite, knowing full well that it will cost you more money, is obscene.

Good day to you, sir.

My Issue Is...

[forbin_meet_hal]

...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!

Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo

[ahankinson]

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.

Re:A progressive measure.

[Starlon]

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.

Unconstitutional

[Coolhand2120]

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.

Re:Unconstitutional

[DustyShadow]

The reason they want to tie it in with the irs is because congress may tax and spend for the general welfare. It won't pass under the commerce clause.

Re:Unconstitutional

[forkazoo]

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.

Huzzah! If the government taxes me and provides a service, I'm okay with that. (Single Payer.)

If the government says I must buy some service from a private company, then I am living in Gilliam's Brazil, and people should be shot.

The insurance companies have no right to exist, and no right to my money. People say that increasing pool size will bring down costs, but the insurance companies will just pocket the savings. There is no reason to believe that they would reduce cost to consumers because you remove the key defining force of the market. Business must entice buyers to the market with valuable goods and services. Once you make purchasing mandatory, businesses no longer have to compete with the competetive market force of 'Fuck You.'

Re:Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't standing next to me, but if you google the US Constitution, look for the phrase "general welfare". Get the annotated version so you can see how it's been used over the past few centuries. Next look for the "commerce clause".

Re:Unconstitutional

[limaxray]

You are 100% correct, but unfortunately we've pissed on the constitution long ago to give the federal government unchecked power. The commerce clause has been so thoroughly exploited over the years that there is just about nothing the feds can't do. Just look at the war on drugs as one fine example of out-of-control government with no regard for the constitution. Remember how the constitution had to be amended to prohibit alcohol? Not anymore, that's just an antiquated inconvenience. The worst part is that most Americans think (and are perfectly OK with) that the feds can do whatever they want and no longer question their abuse of power.

Personally, I don't see how this bill is anything but a boon for insurers. What people fail to realize is that many Americans, especially the young and healthy, don't WANT health insurance. I know I don't. But I soon may be forced by the government to buy a product I don't want. Yeah, you can make the insurance companies take on those with preexisting conditions, but they'll just use it as a reason to jack up rates for everyone else. But yeah, if you're gonna fix healthcare, fix HEALTHCARE, don't just force everyone to buy products from those who are lining your pockets.

Re:Unconstitutional

[the eric conspiracy]

Oh come on. The idea of narrowly construed and restricted enumerated powers lasted less than 5 years from the adoption of the Constitution. It died with the establishment of a national bank in 1791.

If this was interpreted narrowly we would have no programs like the EPA, Federal aid to education, the interstate highway system, etc etc etc. Bringing that objection up at this point is like trying to roll the US back to the time there were just 13 states.

Give us a break with this sort of nonsense, please.

Re:Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution says that a black person is only worth 3/5 a white person. What's your point?

Re:Unconstitutional

[quacking duck]

Huzzah! If the government taxes me and provides a service, I'm okay with that. (Single Payer.)

If the government says I must buy some service from a private company, then I am living in Gilliam's Brazil, and people should be shot.

The insurance companies have no right to exist, and no right to my money. People say that increasing pool size will bring down costs, but the insurance companies will just pocket the savings. There is no reason to believe that they would reduce cost to consumers because you remove the key defining force of the market. Business must entice buyers to the market with valuable goods and services. Once you make purchasing mandatory, businesses no longer have to compete with the competetive market force of 'Fuck You.'

I agree with the sentiment, but I'm pretty sure you're already forced to buy a service from a private company.

Own a car? The liability part of car insurance required by law. And though some Canadian provinces manage auto insurance, I doubt your state does, forcing you to use a private company.

Re:Unconstitutional

[twostix]

I have five nice mod points I'd just love to use right now, but you will I've just got to reply to this...

The Federal Government exists only because it has the powers given to it by the legal contract between the states and itself. Without the constitution all those people sitting in Washington DC are just yet another toothless political activist organistion passing non-binding resolutions.

It's highly extraordinary and rather worrying that you regard demanding the US Federal Government limit itself to the legal powers that it was given and ALSO the restrictions that were placed upon it as nonsense just because historically it has ignored them (or more likely because you happen to like the current party in power - I wonder if you sang the same tune 5 years ago).

