House passes Senate health care bill

[amorak]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why not? They have one of the best health care systems in the world and its VERY private.

But hey, we need MORE government run social programs.

Wow, where to start....

• Healthcare in Switzerland is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994. Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland

• Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They may not make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans

• The insured pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, then the government gives the insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium

• The compulsory insurance can be supplemented by private "complementary" insurance policies that allow for coverage of some of the treatment categories not covered by the basic insurance or to improve the standard of room and service in case of hospitalisation. This can include dental treatment and private ward hospitalisation which are not covered by the compulsory insurance.

Sounds super-duper private... Not.

Actually, it sounds a lot like Canada, except basic services are paid for by the government, and insurance companies make money on supplemental plans, the same as the Swiss.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by doglover

you can support the bill all you want, just don't call it constitutional.
that's the thing that annoys me

The Patriot Act wasn't constitutional either.

The US government doesn't give a crap whether something is constitutional or not.

Been like that for a long time.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by amorak

Wow, where to start....

• Healthcare in Switzerland is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994. Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland

• Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They may not make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans

• The insured pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, then the government gives the insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium

• The compulsory insurance can be supplemented by private "complementary" insurance policies that allow for coverage of some of the treatment categories not covered by the basic insurance or to improve the standard of room and service in case of hospitalisation. This can include dental treatment and private ward hospitalisation which are not covered by the compulsory insurance.

Sounds super-duper private... Not.

Actually, it sounds a lot like Canada, except basic services are paid for by the government, and insurance companies make money on supplemental plans, the same as the Swiss.

Canada doesn't have a non-profit plan.

Far as I know, 99% of health care insurance in Switzerland is run by private companies. Of COURSE they have to adhere to a certain standard. Nobody every said there was anything wrong with that.

[doglover]

Originally Posted by Azure

The Patriot Act wasn't constitutional either.

The US government doesn't give a crap whether something is constitutional or not.

Been like that for a long time.

yep with the PATRIOT act and this new healthcare bill the leaders might as well rip it up because apparently it no longer servers purpose
i'd say its been going down hill steadily since they brought in a central bank

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mike F

A good article from US News & World Report on What Is (and Isn’t) in the Health Care Bill

The bill expands Medicaid

Oh great.

Costs are already rising like crazy and can't be controlled and now its been expanded?

[amorak]

Originally Posted by Azure

Canada doesn't have a non-profit plan.

Far as I know, 99% of health care insurance in Switzerland is run by private companies. Of COURSE they have to adhere to a certain standard. Nobody every said there was anything wrong with that.

You said it was a very private healthcare system, which is false.

It is very regulated and very 'socialist' as Tea Party members would call it. The private insurers cannot make profit on any of the basic insurance, only on supplemental coverage like dental and private rooms.

Your arguement was that the Swiss had a very private system and that it was the best, in an effort to bolster your position in support of the current US style system. However you were completely wrong, as they are very socialist, to the point of having a Federal Act that prohibits the companies to make profit on anything but this supplemental Dental-type coverage.

[Cactus Jack]

All I know is the Daily Show should be epic tonight

[flames_1987]

Glenn Beck compares Health Care reform to 9/11 as well. Surprise surprise. Republicans using there top play in the playbook today

[Azure]

Originally Posted by amorak

You said it was a very private healthcare system, which is false.

It is very regulated and very 'socialist' as Tea Party members would call it. The private insurers cannot make profit on any of the basic insurance, only on supplemental coverage like dental and private rooms.

Your arguement was that the Swiss had a very private system and that it was the best, in an effort to bolster your position in support of the current US style system. However you were completely wrong, as they are very socialist, to the point of having a Federal Act that prohibits the companies to make profit on anything but this supplemental Dental-type coverage.

I don't really give a crap what the tea-party people say.

I was mistaken that it is very private. Seems like it is a more mixed system with freedom of choice for everyone. It being a non-profit system makes it a lot better than what we have.

There is nothing wrong with making healthcare a non-profit industry. And there is nothing wrong with having a certain amount of regulation.

Don't lump me in with whoever you're trying to lump me in with.

I have already stated numerous times that I support a two-tiered system. But one that is modeled after the European system.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Azure

Considering who is on the Supreme Court right now....how do you think it will turn out?

Constitutional: Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens
Unconstitutional: Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy
Undetermined: Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito

Roberts and Alito are Bush guys and Sotomayor is an Obama appointee, but I don't know enough about any of their views of the Commerce Clause to predict which way they'll vote. It will almost certainly be close either way.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Constitutional: Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens
Unconstitutional: Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy
Undetermined: Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito

Roberts and Alito are Bush guys and Sotomayor is an Obama appointee, but I don't know enough about any of their views of the Commerce Clause to predict which way they'll vote.

Really? Roberts isn't going to vote that it is constitutional. Neither is Alito.

And you also have to consider just how much Obama pissed off the Supreme Court by criticizing them in the State of the Union speech. Right or wrong....he messed up big time there, and some of them might remember that.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by doglover

you can support the bill all you want, just don't call it constitutional.
that's the thing that annoys me

You know, repeating something three times doesn't make it true.

