The Health Care Bill passes

That is the best summary of the bill I have seen!  I wish everyone would read that.  But most will not (and the few that have read the 2000+ page bill are not in congress).

Since the government money does not kick in until 2014, that means that many insurance companies will be pulling out (since they will not be able to afford the increased liability you describe above).  So by the time the government subsidies kick in, the government will be hauling in a ton of money (fines), insuring about 80+% of the people, and the care will be worse (the only way to make up the loss for the remaining insurance companies is to cut coverage).  Plus we already know the biggest denier of health care is the Feds.

So all the liberals have gotten is to kill health care.  As you noted, this bill is not about health care, but Healh Insurance.  In a few years, you will be hard pressed to find quality in either area.  Well, not the very wealthy, but the remaining 95% of the population.

Yes good summary indeed, Brad.

In that case why are so many people opposed so completely/ideologically to it? The second point is a very good one (providing companies are still free to charge such people appropriate rates) since it helps increase competition and choice for such people. As for the first one, people without insurance get insurance provided by the state, by taxing everyone else (but only covering the most basic healthcare, i.e. emergancy healthcare). So if the government was to force all such people to get insured, all they're doing is making sure those people are no longer getting a free ride at everyone elses expense - i.e. making people more responsible for their own actions. The only issue I then see is over the minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage you need - should it just cover such emergancy care, or should it cover more than that? I wouldn't call such differences as great as has been made out though.

So if this is the case, why does it seem like neither side can find any form of consensus on anything regarding this? I could understand if one side was proposing government provided healthcare since that would be an ideological split between whether the state should provide something via taxation or if it should be left to individuals/the market.

As to point 3/the subsidies, it'd probably depend more on the specifics, although if everyone is having to get insurance there isn't any point in having subsidies provided to insurance companies, since the main point of a subsidy on a good/service is to encourage people to consume it, but they're already going to be as a result of it being mandatory.

Unlike Abortion, there is a great deal of room for consensus.  The problem is Obama never tried it.  There are many things to reform, but it was never the intention of the democrats to reform, only mandate (that is all this is - not reform, but a mandate).

Don't forget that the penalty for the insurance companies for denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions is only $1500, unless they've updated that number in the past few months.  Everyone can likely determine the effectiveness of that incentive on their own.

I think you missed the point. Some poeple will have to get either insurace they pay for or one provided by the Gov't. Or they will be fined. If you get insurance you pay for you'll be fine, but if you cant afford it and your comapny does not provide it, you get stuck with Govt assistance which having been there myself leaves a lot to be desired. Still it's something vs nothing. The point is though, as an American, you should have the right to chose whether you wnat insurance or not. The consequences are your responisibility. This bill takes that away putting responsibility solely on the tax payers if this person gets Gov't assistance.

Lets not forget who will be enforcing these fines.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/IRS_Power_Report.pdf

Just some highlights:

IRS agents verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage 

IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250 or 2 percent of your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage” 

IRS can confiscate your tax refund  

IRS audits are likely to increase   

IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade 

IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans 

Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four)  

***SPECIAL EXEMPTION*** 

Democrats prohibit the IRS from imposing these taxes and penalties on illegal immigrants 

Which by itself I think is an excellent idea. But with a penalty much lower than the cost of health insurance, it becomes a farce.

No check for pre-existing conditions is excellent, but it only works if everyone really has to buy insurance (i.e if the penalty were not lower than the price of insurance). If the only choices were between insurance companies, it would be a level playing field again (but the price of insurance would go up for everyone which I have no problem with).

Obviously the insurance market would have to be made more liberal (in the original sense of the word). Only then would the no-check rule really create a level playing field. In the current system it's screwed up.

IOW I am for a healthcare system as advocated by the left but I completely disagree with this bill which doesn't seem to implement the system it claims it would.

When I was a kid a made an honest mistake on my tax return and owed the IRS some money, I would have preferred owing money to the Mafia. The IRS getting expanded powers is one of the most troubling aspects of this, but the shredding of our constitution, the backroom deals and corruption, and the closed door sessions where corruptocrats bolted themselves away to decide what was best for all of us without asking is what burns me the most. 