Your Federal Government also "gives you" extraordinary rendition, torture, military bases in every country in the world, the highest percentage of people in prison in the western world, undeclared wars, a rogue CIA, warrant-less wiretaps etc, etc, etc.

Perhaps if your Federal Government was forced to stay within the bounds of the very legal document that gives it ANY authority to exist at all your country and the rest of the world would be a hell of a lot better off.

Oh, but college kids get cheap loans via the Department Of Education so that makes it ok! The same entity that forced No Child Left Behind on every school in the country...

And if the Federal Government isn't bound by the law that creates it and gives it power over the people why should people be bound by it? Surely if it gets to choose, so does the individual.

Because it has all the guns, tanks and army you say? Then what's the difference between it and every other despotic regime that's held power over the people through the barrel of a gun rather than the rule of law?

Re:Unconstitutional

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

No, because it is a state issue. States are completely within their rights to make such requirements.

This is my whole issue with this whole thing. Jefferson was strongly in favor of freedom of religion, while the state of Pennsylvania had required religion, thus the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law..." (emphasis added).

We are a republic, and we can clearly see through these various debates that there are people in this country who want to have taxpayer provided health care and there are those who do not want taxpayer provided health care. If we were to honor the democratic republic that was formed, we would recognize that this is perfectly fine for a union. Massachusetts can have its pristine state system and Texas can have anarchy or whatever.

My belief is that everyone we all will lose when D.C. takes things over, including the people in Massachusetts. There will be no one to complain to except a Representative and a Senator who care little about doing anything to repair any issues. Special interests will latch their suckers to the tax revenue pouring into the program and K Street will expand to J and L Streets.

Re:Unconstitutional

[Slur]

Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?

The Constitution doesn't lay out everything permissible in minute detail. It simply lays the ground rules, and gives the framework for the process. Somewhere in there it explicitly states that anything not specifically forbidden is left to our discretion. In other words, we are free to choose this path.

Section 8, Powers of Congress, begins:

The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States....

It could be said that for our own benefit some of our pre or post-tax allocations must go towards insurance against conditions that undermine the welfare of the people, who after all are the raison-d'etre for the government to exist.

A healthy person is more capable of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness than one who suffers from a disease, and therefore it is in our collective interest that a universally-accessible system be in place to ensure our health.

Re:Strikers Vow

[millennial]

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.

Pushed just far enough

[AlpineR]

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.

Re:Let's see..

[pooh666]

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?

Re:Strikers Vow

[amiga3D]

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.

Congratulations America...

[Anonymous Coward]

You just set fire to your own Constitution.

Congress can now assign itself any rights it wishes. Get ready for anything that might affect the health of the population to be regulated.

Re:Strikers Vow

[sycodon]

Capitalism is the worst...except for everything else.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Laukei]

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

Re:Strikers Vow

[Rising Ape]

Presumably, in the same way that any other tax evasion will. Does the police force, military, court system, fire brigade etc. enslave people?

Re:Strikers Vow

[value_added]

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:

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. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal
water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated
channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was
going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

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.

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, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build
by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly
stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal
Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be
sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public
school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to
the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the
Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals
which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back
home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence
because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's
inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks
to the local police department. And then I log on to the internet --
which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Administration and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how
SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything
right.

Credits to the orginal poster or writer.

Re:Strikers Vow

[PrescriptionWarning]

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.

Re:Strikers Vow

[TubeSteak]

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.

What part of recent events

[bobbuck]

What part of recent events represented free markets? BTW, freer markets are recovering and us Keynesians are still bleeding jobs.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Cyberax]

"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).

Re:Strikers Vow

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

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?

Re:Strikers Vow

[amiga3D]

The States can make amendments too. They can take away power from congress or limit it. The States wrote the constitution to give birth to the federal government. Two thirds of them together can take any and all of the authority away from the federals.

Re:Strikers Vow

[jcr]

The "federals" also allowed slavery when the constitution was written.

They also offered to let the south keep slavery in perpetuity, if they'd rejoin the union and pay the tariffs. This offer was made several times during the war. The northern claim to moral ascendancy on the slavery issue is a load of crap.

-jcr

Re:Strikers Vow

[Cyberax]

OK. Let's bet on inflation-adjusted DOW (using the Nov 1 value as a base), my offer still stands.

