US Health Care Reform Vote

Goodbye Grandma.

[quote=“Elegua”][quote=“Okami”][quote=“zyzzx”]Things are looking good. I’m not sure I’ll believe it till it happens, but various news outlets (CNN, BBC, etc) are now reporting that the votes are in the bag.
Once this is done, I’m kind of curious to see what bogeyman the right takes up next.[/quote]Several states have their attorney generals preparing legal challenges to it to declare it unconstitutional.[/quote]

Those efforts will be as successful as the Confederacy.

I wonder why all of a sudden reconciliation is unconstitutional. After all we just passed 3 tax bills with it under Bush and 2 tax reduction bill (later vetoed) before that.[/quote]It’s not reconciliation. It’s the fact that the govt is forcing you to buy a product. I would suggest asking questions rather than jumping to hyperbole.

Uhhh… the Dems are voting in favor of their constituents’ sentiments.

They still gotta get to reconciliation to “fix” the bills… It’s still ugly in the House…Unfortunately, I can’t watch anymore 'cause I gotta go to work…

Sure, but the biggest hurdle has been cleared.

[quote=“CraigTPE”]They still gotta get to reconciliation to “fix” the bills… It’s still ugly in the House…Unfortunately, I can’t watch anymore 'cause I gotta go to work…[/quote]Here’s the problem with the reconciliation part. It’s still has to be passed by the Senate and the Healthcare bill has to have been signed into law. The Senate is also allowed to make endless amendments to it.

I’m interested in seeing if Sen. Coburn goes through with his threat to Dems defeated in the 2010 elections.

Not exactly. Don’t forget, the president will sign this into law. That is a done-deal because the house passed the Senate version. Only the “fixes” are now in question.

Incremental, and yet still a big step.

Cool.

Uhhh… the Dems are voting in favor of their constituents’ sentiments.[/quote]

Uhhhh, a lot aren’t. A lot of Dems voted specifically against what their constituents wanted. Not a single Republican voted in favour tonight, and if this ends up bankrupting the US or being a dismal failure, it will be the Dems, alone, that will bear the political cost.

[quote=“Okami”][quote=“Elegua”][quote=“Okami”][quote=“zyzzx”]Things are looking good. I’m not sure I’ll believe it till it happens, but various news outlets (CNN, BBC, etc) are now reporting that the votes are in the bag.
Once this is done, I’m kind of curious to see what bogeyman the right takes up next.[/quote]Several states have their attorney generals preparing legal challenges to it to declare it unconstitutional.[/quote]

Those efforts will be as successful as the Confederacy.

I wonder why all of a sudden reconciliation is unconstitutional. After all we just passed 3 tax bills with it under Bush and 2 tax reduction bill (later vetoed) before that.[/quote]It’s not reconciliation. It’s the fact that the govt is forcing you to buy a product. I would suggest asking questions rather than jumping to hyperbole.[/quote]

Hyperbole? Merely commenting on how constitutionally most of the state legal challenges will fail as well as the hypocrisy of the Republican’s when they whinge about the reconciliation process they themselves used.

Since you understand how insurance works, then you understand why requiring coverage is necessary to make it work. Do you drive? Do you buy 3rd party insurance?

[quote=“Okami”][quote=“Elegua”][quote=“Okami”][quote=“zyzzx”]Things are looking good. I’m not sure I’ll believe it till it happens, but various news outlets (CNN, BBC, etc) are now reporting that the votes are in the bag.
Once this is done, I’m kind of curious to see what bogeyman the right takes up next.[/quote]Several states have their attorney generals preparing legal challenges to it to declare it unconstitutional.[/quote]

Those efforts will be as successful as the Confederacy.

I wonder why all of a sudden reconciliation is unconstitutional. After all we just passed 3 tax bills with it under Bush and 2 tax reduction bill (later vetoed) before that.[/quote]It’s not reconciliation. It’s the fact that the govt is forcing you to buy a product. I would suggest asking questions rather than jumping to hyperbole.[/quote]

The government buys all sorts of stuff that individuals don’t agree on, yet it’s our tax dollars as a whole being used, you don’t get a line-item veto on each spending item. The logistics of the government making you pay for something, or them taxing you to pay for the same type of services, doesn’t really change the concept. The “libertarians” in the Republican and Democratic parties might oppose the health care bill on these grounds, but I think everyone knows they’ve agreed on this method, instead of using tax dollars for a new public health insurance plan like Medicare and Medicaid, because they were not able to get the so-called “public option” passed.

In the scheme of things, it’s the same concept, it’s essentially a new tax for which you get guaranteed health coverage of some form. I fail to see the hyperbole in his statements, he’s right, it’s the same as a tax. There’s nothing preventing the government from doing this - didn’t we have this discussion a couple months ago? It’s deja vu all over again.

Health reform and the specter of Alf Landon

[quote]This “cruel hoax,” he said, this “folly” of “bungling and waste,” compared poorly to the “much less expensive” and “practical measures” favored by the Republicans.

“We must repeal,” the GOP leader argued. “The Republican Party is pledged to do this.”

That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September 1936 campaign speech. He based his bid for the White House on repealing Social Security.

Bad call, Alf. Republicans lost that presidential election in a landslide. By the time they finally regained the White House – 16 years later – their nominee, Dwight Eisenhower, had abandoned the party’s repeal platform.[/quote]
Something for the GOP to think about.
I think in the end it came down to the Democrats did something that the Republicans refused to even try.

