Health Reform Legistlation

[bamf]

Idea:

Why don't we cut some of our exorbitant defense budget and use it for other means?

 

[Barnabas]

Idea:

Why don't we cut some of our exorbitant defense budget and use it for other means?

because then the terrorist win, also big boats require big budgets so it follows that small boats would come from small budgets and we can't have that now can we.

 

[Krumplenump]

I recently saw the figures of the US health budget. Immense. And it's immense still when 45 million Americans don't have any health insurance.

 

[Nik]

Who gave anyone the means to live within, in the first place? It's never clear. What if someone is born within no means, or negative means. Shouldn't exist?

I also wonder, are members of the government administration better protected from its interference with their personal liberty? Why would they want to participate in something which makes their own lives so horrible? The government / state is made of other people of flesh, with real families, not some demons. What is their special gain in doing this, if it harms them?

Regarding your first set of questions, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that people are "given" means. In my previous post to you, when I said "live within your means," I meant something quite similar to the later phrase "always be prudent." That is, no matter what your circumstances are, adjust your lifestyle to make the best of the situation.

I used to teach at a high school that was designated to be in a "low socioeconomic" part of the city, which meant that the students were deemed to come from poor families with few resources. Yet nearly every student had shoes more expensive than mine, iPods, cell phones, and nice clothing and jewelry. Further, my guess is that their parents also owned vehicles and paid, in addition to their child's phone bill, monthly cable or satellite television bills. These are not the attributes of an impoverished class.

As to the second part of your post, congressmen possess privileges not shared by average citizens, including six-figure salaries ($174,000 for regular congressmen; $194,000 for party leaders; and $224,000 for the House Speaker), lifetime pensions following retirement, franking benefits, annual gifts from lobbyists (e.g., food, entertainment, funding for their careers), and other perks. As career politicians they're insulated from the uncertainty that accompanies the lives of many average Americans. And they certainly won't be bound by the restrictions that will be caused by the government's inevitable rationing of health care, in order to control the expanding costs resulting from physicians who abandon their practice combined with an influx of patients taking advantage of the new no-holds-barred assault on an insurance industry whose financial existence depends on assessing risk.

In short, politicians' lives won't become worse as a result of their legislation because they can easily exempt themselves from the constraints of their own law, primarily by using their wealth and networking resources to obtain the freedom to seek out health care that has not been diminished by the government's bureaucratic red tape.


To efromm: I am with you. In the past 24 hours, you're the umpteenth person who has declared not to be bullied by the government's pay-or-else law. One on-line acquaintance of mine said he hopes that the IRS or some other federal goons personally hand him the fine so that he can tear it up in front of them and tell them to piss off.

 

[54192&#cmy]

They believe that they are right that they have all the power they will have to kill us all before they get all the power. Who will be making the money they desperately want if no one works for them. I am so tired of being told what to do by public servants who forget who the hell they work for. They are looking to buy 60 870 Remington shot guns. Now why would the IRS need guns? People better start waking up. People are leaving California in droves. They are being driven out by high taxes! And a bankrupt state government issuing IOU's. Look at how much damage is going on around us financially and we need a health care plan now? This is insane to the core. There is some reason they want so much power over our lives and we are just handing it over. I am against it and I will die and let my blood spill across this land before I submit to paying any health care tax. They have stirred the rebel in me and I know I will not be the only one who feels this way. It's time to save America from the hands of tyrants.
Right on Nik! Glad your with me on this one.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I am against it and I will die and let my blood spill across this land before I submit to paying any health care tax.

I think that's a tad overdramatic. Have you thoroughly investigated where your tax dollars from previous years have gone? If so, surely you have found more objectionable things than health care.

 

[Stu]

....I will die and let my blood spill across this land before I submit to paying any health care tax. ...

To efromm: I am with you. In the past 24 hours, you're the umpteenth person who has declared not to be bullied by the government's pay-or-else law. One on-line acquaintance of mine said he hopes that the IRS or some other federal goons personally hand him the fine so that he can tear it up in front of them and tell them to piss off.

I am curious, Efromm & Nik, do you all have health insurance now? How many people do you know do not have coverage? Why don't they?

 

[54192&#cmy]

Sure I have. And it is all of those things that brought this to a head for me and many others in this country. When I was a boy we had a middle class in this country also known as blue collar jobs. Where are they now? In a word GONE! They have destroyed the middle class both parties. The jobs are no longer here in this country they are in China now. Why? Because someone wrote the legislation to allow them to do it. Both parties have been destroying this country for years. And while we fight and play party politics Republican and Democrat they steal together power and money. I do not think that it is extreme to support the Constitution and what it stands for. Was it extreme for George Washington to denounce his oppressive government?