Re:Strikers Vow

[zippthorne]

Tried that a century and a half ago. Unfortunately we coupled "state sovereignty" with "states' rights to allow slavery." So we lost that one. We all lost. Even the freed slaves lost.

Study 8 years to be a slave...

[bobbuck]

Mr. Troll, who is going to study their (the government's) ass off for years to be a slave? In ten years we're going to have half as many doctors. Then people will have a 'right to health care' but they just won't be able to get it.

Re:Study 8 years to be a slave...

[phoenix321]

Insights from Germany, a fine country in the old Europe that has government mandated and tax-subsidized healthcare since, well, before we had our Führer (he greatly expanded the scheme, still).

We even have tax-subsidized colleges, tax-subsidized free housing, tax-subsidized free food, tax-subsidized free vocational training and all that good stuff. At a tax-and-mandatory-insurance of about 56 cent for every Euro we earn, with our employers spending another 30 cents for every Euro they pay for us.

It works so great, that we have several thousand medical students and trained nurses graduating every year - and then fleeing abroad to the US and other countries where healthcare (and with it monthly wages of medical staff) is not mandated (i.e. fixed or steadily reduced).

New medical graduates flee in thousands every year, after students successfully lobbied for free college admission of course, taking their diploma with them and earning wealth outside of our borders. Nice job, lefty loonies, really.

We still have doctors, nurses and hospitals, though. But we have waiting times of several MONTHS for an appointment with any specialist. The next possible appointment with the dentist is three months in the future if I'm unemployed so I'm free somewhere in the afternoon. If I'm on a busy job and can only have appointments in the late afternoon, the next possible appointment is five months away from now.

Our tax rates and mandatory insurance rates (which are equal to taxes for all intents and purposes except public relations of the government) are steadily rising to record heights every year.

We have universal healthcare. We have high-quality medical service. We just wait for half a year or more for everything that is not life-threatening urgent.

Everyone who has a job and therefore values their time now unofficially bribes their doctor to get an appointment in only two months from now. I do. It's just like in Eastern Germany when the Wall still stood: the government provided for everything, you just waited for years to get it and a black market for everything cropped up. We had a joke back then on how to get rid of all that sand in the Sahara desert: put it under socialist or marxist management and wait for a few years.

Re:Study 8 years to be a slave...

[phoenix321]

I cannot perfectly differentiate between good and bad regulation because I am a fallible human. And our dear leaders are, too. I remember many other instances where the most bizarre atrocities were later attributed to a "good idea that was wrongly implemented", but let's leave the Gulag aside and concentrate on the health care system of Germany.

Assuming the number of total patients, insured people and patients a doctor can reasonably treat per month remain constant, the paycheck of doctors would be the determining factor of health care costs. If doctor's pay is too low, doctors flee or, being intelligent people, choose different careers and never become doctors in the first place. If doctor's pay is too high, health care costs rise.

Who then pays the rising health care costs? And how do we manage the job market competition for doctors across the European Union, with each and every country spending borrowed money taken from an ever growing national debt to attract more doctors than the others?

We merely chase the doctors and funds around in misallocation and never get to discover the core problem: we do not have enough resources to provide all people with adequate health care. We cannot provide all needed CT scans, AIDS and cancer treatment for all patients on our budget.

We just don't have the balls to tell that to our public, so we indebt ourselves further and further, hoping to delay the problem until kingdom come. Which is ironically the main reason everything is beginning to fall apart now that a third of our taxes is spent on compound interest for the national debts.

Re:Strikers Vow

[jcr]

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

How healthcare should be fixed

[jonwil]

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.

Re:How healthcare should be fixed

[theCoder]

So, if I decide to have my surgery in a hospital that has big screen TVs in every room and hot swimsuit models giving massages and sponge baths, that's OK, as long as the hospital charges everyone the same rate? And based on #9, the insurance company would have to pay?

This example is a little extreme, but who would essentially set the prices for various procedures? Arguably, one hospital could employ better doctors than another -- could they charge higher prices? Would an insurer be justified in requiring that the patient go to a more cost effective hospital? Would it matter based on the procedure -- setting a broken leg versus complicated brain surgery?

These are all tough questions. I don't think the current bill of "lets make everyone buy health insurance -- that'll fix everything" will actually solve any real problems.