I’ve been reading comments from conservatives on other blogs. They are pretty funny. One guy said something about Caesar and the end of the Republic. There’s some pretty sad people out there.

tee hee

Uhhh… the Dems are voting in favor of their constituents’ sentiments.[/quote]

Uhhhh, a lot aren’t. A lot of Dems voted specifically against what their constituents wanted. Not a single Republican voted in favour tonight, and if this ends up bankrupting the US or being a dismal failure, it will be the Dems, alone, that will bear the political cost.[/quote]

A lot of the constituents don’t agree, and some Democrats didn’t vote for the bill. But there is a simple fact that for at least the past 10 years (when I started following the trend), the majority - a vast majority in fact - believe that the US health insurance system is poorer than the rest of the western world, and would like to see our system changed to one of universal coverage and government regulated costs. The numbers go down when you mention “taxes to pay for it”, thoguh of course a tax for the service doesn’t take into account reduced cost to yourself and your company. It’s only because of Obama’s recent push for it, and the corresponding, predictable libertarian backlash of lies, that the percentage has decreased, and bald-faced propaganda has pushed the less-informed to change their opinions on the matter.

Not that the democrats haven’t had their share of lies and exaggerations, but if you look at the differences in the BS being thrown, the libertarian/right wing BS is far more unintelligent and condescending (“death panels”, “Obamacare”, “no choice” - just plain radical lies - as opposed to the liberals “it’ll save money”, “it pays for itself”, “everyone is covered”) - I would argue that the liberal lies are more exaggerations of things like cost and coverage percentages, while the libertarian lies are outright nonsense intended to raise the ire of the illiterati, but then, hey, I’m biased by reason and compassion.

Also I read recently - I want to say Krugman - that in fact 50% of health insurance in the US is paid by Medicare and Medicaid, and another 33% through the individual’s employer. So it’s that last 1/6 of the costs that get hit hardest - individual payers and COBRA-type former employees - who visibly pay out the nose. So we’re practically half-way to government-run insurance anyway…

The government forces me to fund the military, and that’s a much bigger chunk of my tax money than anything else.

I’d rather pay to heal people than to kill people.

[quote=“Chris”]The government forces me to fund the military, and that’s a much bigger chunk of my tax money than anything else.
I’d rather pay to heal people than to kill people.[/quote]

WHAT??? What kind of goddamn commie hippie are you?

[quote=“Elegua”]Since you understand how insurance works, then you understand why requiring coverage is necessary to make it work. Do you drive? Do you buy 3rd party insurance?[/quote]The difference between car insurance and health insurance is I can choose not to buy car insurance and not drive a car or buy car insurance when it suits my needs, i.e. when I rent a car. If you don’t buy health insurance, you get fined for being alive.

Since Elegua was so nice to bust out such a great argument. :unamused:

[quote=“Chris”]The government forces me to fund the military, and that’s a much bigger chunk of my tax money than anything else.[/quote]The health care thing is more akin to a draft. You can decide not to join the military, now you can’t choose to not buy healthcare. You must or face fines and possibly imprisonment if you don’t in a few years.

If health care reform is so important:

  1. Why does it not kick in right away yet the taxes do?
  2. What guarantee do we have that reconciliation will get through the senate? When 1 senator objects to conference, will the house pass the senate reconciliation bill warts and all as they have done with the healthcare bill?

Which leads to some great unexpected consequences such as:

  1. Union employees getting hit with the cadillac tax
  2. The Lousianna purchase, constitutional or not
  3. Conneticut compromise, see 2
  4. How will doctors and hospitals react to cuts in fees?
  5. All those additional IRS agents making your life a living hell.

Liberal strawmen arguments in 5.4.3.2…

Politicing aside, you should say congratulations to your President who has the ability to get things done with the mess given to him.

[quote]Elegua wrote:
Since you understand how insurance works, then you understand why requiring coverage is necessary to make it work. Do you drive? Do you buy 3rd party insurance?
The difference between car insurance and health insurance is I can choose not to buy car insurance and not drive a car or buy car insurance when it suits my needs, i.e. when I rent a car. If you don’t buy health insurance, you get fined for being alive.

Since Elegua was so nice to bust out such a great argument. [/quote]

Sure. But unlike choosing to drive a car, you really can’t make a choice about getting ill or not and the economics of insurance don’t permit you buying insurance once you need it (that is unless you have a large pool of health people in the system - before you get in to pre-existing conditions).

So I guess you’ll just end up being one of those non-paying A&E/ER patients, where defacto the US is providing already universal healthcare of the most expensive and least efficient kind.

But thanks for taking up the argument.

[quote=“Okami”]If health care reform is so important:

  1. Why does it not kick in right away yet the taxes do?[/quote]
    Because of pressure from those* who care more about insurance industry profits than the good of the people. Money has far too much of an influence on politics.

The same applies to the other big flaws with the bill: the “fine” (which is under US$100 annually, BTW), the lack of a public option or Medicare buy-in, and much more. I don’t like these. But I prefer that something be done at this time than nothing. Then, once passed, the bill can be improved and refined, with bad stuff taken out and good stuff added. And maybe, just maybe, I’ll live to see the day that the US has caught up with the rest of the industrialized world in this issue.

This bill is far from perfect, but, if I may quote some hackneyed saws, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step”, and “Once begun, it’s half done”.

*Republicans and Liebercrats

Why couldn’t someone be opposed to government spending their money on both health care and the military, amongst other things? More partisan nonsense where many on the right conveniently ignore the cost of military adventurism whilst complaining about other government spending and many on the left assume that because someone is opposed to government mandated health care, they must be totally in favour of the military-industrial complex.