I will die for America in America if that is what it takes to reclaim our freedom. They are willing to jail us if we do not pay this tax. Who gave them that authority? They did. They gave themselves the authority to take over and look into your life. How many other places have they crept in under the guise of doing good only to later use it to screw you. They can bend all the rules and make the laws to support those rules. And put in judges to persecute you for not following them. They own us now. Where can you go if you choose not to work? Can you just live without paying taxes? Can you live off the land for free as God made you too? Where are you free to be a human life form like all of the other life forms on planet Earth?

 

[54192&#cmy]

I am curious, Efromm & Nik, do you all have health insurance now? How many people do you know do not have coverage? Why don't they?

I do not have coverage because I work for myself. I do not get unemployment insurance but I have to buy it for my company which only employs me and my father who are partners. Because the government requires me to do so. I have a lot of friends who do not have coverage. And you know why, because it costs too much. But why does it cost too much? Because between the lawyers government and the insurance companies they have made it cost more than it should. Plus the value of the dollar is low. Inflation is high. If we had jobs and a growing economy with surpluses in budgets for decades to come I could get behind it.

I see this as an attack on our economy which has already suffered Bush and the Republicans. There is zero reason to legislate more spending when we are in the greatest depression since the great depression. It makes no sense to me at all. Sure we all need health insurance but shouldn't we decide what plan to buy and who to support with our money. Or is it their money and we are just borrowing it until they steal it by taxing it out of our pockets?

 

[randomsomeone]

we're a nation of idiots.

You just may be right!!!

 

[enfp can be shy]

I used to teach at a high school that was designated to be in a "low socioeconomic" part of the city, which meant that the students were deemed to come from poor families with few resources. Yet nearly every student had shoes more expensive than mine, iPods, cell phones, and nice clothing and jewelry.

This effect happens everywhere, in all countries, and in all times of history. The only way to make feel like overcoming poverty is by superficial signs of prosperity. Those who actually have solid ground under their feet do not need to aim for such public displays of success. Similarly, obesity is a sign for poverty, not the other way around. The poor folk goes home tired to death and overeats the same junk, once a day. The rich eats with variety, quality and frequency, and has time for training and sun baths.

About rich government administrators, if they are so rich, why don't they want private health care then? Ah, I see, you probably assume they get richer from the whole program, so that they can then go and use their money for private health care. But if they can use expensive elite health care, others can do it too, what has changed? The main thing that's changed is that the lower class man can have health care too.

 

[bamf]

The only way to make feel like overcoming poverty is by superficial signs of prosperity.

The main thing that's changed is that the lower class man can have health care too.

^^^This^^^

 

[The Jester]

Okay. I've read a bit of your posts. I'll give the european stance.

I'll begin with this simply thinking exercise:

Prisoner's dilemma.
I'm sure most of you have heard of this. You can easily apply it to society.
There are theories which say that the dilemma is a reason why there's socialism.
I believe you can easily see why. Greatest happiness for the greatest number.

1) BUT TAXES OMG
And what about all those dollars you spend on your personal health care, which sucks when you need it?
I've seen statistics in todays news papers, which show that the people in the US pay the most for their healthcare, yet are screwed over the most.
(I believe this was in comparison only with other western countries.)

2) BUT MAH MONEY OMG. I CAN LOOK OUT FOR MAHSELF.
Yea, I bet you're quite the alphamale who can gather his own food.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU ALONE. What about those other people who are dying because they can't get any help?
Seriously, you're not alone, and you could help a brother out.
If you think in longterm, this is the best plan.

3) LOL COMMUNIST
I am under the impression that most people don't know what communism means.
Seriously, I saw a video of a man being called a communist because he wanted health care.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8"]YouTube- Tea Partiers Mock And Scorn Apparent Parkinson's Victim[/ame]

4) MAH FREEDOM
You aren't free if you're sick and can't afford to go to the doctor. Or die because of it.

5) AMERICAN DREAMZ
Yea. Not everyone can work himself up.
There are a lot of other factors than determination.



WELCOME AMERICA

Stalin baked you all cookies!