Personally I think this bill sucks. I would far prefer something like Alan Grayson's Medicare Buy-In bill.

However even if the Senate does not pass HR 4872, the Reconcillation Act of 2010, the current bill accomplishes one thing which is the camels nose is finally in the tent. And although I'm sure it will take many more years and many more battles, the outcome is inevitable, the best you can do is to delay as you've done for so many years but sooner or later there will be single payer health care in this country and there is no thing that you can do to stop it.

You should read the Waterloo article by David Frum who is someone I'm sure most folks here are quite familiar with.

Here's a few clips to chew on.

"A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

"Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?"

The Democrats bent over backwards every step of the way looking for any sign of bipartisanship but none was forthing and after over a year of waiting enough is enough. The Democrats negotiated out the public option with themselves in the mere hope of one Republican vote from Snowe. The Republicans dragged their feet every step of the way and made it totally clear that there was no consensus to be had. Any pretense of bipartiisanship was merely a delying tactic to fight it tooth and nail, water it down at every opportunity, put up every legislative roadblock possible and in the end vote against it. If the Republicans had any real concern about healthcare reform then they had at least 4 years with the presidency and majorities in both houses to do something about it but they chose not to.

If it wasn't for two facts I would hate this bill. The first is I don't hate this bill because *you* do, but the more important reason I support this bill even if for an interim of time it costs me more is the same reason that you hate it which is that we both realize that the camels nose is in the tent and you're never going to stop it from getting fully inside the tent.

A sad day for you.

"We said the wealth would trickle down!"

"And they believed us!"

Turnabout is fair play.

Yes, I can see where you think screwing 200 million americans is fair play.

There was one difference between 2001 and 2009.  In 2001, Bush listened to democrats.  In 2009, democrats (especially obama) did not listen to republicans.  So your fair play is screw them once, screw them twice, and screw them one more time.

yep, that is the MF we have all come to know.

But then again you probably didn't need to read much other than see who posted the reply and the line you quoted.

The blue dogs were looking for any kind of excuse to back out and make it as weak as possible all they needed was the slightest sign of Republican support and they would have negotiated anything you wanted just so they could say "well we tried to put in the public option but those mean old Republicans wouldn't let us".

The difference between 2001 and 2009 is that 10 Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts whereas not one single Republican voted for any aspect of healthcare.

But in the end I really don't care what you think. Have a nice day.

One second is enough for me. It usually begins and ends at "Mumblefratz"

34 democrats also voted against this so-called healthcare bill.  It doesn't have to be repealed, because it will just be overturned in the courts as it's un-Constitutional.

I see the resident socialist came out from the safety of his controlled blog to gloat in the open blogs, how refreshing.

Mumble, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a single payer system.

Am I the only one who sees this comment as the dumbest thing ever written? Begging for support?

Bipartisanship - In a two-party system, bipartisan refers to any bill, act, resolution, or any other action of a political body in which both of the major political parties are in agreement.

It was bipartisanship mumble, not "back the Democrats because they have majority". The Democrats refused to work with the Republicans, Obama lied when he claimed bipartisanship and transparency. But what can you expect, in order for anyone to see the transparency of something they would have to be anything but blind. This bill was not the will of the people, this was the will of a political party. All Obama needed was to stand at the top of the Empire State Building screaming "I Am Obama Almighty, My Will Be Done".

I don't understand why people think health care is a human right. Health care is a power some men have and can give to other men... for a price. If all the doctors decided to just stop practicing, you couldn't just put a gun to their head and make them. Not morally. And it is not their moral obligation to just cure you. In fact, most of them just became doctors to make a lot of money, and they and don't care about you personally, at all. (Of course, admitting this would be career suicide, and I am sure many doctors would be "genuinely upset" by this claim) But I think the reality should be pretty obvious given the attitudes and the philosophical nature of most doctors. They are essentially like mages. They might even fit in pretty well in Elemental. The only difference between magic and scientific materialism is that magic does not actually work. And you would be stupid to pay for it.