I don't really know what the answer is. I do like your idea of divorcing health plans from employers. There's really no reason to get your health insurance through your job. Free, reliable health care for everybody seems like a great idea, but so does free cars, clothing, houses, and food. And I don't know how to deliver any of those things. The best I can do is Free Software, but that doesn't seem to translate very well into meat-space.

The free market sucks in many ways, especially for those who do not have money. But it does do a pretty decent job of motivating people without a lot of difficult to manage bureaucracy. Yes, there are problems, and yes, people get trampled upon. Those that argue "why shouldn't the poor get healthcare" could just as easily say "why shouldn't the poor get food?" Should we be pushing for "grocery store reform" so that food is handed out equally to everyone?

But if this health care insurance bill is what America wants, it is what America will get. I just hope that the Federal government doesn't collapse too badly, or that if it does, the result isn't too bloody.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Moryath]

No shit.

It's "politically correct" to say the civil war was "about slavery" today. It is, however, nearly total bullshit.

The civil war happened because the North had been grumbling about wanting higher tariffs (in their mind, more $ to pay for an increasing budget) and wanting to implement them on the South's main agricultural products. The South saw that this was almost inevitable and wanted out when a President was elected without the electoral votes of a single Southern state.

The civil war was about economics pure and simple. Slavery, and decrees to abolish it, were simply a weapon used by the North for the purpose of psychological warfare via the creation of domestic troubles (loss of farm workers) for their opponents.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Strikers Vow

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

Yep. Tell you what, you let me know when the Amendment gets passed that allows for this sort of thing....

Re:Strikers Vow

[Cyberax]

"Most of the "new deal" was continuation of Hoover's interference in the economy."

No. There was a crucial difference - abandonment of the gold standard. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Depression#Gold_standard It was pretty much required by the Banking Act, which was drafted by the Hoover's administration, true. But it had been enacted by Roosevelt.

"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."

Later. After the economy hit the wall and entered the vicious cycle of deflation.

"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 [wikipedia.org] of economics."

Nope. He knew economy quite well to understand that simple 'fiscal conservatism' is meaningless in the growing economy.

I see you don't want to take my bet?

Re:This is how freedom dies

[jareth-0205]

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.

Re:Strikers Vow

[drsquare]

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.

Odd then that every other country in the developed world mananaged a UHC system with heavy government involvement that works fine, maybe it's that American exceptionalism I keep hearing so much about.

And it's hard to call Keynesians morons when their methods are being adopted world-wide to bail out the failures of capitalism. Even Reagan believed in Keynes.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Anonymous Coward]

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] ...

Is mandated health care constitutional?

[witherstaff]

I do wonder what part of the constitution is going to be used to force people to buy health insurance. This question was asked to Peloski but brushed aside. Further emails from her office say it's part of Interstate Commerce and the general welfare clause. How long before it's challenged in court?

Re:Is mandated health care constitutional?

[jcr]

How long before it's challenged in court?

Hard to say. I think there will have to be someone who's arrested for non-compliance, and he'll have to go all the way through the lower courts first. The feds are very skilled at dragging out litigation against unconstitutional statutes for a very long time, because they can pretend that those statutes are valid until the supreme court says no.

-jcr

Re:Is mandated health care constitutional?

[Lakitu]

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

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.

Re:Is mandated health care constitutional?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

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."

Re:Is mandated health care constitutional?

[darkpixel2k]

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.

Sounds like a great catch-all. Government wants to buy everyone a TV? It's for the general welfare. Government wants to take over a car company? It's for the good of the people. 'General Welfare' does not give the government the right to just do whatever the hell it wants while citing that it's good for everyone.

If you actually read the constitution, you will note that the 'general welfare' clause is in the damn preamble.

Try reading the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The emphasis is mine. They are saying 'in order to do the following, we are establishing this constitution'.

When you talk about Section 8 of the constitution, you should look up the definition of 'general' and 'welfare'.

General: not confined by specialization or careful limitation

Welfare: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

In other words, their job is to make sure everyone has a chance to pursue fortune, happiness, well-being, prosperity, etc...

What they don't have a right to do is target a specific groups like the uninsured and force other specific groups to cough up the cash.

37th because...