 

[Satya]

Why are we doing this in the first place? Are we not in an economic depression? I keep hearing that job loss is going up. And with job loss comes less people on insurance. Not to mention the illegal aliens flooding into the country using up health services and housing services. There are a lot of people taking money out of the system right now. What we need is solid jobs and a solid recovery. I am against this bill because I believe in my heart that it is the wrong thing to do right now. It is not time for this to happen. We don't have the money for it. Hell we may never have the money for it if we keep spending it all. All of the cookies have been taken from the jar and now there are only IOU's left behind. We need to pay those IOU's and start putting cookies back into the jar. We need A WORKING ECONOMY AGAIN. Not a BORROWING ONE! We need to pay for what we ask for.

'

this

I might have this sentiment, IF THE LEGISLATION WASN'T PAID FOR!

This isn't a bank bailout or a stimulus package, this was legislation that was painstakingly crafted to pay for itself and reduce the federal deficit. The fact that nobody bothered to read the CBO report angers me quite a bit, and the fact that people bought into the, "Oh we can't afford this right now" line is ludicrous. We couldn't afford NOT TO DO THIS! Health insurance premiums were projected to go through the roof, which meant all those new uninsured people were going to be lining up at the emergency room and expecting us to pay for it anyways. This way we at least have a chance to start paying off the federal deficit in 10 years instead of increasing it. If we hadn't done this, it very well could have lead to a recession that topped the one we just went through.

 

[Kavalan]

Kavalan: As I understand their work, the Founders did not intend for the federal government to have the sort of dynamism most progressives think of today. I mentioned in another post (to you, I think) that the federal government’s power to become energetic was limited to moments of great exigency, which as the Founders understood it entailed mainly outside threats and certain domestic insurrections. I find it very hard to believe that men like Madison and Jefferson would have promoted revolutionary war against the British Empire on account of its excessive taxes, only to establish a new government that can compel its citizens, upon threat of imprisonment, to enter into private contracts for the purpose of purchasing government-mandated products or services. I don’t mean to sound belligerent or overly aggressive but I am a scholar of the American founding and its political philosophy, and I welcome you to a conversation about the intent and design of our federal republic, if you’re willing.

Unless you bring documents that specifically state that state otherwise, the biggest issue that the founding father had was the lack of representation, it was excessive taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Coming from the town that the pine tree riot occured I am knowledgable about the tension and it was from the unilateral declarations from a orginization we couldn't participate in. As far as I know you are represented by a congressman and a senator you don't like what they're doing, vote for someone else.

I oppose Social Darwinism; but my opposition to it does not mean that the only reasonable alternative is a substitution of federal-republicanism with some form of administrative dictatorship. (And I use the term “dictatorship” deliberately, in the sense that it describes a form of government more inclined toward issuing dictates or “mandates” to its people from a centralized bureaucracy, rather than allowing the constituent political units (e.g., states) have their own citizens determine what type of republic works for them at a more local level.)

The state do a great deal of dictating as well 49 states in some form dictate one should wear a seatbelt for fear of fines or punishments. The last one has this for their license plate:

Finally, on the contrary, I would not support the institution of slavery merely because it happens to exist in a state by that state’s laws. When people ask me what my political “party” affiliation is, I answer with, “Declarationist.” I had the very good fortune of studying under American political scholars who showed me that there was more to understanding the American republic than simply reading legalese. We have tomes of letters, essays, and speeches composed by our nation’s founders that emphasize America’s uniqueness for being the only society founded on a political philosophy of natural right and not hacked into obedience by the sword. The Declaration of Independence is the philosophic foundation for the practical application of the U.S. Constitution. It was this document that Lincoln used to justify his opposition to Douglas’s conception of popular sovereignty. Legally, Douglas could make a case for protecting the institution of slavery, because manmade law has no allegiance to any natural or divine law. But Lincoln argued that America was bound, first and foremost, by the laws of God and of nature’s god described in the Declaration of Independence.

I then ask why did the founders leave such a grey area for power? If it were so obvious how the balance of power should be why are we fighting with it? You keep sticking to that federal government is not be dynamic. you're right it was not setup for every frivolous piece of legislation to be sent through. But one that is static will not stand the test of time. As nature itself is dynamic.

Those same laws were interpreted by the founders to include the sacred right to the fruits of our labor, known as “property.” In fact, for Madison and others property was viewed as the most important right from which all others were derived. A government that mandates its people to enter into contracts and to purchase specified products and services shows a vile disregard for the property rights of its people and therefore has no respect for the philosophic principles on which the nation itself rests.