You have yet to cogently explain what makes this new legislation unconstitutional. It's possible a legitimate argument exists; but I sure haven't heard it in this thread.

Let me explain this to you another way: the sanction here is a tax penalty. There is effectively no real difference between levying a tax penalty on some taxpayers and giving a tax credit to others--they're mirror images of one another. One of them reduces the tax due, the other increases it. In effect, you pay a penalty in the U.S. if you do not own a house, and if you do not drive a hybrid car. The government calls it a tax credit, but the reality is this: you would owe less tax if you had done these things--if you did not, you pay more tax.

A penalty works more or less the same way, but in the other direction. If you do A, you pay less tax. If you do B, you pay more. It's as though everyone received a tax credit except you, because you didn't follow the rules. That sort of thing happens all the time, and it isn't unconstitutional at all.

The only way this could be unconstitutional is if it were unconstitutional for Congress to tax different taxpayers differently in the first place--and clearly, it's not. It may help you to think of this as an across-the-board tax increase that you only have to pay if you don't buy health insurance.

In that context, you are free to not like the bill, and to feel that it impinges on your freedoms. Just don't pretend that those freedoms are constitutionally guaranteed--they aren't.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Really? Roberts isn't going to vote that it is constitutional. Neither is Alito.

And you also have to consider just how much Obama pissed off the Supreme Court by criticizing them in the State of the Union speech. Right or wrong....he messed up big time there, and some of them might remember that.

Roberts may be a conservative, but he isn't the devil. All of these people are incredibly smart and qualified lawyers who are thinking not only of politics but of their own historical legacies. They're not going to strike down legislation just because they're cool kids and Obama's a nerd. This isn't high school.

[Azure]

Well, IFF.....apparently quite a few people that have studied law disagree with you.

I just read that the Attorney Generals of Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Utah, Texas, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alabama are moving this morning to file suit against the Federal Government.

And from what I read, there are more to come.

Gonna be interesting how this pans out.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Roberts may be a conservative, but he isn't the devil. All of these people are incredibly smart and qualified lawyers who are thinking not only of politics but of their own historical legacies. They're not going to strike down legislation just because they're cool kids and Obama's a nerd. This isn't high school.

You're completely missing the point.

Congress has the Constitutional authority to levy taxes. Congress has NO authority under the Constitution to mandate that any American HAS to buy a commercial product (health insurance) or face fines or other punishment. The state AGs know this full well.

And every single member of the Supreme Court knows this too.

This is far from a black and white issue. There is so much grey area involved its not even funny.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by doglover

you can support the bill all you want, just don't call it constitutional.
that's the thing that annoys me

Your understanding of the constitution is about as strong as your ability to work a keyboard.

[Azure]

Link to what I'm talking about above.

WASHINGTON, March 22 (UPI) -- Democrats are sky high, celebrating the passage of healthcare reform against ferocious opposition from Republicans, tea partiers and the health insurance industry.

But looming challenges in a legal system dominated by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court threaten to bring them crashing back down to earth.

At least three state attorneys general, all Republicans, are vowing to challenge the new U.S. healthcare law in court, and there are indications as many as 12 state attorneys general may join the fight.

With the Supreme Court taking a harder line on the power of Congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution -- the main authority used by Congress to enact healthcare reform -- the challengers may meet with some success.

The attorneys general say they will file suit once U.S. President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, and are pledging to take their battle all the way to the Supreme Court, The Christian Science Monitor reported.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/...3811269283884/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by valo403

Your understanding of the constitution is about as strong as your ability to work a keyboard.

Are you dense?

12 states are reportedly getting ready to challenge this on EXACTLY what doglover is talking about.

There is no way in hell the US Federal Government has the right to force someone to buy health insurance or face fines. I do not for one second believe that the Supreme Court would EVER allow anything like that.

[doglover]

Originally Posted by valo403

Your understanding of the constitution is about as strong as your ability to work a keyboard.

so you think it's constitutional for force citizens to buy private insurance for face a tax?
good to know.
oh and there are members on the supreme court who would disagree with you, but apparently an armchair constitutional scholar such as yourself knows better

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, IFF.....apparently quite a few people that have studied law disagree with you.

I just read that the Attorney Generals of Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Utah, Texas, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alabama are moving this morning to file suit against the Federal Government.

And from what I read, there are more to come.

Gonna be interesting how this pans out.

In the end, I doubt it will be all that interesting. The Congress has lawyers too, and my feeling is that if there were merit to this lawsuit, 50 states would be suing--not 10 states with Republican Attorneys General.

Smells like last ditch desperation to me. They've lost, they know it, and they're going for one last hail-mary pass. But their argument is very weak, and my guess is they know that. It amounts to "you can't tax living." But it doesn't--it taxes earned income above a certain level if you choose not to buy health insurance. Their argument is broad, but the legislation is quite narrow.

In the meantime, Obama is signing the bill to-morrow. I expect the moon to turn blood-red and the dead to rise and take their vengeance on the living. Should be fun.

It is worth noting that opponents of the bill on one side feel that it's an unconstitutional affront to liberties and on the other people feel like it does barely enough to qualify as reform. I'm in the latter group.