[doug141]

we drive more than anyone else, and the WHO includes accidents in "life expectancy."

Re:37th because...

[amRadioHed]

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?

Not soclialist -- if anything this bill is fascist

[pkbarbiedoll]

Few people will actually be covered under the reduced "public option". This bill was another payout to corporate America, on the taxpayers' dime.

Re:Strikers Vow

[drsquare]

You can also elaborate on exactly how trying to make health care/insurance a government mandated "right" doesn't effectively enslave those who provide such services?

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.

In short, if all you've got are insults, you need to take your socialist government loving self somewhere else. Real adults take care of themselves and don't look to the government for handouts.

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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Strikers Vow

[jcr]

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

Re:Strikers Vow

[putnondritz]

You are at a loss. We do not have capitalism, CERTAINLY not a free market, in the US, which I assume is your country of origin. We have corporatism. Even your guru (I'm assuming, but I bet I'm close) Michael Moore has admitted the same in interviews, but to bash capitalism sounds so righteous. Take some time and bone up on your world, you have little time before this Greater Depression sets in very deeply.

We rank 37th in infant mortality (Correction...)

[tomhath]

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.

Re:Strikers Vow

[rhakka]

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.

Re:Strikers Vow

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Socialized medicine vs. socialized insurance

[symbolic]

Absolutely - the go-mingling of private insurance and government mandate is...scary. We'll be forced to pay whatever the going rate is for medical treatment, indirectly, through billions and billions of dollars in subsidies to the insurance companies.

Seriously, would you people shut the fuck up?

[Sycraft-fu]

The only thing more annoying than the religious right is the whiny left, of which you seem to be a member. These are the people who blame the republicans for all their ills and do nothing but cry and whine about how they can't do anything. Oh shut up and hold the parties responsible to account. The republicans control jack and shit at the federal level any more. The President is a democrat, and a rather socialist democrat by all accounts. Well that accounts for the entire executive branch, since he has the power to appoint the people who run things. Now, in terms of making laws that's the House and Senate of course. In both cases the democrats have not just a majority, but a commanding majority. The house has 257 democrats, 178 republicans. That is a 59%/41% advantage. In the Senate it is even bigger 60%/40% which is a supermajority that can override filibusters.

So you have a situation where the republicans have no power to make laws at a federal level without a large amount of democrat support. The democrats on the other hand can pass legislation without even a single republican supporter, and can do so even if procedural tactics are used to attempt to block it,

Thus we are now in what would be called "Put up or shut up," time. But they aren't.

Well part of the reason they may not be is because of people like you that refuse to hold them to account. You bitch and whine about The Right(tm) causing problems and don't hold any democrats to account for this.

I swear that during Bush's terms the democrats got so used to doing nothing but bitching that they now just keep doing the same shit. Well bitching time is over. You've got the power, use it.

As usual, I think the Daily Show really nailed it http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority.

Re:Congrats!

[Martin Blank]

You're probably looking at the print-friendly version from the THOMAS site, which is about 584 pages for me. Pasting the text into Word and stripping out the double paragraph breaks puts it at 859 pages and more than 315,000 words.

But I also have the PDF file from the Government Printing Office loaded right now, and Adobe Reader's paging function says that I'm on page 1 of 1990. Given that the GPO's printing guidelines are very consistent, referring to the 1990 pages of this bill provides a useful comparison to other bills, including past health care reform bills.

Re:We rank 37th in infant mortality (Correction...

[level_headed_midwest]

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.

Re:It's Not About Health, It's About Control

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:It's Not About Health, It's About Control

[RealGrouchy]

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>

What has slipped under the radar...

[Baldrson]

Despite all the debunkable noise we hear from the right wing that Pelosi is going to come grab you and throw you in prison for being poor enough that you can't afford to pay the premium, there is something sinister about this bill that has slipped by both right and left:

Your mere existence is now taxable.

People who like to claim that "there are no illegal aliens because people aren't illegal" are about to find their words ringing hollow in an especially perverse way.

You can be a monk meditating on a mountain somewhere for 5 years and be gang raped by the government's black and hispanic prison gangs for doing so.

Re:It's Not About Health, It's About Control

[IrquiM]

What? Are you telling me that the government here in Norway tells me what to eat, what to smoke, what to drink and how long I can live?

That's news to me!

