Health Care Reform Bill...the fine print

[equity space]

Has anyone read the thousand pages or so of the health care reform bill? Of course not and who cares, right?

After taking care of all the big fund raising constituents, what they left out is the fine print. No one can be denied health care now, whoopee! But insurance companies can charge you what ever premiums they want if they have to cover a high risk person. And when that high risk person who is in the $80k/yr bracket, doesn't qualify for government subsidized insurance and can't afford the $3,000 month insurance premium....they're breaking the law and face jail time.

This administration sure is screwed up....

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think that someone will have to file a test lawsuit the first time they get charged with this, but there is still a movement afoot in Congress to repeal or adjust these laws. I am not in favor of the entire concept either, but I'm willing to let it be resolved by the courts if someone calls the government down on some of the terms.

 

[equity space]

I posted just a few issues about the health care bill. There are too many things wrong with it that Capitol Hill don't have enough solutions for.

 

[statsman]

If you really try, I'll bet you can come up with a dozen situations that effect 20 or so people out of a population of 300+ million.

If you want perfection, don't live in a democracy.

 

[equity space]

If you really try, I'll bet you can come up with a dozen situations that effect 20 or so people out of a population of 300+ million.

If you want perfection, don't live in a democracy.

"Ignorance is the worse form of education"

I bet if you try you may get past the first 10 pages of the thousand pages or so of the health care reform bill and get a better understanding of what its really all about. $940 Billion dollars is just a down payment and with the fed's attitude toward immigration, it's only going to get a lot worse...they'll be crossing the boarder to get their hand outs.

Look at California; 5th largest economy in the world with the highest taxes and we're broke with the worse schools...try figuring what "situation" is affecting the 37 million who lives there.

"If we're living in a democracy, why are choices being made for us by others in regard to health care and the punitive consequences being enforced upon those who [chose] not to participate?"

There seems to be a slight confusion on your definition of democracy.

Sorry Mr. George Washington, but we've been moving away from a democracy way before you were born.

 

[pbaldy]

If you want perfection, don't live in a democracy.

Technically, we're supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. We started with a Constitutional Republic, which would be more protective of individual rights, but we've devolved into a democracy, which can derisively be called a "tyranny of the majority"; less protective of individual rights.

 

[Adam Caramon]

equity space, your first post reads like a commentary from fox news.

While health care reform is far from perfect, I think it is an important first step. Basic healthcare should be a right, as it is in most other western nations.

If we are lucky, we will eventually get to single payer, but due to the power our healthcare corporations hold, I think it will be an incredibly difficult battle.

Anyhow, give it some time, lets see how it works, and then make modifications to it as needed. If health insurance companies refuse to provide affordable care to their customers, that's all the more reason for the government to become the provider. Because they can and will be able to do so.

 

[Alc]

equity space, your first post reads like a commentary from fox news.

While health care reform is far from perfect, I think it is an important first step. Basic healthcare should be a right, as it is in most other western nations.

If we are lucky, we will eventually get to single payer, but due to the power our healthcare corporations hold, I think it will be an incredibly difficult battle.

Anyhow, give it some time, lets see how it works, and then make modifications to it as needed. If health insurance companies refuse to provide affordable care to their customers, that's all the more reason for the government to become the provider. Because they can and will be able to do so.

It did sound like not wanting to do anything at all, in case some people were badly affected, regardless of how many people would be helped.

By the same token, a number of innocent people get arrested each year. Does that mean there should be no laws and no police force, or does it mean that you should keep them in place - since they are clearly needed - and work on improving them?

 

[laxster]

equity space, your first post reads like a commentary from fox news.

While health care reform is far from perfect, I think it is an important first step. Basic healthcare should be a right, as it is in most other western nations.

If we are lucky, we will eventually get to single payer, but due to the power our healthcare corporations hold, I think it will be an incredibly difficult battle.

Anyhow, give it some time, lets see how it works, and then make modifications to it as needed. If health insurance companies refuse to provide affordable care to their customers, that's all the more reason for the government to become the provider. Because they can and will be able to do so.

The problem with governmentally-provided healthcare as a RIGHT is that it creates a worse population in the long-run. People who expect something as a "right" then expect the government to provide that "right" with what is, in this case, a tangible good. If government doesn't kick in, people's sense of entitlement kicks in.

People who feel entitled to something generally get grumpy and mad if they don't get what they were entitled to.