Ok. So that might sound like bullshit, and on the surface, it probably has a lot in common with bullshit. But the fact remains that healthcare never was nor ever will be a human right. In the same way, the government has no right to force you to give up your money for charitable causes (or even for your own insurance). But they will do it anyway because they are powerful enough to make you. And that is called freedom. Remember? It was not supposed to be free.

This is absolutely laughable. In a sick sort of way.

And the post-passage propaganda from dunces like Frum was entirely predicted.  Enjoy it while you can.

Lets also remember democrats struck down GOP items such as tort reform (who would have guessed that from the party of trial lawyers), and interstate insurance sales.

Which is interesting because the way I understand this, allowing interstate insurance sales would give the federal government more control over such sales allowing for much better regulation.

Yes, it does sound like bullshit.

Most doctors, I am sure, become doctors to help people or at least for the general prestige rather than primarily for the money. It's too hard a job with too late a payoff to be done by people who are after the money.

And yes, doctors do have a moral duty to help and cure. It is their moral obligation to cure if they can, just as it is mine and yours to help someone in danger as well.

That's true.

And even if it were, this bill is doing nothing to ensure that all humans can enjoy that right. It just gives care to a privileged few (Americans) paid for by other privileged few (fewer Americans).

But government has the right to force you to give up your money for charitable causes. It's called taxation and it's completely legal. Governments have all the rights delegated to them including the right to give to charitable causes. The US constitution specifies what rights have been delegated to the government and taxation is one of those.

If the discussion is about whether government may tax, the discussion ends here, because the answer is yes.

We can only discuss whether government should tax and how much and what the money should be used for.

And it never will be free because it requires labour.

But for a liberal "fairness" simply means the belief that other people work for free.

"Most doctors, I am sure, become doctors to help people or at least for the general prestige rather than primarily for the money. It's too hard a job with too late a payoff to be done by people who are after the money."

Someone has a doctor in the family...

No, doctors tell others (and usually themselves) that they became doctors to help people. In fact, they do it for the money. But you are right about the prestige. They do get a kick out of the belief in superiority. That is probably a factor as well, but not a sufficient one on its own.

"And yes, doctors do have a moral duty to help and cure. It is their moral obligation to cure if they can, just as it is mine and yours to help someone in danger as well."

It is not my moral obligation to help someone in danger, especially not at cost to myself and especially if I do not know the person. And a doctor probably doesn't even believe in God, so there goes the moral argument altogether. Scientific materialism excludes moralism unless it has a self-interested explanation.

Let me put it this way. If I could save 7 people from death by giving up my house, then it would certainly be nice if I gave up my house. But I do not have to. This can be seen because it is true that you have no right to take my house from me in order to save them, if I do not want you to take my house. Of course, in the real world, a vigilante (something that is paradoxically not good) would probably just throw me in prison and take my house.

"That's true."

If you understand this, then you must see how doctors are not required to help you. You have no intrinsic right to it, and they have no obligation to provide it for you. It is simply a power they have aquired through the mutilation of animals and that sort of thing, and if they don't want to share it, they don't have to.

"But government has the right to force you to give up your money for charitable causes. It's called taxation and it's completely legal. Governments have all the rights delegated to them including the right to give to charitable causes. The US constitution specifies what rights have been delegated to the government and taxation is one of those.

If the discussion is about whether government may tax, the discussion ends here, because the answer is yes.

We can only discuss whether government should tax and how much and what the money should be used for."

Actually, the government has no right to tax. And to say it's legal is redundant. The government makes the laws. The question is one of morality. The government can only rightly take your money if you agree that it is ok for the government to take your money because you agree with what will be done with your money by the government. Since this is almost never the case, taxation amounts to thievery.

In that case your problem is not disagreement with this law but disagreement with human society.

"In that case your problem is not disagreement with this law but disagreement with human society."

I think you might be suprised by how wrong you are. Take the Kitty Genovese story, for instance. Over 30 people watched her get stabbed to death in the street below, and no one did anything about it. Human society has spoken.

And anyway, I am not talking about what would be nice and happy. I am talking about what people are absolutely REQUIRED to do. It turns out, people are only required not to cause harm themselves. They don't have to stop it from happening to other people.