Come to think of it - you have no idea what public health service is, do you?

Re:Strikers Vow

[LanMan04]

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.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

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.

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, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Re:Strikers Vow

[glitch23]

One problem is that we have too many people who are lazy and irresponsible and therefore want the government to run their lives. For that you need a big government and you need the upper class to help pay for the programs enacted by that big government.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Curunir_wolf]

Seems the adults also know that you cannot rely on the private sector to provide for people. Capitalism isn't about compassion.

Well thank god for our compassionate government and armed bureaucracies, which will now be able to jail people for 5 years for failure to buy health insurance.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

That effort has already begun.

Re:Strikers Vow

[khallow]

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.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Rising Ape]

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.

Re:Strikers Vow

[atriusofbricia]

Except not at all, because "lunch" isn't a goddamn right, and you aren't enslaving anyone by requiring a service, because people choose to work in service industries. He's a troll.

Wait a minute.. food isn't a right, but bloody health care is? Are you high? If your logic is that health care is a right because you'll die without it then exactly why isn't food a right? Or a house?

Re:Strikers Vow

[khallow]

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.

That isn't the problem. The problem occurs when someone spends my money on a morale crusade and then takes away my freedom because of unintended consequences of that crusade. As I see it, if I'm trying to provide for myself, then I'm not being as much of a burden on other people as if I'm trying to mooch what I can from them.

Re:Strikers Vow

[atriusofbricia]

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.

Fine, if health care is a right, what else is a "right"? Food? Cars? Homes? Internet? How far does it go? And yes, people choose what they do right now. However, once you start defining all these rights who's going to provide those services? If no one is willing to for the price the government will pay, shall we force them? That's where the enslavement comes in. If you say a service or good is a "right" then ultimately you are saying that you are in favor of providing that service by any means necessary. Follow your logic.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Curunir_wolf]

The "states"? Oh my, and what are those states other than other form of government? They also tax and spend - they aren't at all the bastion of freedom.

Well, those running the Federal government have exposed themselves clearly now as tyrants, as there is no other description for a group of people that would throw people in jail for not buying stuff they want them to buy - no matter what it is.

So far, most state governments have not displayed this level of despotism. And please do not make some bogus claim about auto insurance. It's far different asking somebody to take some responsibility if the want to drive a car on public roads, it's quite another to require participation in some bureaucratic and/or corporate scheme because you are alive.

Re:Just what the doctor ordered, socialism.

[JD770]

All I want to know is why congress exempted themselves from having to abide by this monstrosity of a bill? If there is anyone who thinks the congressional majority has the best interest of the people who will have to live under this mess -- you are seriously, indescribably gullible. PJ O'Rourke said it best, "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait til you see how much it costs when it's 'free'."

The difference between a car and a human

[AlpineR]

For a car, failing to buy gas or get an oil change won't increase the chance of an expensive accident. For a human, failing to get an EKG or an X-ray can leave that human at higher risk for a heart attack or metastatic cancer. So it's wise economics for a health insurer to pay for those little things when the insured might say "I feel fine. Why should I pay $200 for a silly test?" otherwise.

Also, the liability on a car is limited to the replacement cost. What's the replacement cost for your own body? The cost of health care over your entire life is so unpredictable that it's wise to pay into a pool of coverage even if it means that for most of your life you'll be paying for some other guy's health care. Because someday you might find yourself with an expensive chronic condition like diabetes that's not just a single catastrophic event and can't be fixed by just buying a new body.

Re:Strikers Vow

[DMiax]

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.

Redefining history much? For everyone else the recession ended in 1933. It does not matter when the wealth levels came back to normal, it matters when they started to increase. The fact that the economy was back in shape at the end of the war means that it cannot be an effect of the end of the war.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Alex Belits]

Capitalism is the worst...except for everything else.

Even Churchill didn't dare to put "Capitalism" into this witty but meaningless sentence about democracy.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Garrett Fox]

Art. I Sec. 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." This refers to the importation of slaves. Also Art. I Sec. 2: "the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Ie. "free people... and others."

Re:Strikers Vow

[SomeKDEUser]

You obviously don't understand the concept of insurance.