But beyond just morality of man, I'm concerned that Obama's basic promises have been broken. The closed-door meetings, floor votes at 1 AM, threats to hold lawmakers over Christmas Eve away from their families, and the soaring deficit should all be cause for concern. And now that we find that Obama's own Health and Human Services department has found that our premiums will rise instead of fallen, cuts in Medicare, etc. are also all causes for concern. So we passed this bill -- unread -- based on some core assumptions which have turned out to be false after the fact.

Not to mention the Constitutionality of it -- it appears to violate the 10th Amendment, and takes quite a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. I won't even get into the use of parliamentary tricks to pass the legislation instead of using the traditional process.

This is why you READ a bill before passing it through, no matter how much Nancy Pelosi twists your arm.

I'm not opposed to health reform. But I think there definitely are much better options and paths we could've taken to get there. I tend to favor encouraging people to move towards HSAs.

 

[Alc]

The problem with governmentally-provided healthcare as a RIGHT is that it creates a worse population in the long-run. People who expect something as a "right" then expect the government to provide that "right" with what is, in this case, a tangible good. If government doesn't kick in, people's sense of entitlement kicks in.

Which countries are you specifically thinking about, here?

 

[pbaldy]

I would argue that nothing can be a "right" if it imposes an obligation on someone else to provide it. My right to free speech does not require that anybody provide me with a forum to speak, just that nobody stop me from speaking. My right to freedom of religion does not require anybody to provide me with a church, just that I be allowed to practice my religion. One person's right can't (or shouldn't) be another person's obligation.

 

[Alc]

I would argue that nothing can be a "right" if it imposes an obligation on someone else to provide it. My right to free speech does not require that anybody provide me with a forum to speak, just that nobody stop me from speaking. My right to freedom of religion does not require anybody to provide me with a church, just that I be allowed to practice my religion. One person's right can't (or shouldn't) be another person's obligation.

Makes sense. Areas like law and order, education, or protection from foreign invaders wouldn't be covered, but I can genuinely see how they could be regarded as something other than a 'right'.

 

[pbaldy]

You're probably being sarcastic, but I agree. Those are not rights; they are services we pay for.

 

[Alc]

You're probably being sarcastic, but I agree. Those are not rights; they are services we pay for.

I honestly wasn't. I didn't use a smiley face, as I didn't think it was appropriate, but I didn't know how else to get the point across, other than using the word 'genuinely'.

I think the word 'rights' is bandied about far too much, nowadays. Personally, I wouldn't say that anyone has a right to anything - including religion and free speech - but that all of these things are luxuries afforded us by living in 'civilised' (for want of a better word) places. We all agree to act in certain ways, given the parameters of our own societies, and to allow others to do the same. Those items you mentioned may well be viewed as rights where you are, but they're certainly not in many places. I don't think there are any true universal rights?

 

[pbaldy]

You know what they say about assuming? I just proved it correct. Sorry about that.

 

[Steve R.]

I would argue that nothing can be a "right" if it imposes an obligation on someone else to provide it.

Excellent point. Just to go a step further, we can have human rights, but we cannot have "special" rights such as woman's rights, or immigrant rights. The existence of "special" rights is a slippery slope towards inequality. To paraphrase Orwell, "We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others."

 

[Alc]

You know what they say about assuming? I just proved it correct. Sorry about that.

No apology necessary. One of the drawbacks of communicating like this - inflection, etc. are totally lost.

 

[laxster]

Excellent point. Just to go a step further, we can have human rights, but we cannot have "special" rights such as woman's rights, or immigrant rights. The existence of "special" rights is a slippery slope towards inequality. To paraphrase Orwell, "We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others."

I agree. We should have equal treatment under the law.

As far as other "rights", well, our Founding Fathers identified certain inalienable rights -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They felt that these were given to us by God, not the government. Rights granted by the government can also be taken away by the government, or as Thomas Jefferson stated "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

Thus, I believe in a small federal government with a short Constitutional leash. Any duties not specifically numerated to the Federal Government are, per the 10th Amendment, "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Rabbie]

As far as other "rights", well, our Founding Fathers identified certain inalienable rights -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They felt that these were given to us by God, not the government.

That right seems to be inconsistent with the death penalty

 

[Alc]

That right seems to be inconsistent with the death penalty

and any kind of imprisonment, surely, is at odds with both the prisoner's liberty and happiness?