Andrew Jackson; Trail of Tears. I also ask, "What good is having liberty when those with power tell you, 'you can have this land we're taking it from you and you need to leave or be killed.'?"
What good is being free if you aren't protected from the greed of others and are forced to suffer? I'm pretty sure minimum wage laws and child labor laws came out of that.

I think a split is going to be wanted this is getting OT.

 

[Satya]

The reality is that the government we have now is nothing like the founding fathers envisioned it. This was a great social experiment, and they recognized from the past that power would end up in the hands of a few. They were merchants and so they felt that the power should end up in the hands of merchants, which is why we have the virtual oligarchy that we have now, whereby the corporations have more sway on the government than any individual. But even the founding fathers never expected corporations to last longer than a generation or to possess as much power in world affairs as they do now. This latest battle was between the insurance companies and the people, and the people largely bought into the propaganda that their Republican stooges unloaded via the media, but many Democrats pushed on putting their political careers in jeopardy to get something, even imperfect legislation, passed. I think history will look back on these people fondly, because the bitterness and anger people feel now is artificial, and created from an ideology of fear of the government. The government is a tool, and only a fool fears a tool. It's the people behind the tool that people need to be aware of, and those people, the Democrats, just put in an amazing effort to better the lives of every American and protect the future of this country.

 

[Barnabas]

I have no judgements to make yonset as we have not felt any reprocussions of the legislation as of yet.

But I do have questions.

So far a few states including my state of Florida has begun to sue the U.S. over whether or not this bill is constitutional and are continueing the age old battle of State's rights vs Federal rights. How do you think this will go.

How do you think this is going to affect my wallet, what do you percieve is going to pay for these programs or have they figured out a way to cut enough programs to not raise taxes monumentaly?

Will yall take the fine or the health insurance?

 

[Satya]

So far a few states including my state of Florida has begun to sue the U.S. over whether or not this bill is constitutional and are continueing the age old battle of State's rights vs Federal rights. How do you think this will go.

It is a strong case. First assuming a broad ruling, this is a right, center Supreme Court and this could provide it the opportunity to overturn the 1936 ruling of the Supreme Court that extended the definition of "general welfare" in the Constitution that has lead to this legislation as well as in kind assistance programs like Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, TANIF, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. It is possible that this law could lead to a dramatic reduction in government in the area of welfare and a major conservative victory if the Supreme Court rules this unconstitutional. It could also very well be the end of federal welfare as we know it in this country.

That scenario is exactly why I have envisioned getting a JD degree in addition to my MSW. It could likely be the end of social work. Even things like child protective agencies, residential care, etc. fall under the general welfare clause of the Constitution. Some states would try to keep the welfare system in place but those states would see an incredible strain on their services as more people moved there from areas which had no services.

Now assuming a narrow ruling, it would likely declare that the federal government cannot impose a fine for failure to buy health insurance. That would be more damning to the health insurance companies than anyone because they would no longer be able to deny people health coverage for preexisting conditions but they wouldn't be able to make up the lost revenue by the new customers they would gain from the mandatory insurance. The result would be a dramatic rise in costs. The Republicans could then make a case that the legislation needs to be repealed. However, it is a gamble, because the public is just as likely to go the other way and seek a public option. In other words, a narrow ruling could either lead to repealing the legislation or to socializing medicine in this country.

How do you think this is going to affect my wallet, what do you percieve is going to pay for these programs or have they figured out a way to cut enough programs to not raise taxes monumentaly?

Most of what is going to pay for it is a reduction in health insurance costs. For most Americans, they won't see any difference at all in the amount that they pay for health care. First impressions, you would think that was a bad thing, but the reality is that health care costs before this legislation were projected to increase an extraordinary amount. The savings are ultimately what go into paying for this. There are taxes on what are known as "Cadillac insurance plans" which are very extravagant health insrance packages. And then there are other random taxes, most you would be unlikely to ever see directly.

Will yall take the fine or the health insurance?

Depends on the cost. If health insurance costs continue to rise, then everyone may end up opting for the $750 fine and we will end up with virtual socialized medicine in that way. The fine also serves to restrict how much insurance companies can charge their customers, because after a certain point, it would become cheaper to pay the fine, and people would probably get about the same services from the government.

 

[Norton]

They really are out to get us!

 

[just me]

A doctor I spoke with yesterday said the medical R&D was profit based enough to slow down with this new outlook from this new administration.
Healthscare today through our new gov is still a bad smokescreen to me for some unseen reason as of yet.

Mind you, time has a way of revealing things to those that cannot see.