It is inefficient to provide something which everyone needs: basically, you could imagine that everyone would pay some sum so that in the event you need to get lunch, you would be reimbursed. This is an insurance. As you can see, in this case, pretty much everyone pays and receives the same amount. You only added administrative overhead.

In the case of health care, insurance means that in the event of some expensive treatment, you do not go bankrupt. There is administrative overhead, but it is overall worth it. Because the costs of bankruptcies/deaths to society is greater than the amount paid for insurance.

So no problem of consistency from the GPs part, just your deep ignorance of the economics of insurances.

Appearently I'm not a good American,

[falconwolf]

That's right.

I'd like a reason to oppose things

How about the Constitution of the USA? Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine? And remember if it does not give a power then government does not have that power, it is a document limiting what government can do.

Now if you believe the government should do something the Constitution provides a way for it to do that, via amending it. Amazingly it has been amended 27 tymes already.

I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants,

First, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to build and maintain roads. It also gives the power to defend the people and nation. Next there is nothing in the Constitution preventing state and local government from providing all these other things. And generally they have been pretty good at it. Actually with the feds into so much it can dictate to states what they must do. No Child Left Behind ring a bell? If a school doesn't meet federal requirements it can lose funding. Now if the feds did not have as high of taxes as it does then states and local governments could raise their own taxes and spend it on what they want instead of the feds dictating to them. Another example is Real ID. The feds want to tell the states they either have an ID that meets federal guidelines or they lose road funding. That's what they did with the minimum drinking age.

Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.

Then apply that to government as well. I have never ever heard of businesses exterminating and massacring millions of people but governments have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, even the government of the US.

if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed.

You're assuming that the private path has been tried when in fact it has not been tried in more than 60 years. Instead government has been interfering with medicine and health care all this tyme.

Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.

You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.

Falcon

Re:Strikers Vow

[Garrett Fox]

And other states are working on similar proposals as 2010 referenda. Also, Montana and Tennessee are already in open defiance of the feds through their "Firearms Freedom Act"s, with Montana having just filed a lawsuit petitioning for a completely in-state gun not to be considered subject to "interstate commerce" control. We need to stand ready to defend our citizens peacefully against federal aggression, knowing that this might mean more than filing lawsuits.

Re:Strikers Vow

[binary paladin]

I don't know what's wrong with you people... sheesh.

The socialist programs in this country have found a solution to this "money problem." They just print more. Hell, some of the really smart ones just make notes in ledgers. Add a zero here or a zero there and... poof! Health care funded.

I mean, what's the worst that can happen? People bringing wheel barrels of currency into the grocery store just to pay for a loaf of bread? Like that would ever happen!

We can't pay

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

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.

Re:Business decisions

[bennomatic]

Totally true. The right-wingers are complaining both that the public plan would be terrible, and that it would put the private plans out of business. I can't imagine, in an even slightly free-market scenario, that both could be true. Either it will be competitive or it won't be.

Re:Strikers Vow

[xdor]

And why is that? Because the government forms rules that are not just for the public good. Cleaning up government (i.e. less) is the answer, not creating more rules that favor this group or that group.

Re:Strikers Vow

[khallow]

Absolutely. Unless you have found a way to avoid getting any benefit, direct or indirect, from those things (ever used a car?).

Going to be obtuse, eh? I pay for the things I use with money I earned. That is what providing for oneself means.

Not unless you actually have sufficient amount of money set aside for any possible medical emergency. And somehow made it certain that you will immediately die if those costs will be exceeded. Otherwise you will incur costs on the rest of society, and therefore are absolutely not "self-insured".

So what? Why should I feel gratitude for losing freedom and getting robbed simply because some day I might use up more health care than I can pay for?

You're wrong

[cynical kane]

I want to know on what planet Keynes is considered a "Lysenko". Not the same planet that noted Chicago school economist and judge, Richard Posner, lives on: http://www.tnr.com/article/how-i-became-keynesian . Nor the planet that Milton Friedman lives on, the man who said that, in a certain sense, "we are all Keynesians now." Certain elements of Keynes's theory are the standard ways of approaching economics, used by everyone. That you think otherwise suggests you are profoundly profoundly profoundly ignorant of economics.

Though, I suppose, if you want to be an anti-Keynesian, I suppose you would accept Friedman's opinion that monetary contraction was the main cause of the recession, a point upon which most economists currently agree. What's that? You think HOOVER caused the recession? Oh, that's right, you know nothing about economics, but you insist on talking about anyway. For a second I forgot about that...

Finally, you claim that Hoover, of all people, was the source of depression-causing progressivism. This claim is too ridiculous to be believed. It's like blaming Democrats for the expansionary federal budget during 2000-2006. They didn't do anything! They were never given the chance!

It sickens me the ass-talking ignorance that passes for economic knowledge on Slashdot. It's not that people like you don't bother to do the research, but rather there is this pervasive sense of anti-government pseudo-Austiran countercultural conspiratorism that makes enema-bags like you think you are too good for economic knowledge. "Keynes is just another Lysenko!" If you had taken any intro to econ course, or read any intro to econ books, ever, you would not think this. Shut up.

Re:Business decisions

[mi]

If the government insurance is as good as the private insurance but cheaper, what's the problem?

Your point is valid, and applies to everything and anything — not just health insurance: "If the government X is as good as the private X but cheaper, what's the problem?"

The obvious problem is, it can not. It can only be "cheaper" if the taxpayer subsidizes it — our Medicare and Medicade spending (which only covers the old and the poor), for example, exceed the entire Department of Defense expenditures already.

Indeed! Dizzy with success of our:

• government schools — where we pay at the top of the world per pupil, but produce highschoolers unabled to compete with those of the Third World;
• government highways, which cost a fortune, but still cause an American — average, including those who don't drive at all — to spend 38 hours per year waiting in traffic (double that in busy places like LA)
• government postal service — which needs billions of bailouts every few years — despite having a monopoly on First Class Mail service

who wouldn't be anxious to switch to government-provided health insurance? What could possibly go wrong? Next up — government provided food (can't be healthy without good nutrition, can you?), shelter (same), clothes — you name it... I grew up in a country, where the government claimed to provide everything — and it sucked. I move to the US, and what do I find? A bunch of idiots wishing to make the mistake, someone has already made for them!

And it is not like you haven't been warned by your own:

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

Re:Strikers Vow

[Curunir_wolf]

Nonsense, capitalism is awful at things that don't make a profit and where value is not easily expressed in terms of money. This includes things like education, environmental protection, and health care. Quit spewing dumb soundbites.

Actually, it seems that education is much better when it's paid for with private funds. Even publicly funded education was better before the Federal government got involved and created the Department of Education. Outcomes for public education have deteriorated significantly since.

Whether health care can be any good when no profit motive is involved remains to be seen. The vast majority of medical advances in the last century have been made by people hoping to profit from their discoveries. These include pharmaceutical companies, teaching hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, etc.

When all medical care is control and rationed by government, it may just stagnate. Then again, there will probably plenty of billionaires walking around wanting to spend money on medical advances for themselves and their families. We may even still call them Senators, Congressmen, CEOs, board members, cabinet members, and bankers.

There goes everything

[jimmy_dean]

There goes our chance as a nation to pay off our debt, there goes many private-sector jobs, there goes a lot of freedom and liberty from a nanny-state government. This is a sad-sad day. Instead of reforming healthcare with more government, why not look at tort-reform, getting rid of old and silly regulations in the industry, getting rid of the unfair tax credit towards companies providing health insurance, and many other things. Democrats are such a populist-kissing re-elect me at any cost party. It's really sad. And no, Republicans suck as well.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Cyberax]

"Banks have over-issued their notes for as long as they've existed. This is not solved by gathering all of the counterfeiting and fraud into one central authority which is able to compel us to accept their notes. It's better for banks to fail individually."

And before banks existed, there was virtually no economic growth. And it can be easily explained if you look in any good textbook of macroeconomics. Should I explain it for you?

"Nope. More debt is not a solution to the problems of existing debt. It only postpones and increases the scale of the mess."

You're just parroting republican idiocy.

"More debt" can very well be the solution for the problems of debt, if extra debt is offset by later economic growth. I.e. if an extra debt becomes an extra investment.

Case in point, USA during late 40-s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Notice the sharp drop of debt-to-GDP ratio while the absolute amount of debt has changed very little. That's because economy growth had offset the debt growth.

Also, late 40-s - 50s was a period with high income and corporate taxes and strong unions. Which should be very bad for business according to you.