House passes Senate health care bill

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

FYP. We're not living in 1984 here--there's no cause for undue paranoia.

I'm not talking about my own paranoia, however you can bet that the Republican's will probably on the sharp look out for these opportunities.

It wouldn't surprise me if in protest some of their members went without health insurance to see what would happen.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

They can challenge it all they like. They won't win. Just out of curiosity, which part of the constitution do you think is relevant here?

The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not talking about my own paranoia, however you can bet that the Republican's will probably on the sharp look out for these opportunities.

It wouldn't surprise me if in protest some of their members went without health insurance to see what would happen.

They might. Unfortunately, getting 900 dollars in tax refund instead of 1500 doesn't make for very good television.

Unless they sit in front of their computers, shaking their fists at the sky, shouting "Damn You, TurboTax!!!!"

That might work.

[amorak]

I think we can all agree that we're just happy to live in Canada, were I can go to a Flames game, get drunk, break every bone in my body and still be able to afford Flames ticket!

Public health care, is there anything you can't do?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

First, the constiution doesn't grant powers, it limits them.

Second, you're reading both the commerce clause and the tax and spend power much more narrowly than the jurisprudence supports.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Congress does all kinds of things not specifically referenced in the Constitution. The power to investigate is just one example--you might remember a fellow named McCarthy who took full advantage of that. It's pretty noncontroversial that Congress has the authority to run investigations and compel testimony and co-operation on matters relating to federal governance. Of course, they also sometimes do it with baseball, so it's a pretty broad power.

Congress also has broad regulatory powers beyond "interstate commerce," which is really a pretty narrow band of regulations. Think of it this way: if they can make us pay tax, and they can make us pay more tax if we don't buy a house--then they can also make us pay more tax if we don't get health insurance. This really isn't even all that controversial.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

First, the constiution doesn't grant powers, it limits them.

Second, you're reading both the commerce clause and the tax and spend power much more narrowly than the jurisprudence supports.

Once again, you were more succinct and accurate than I was. I'm out of thanks, but I just wanted to note that your answer is better, and less wordy, than mine.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

If federal anti-marijuana laws fall under the Commerce Clause, I don't see how this bill wouldn't. Whether or not I have health insurance has a much greater effect on interstate commerce than whether or not I grow and smoke something in my basement. Still, the issue is close enough that the Court will probably decide what outcome they want and work backwards from there.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by gargamel

If federal anti-marijuana laws fall under the Commerce Clause, I don't see how this bill wouldn't. Whether or not I have health insurance has a much greater effect on interstate commerce than whether or not I grow and smoke something in my basement. Still, the issue is close enough that the Court will probably decide what outcome they want and work backwards from there.

Now if that ain't the truth (to quote my Ameri-pals), then nuttin' is!

[Mike F]

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

1. Insurance for millions

Under the legislation, 32 million more people will have health insurance in 2019 than without the bill. That means that about 94 percent of all U.S. citizens will have insurance by the end of the decade. That still falls short of "universal coverage," but it's a significant increase from the 83 percent of American citizens who are covered today.

2. Coverage for people with pre-existing conditions

Right now, insurance companies can deny coverage to people with "pre-existing conditions," like cancer and heart disease, to name just two of many. The healthcare bill would ban this practice.

3. Help buying insurance

Lower-income Americans who can't afford to buy insurance will get help in one of two ways. The bill expands Medicaid, the free government plan for the poor and disabled, to anyone making up to about $15,000 a year. (About 16 million new people are expected to go into Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program because of the bill.) Second, it would provide subsidies to people who aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicare but still struggle to afford insurance. Individuals making up to about $44,000 would qualify for some kind of subsidy. And for people who don't get insurance from their employers, they'd be able to shop for plans on new insurance exchanges.

6. No "public option"

Much of the debate in the past year was consumed by talk about the "public option," which was pushed by liberal Democrats who wanted the government to provide an alternative to private insurance plans. The House included it in its bill last fall, but the Senate, in order to get to 60 votes, did not. The final bill doesn't have the public option, either.

9. Cutting the deficit

Even though Republicans say the bill is too expensive and spends wastefully, the Congressional Budget Office says that it will actually help cut the deficit, by more than $130 billion in its first 10 years and more than a trillion in the second 10 years. That said, the CBO admits that there's considerable uncertainty in its estimates.

[doglover]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

We don't have to. By your own logic, the Constitution would have to specifically exclude the provisions of this bill for it to have any relevance whatsoever.

which is you know... what a constitution is for
lol @ people who think forcing to buy something from a private company is constitutional

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

This is the most ######ed argument I've ever heard, and just to be clear, you're not even close to being the first person to make the argument about some government beurocrat making decisions about what treatments you can receive.

You're worried that a government official is going to decide what treatment you can receive? Well how is that worse than an insurance company exec deciding?

Seriously, here in communist Canada it's doctors that make those decisions, not our MPs. Meanwhile insurance companies, up until now, were willing and able, to take people's money for years, and then when they need it, to deny coverage becasue it was a pre-existing condition.
Why anyone would think that's a fair system is beyond me.

Except the system we have in Canada isn't close to what Obamacare will be.

We have a provincially controlled system. Big difference.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm moving to Switzerland.

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.

[Cactus Jack]

Originally Posted by pylon

talked to a guy that works at a VW Dealership in NY once, and he pays $600 a month, and that is after tax dollars, for basically 1/2 the coverage I get under Ab. Health care, and my benefits package at work... and he thinks that's an awesome deal. He was shocked that I got 80% of my dental covered, where I was po'd I have to pay 20%.

Socialism is one thing I cannot stand, but when it comes to medicine... all Hail Karl Marx.

I know an investment banker that moved to Manhattan and for himself andhis wife he pays over $500 a month for health insurance. And he has a great job making good money for one of the largest investment banks in NY. Factor that into your cost when considering taxes in the States and Canada. He's always floored to hear about what we pay and the services we receive.

The other thing that bothers me is how republicans have convinced millions that other systems are "socialist." What is socialist about a single payer health care system? Yes, because rich people often have to see the same doctors as the middle class makes it slumming. Yes, Canada, is socialist. In fact, my dentist, the newspaper delivery boy, Iggy and I all make the same amount of money too!

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

You're worried that a government official is going to decide what treatment you can receive? Well how is that worse than an insurance company exec deciding?

Seriously, here in communist Canada it's doctors that make those decisions, not our MPs. Meanwhile insurance companies, up until now, were willing and able, to take people's money for years, and then when they need it, to deny coverage becasue it was a pre-existing condition.
Why anyone would think that's a fair system is beyond me.

That's one thing I've never understood about the US. They vehemently and intrinsically distrust government but don't bat an eyelash about being bent over by private companies for insurance premiums and denial of coverage on a national level. At least the government you can sway, influence and elect. Private firms take you to the cleaners and never care. You have no influence over them running their business ever.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The difference is "you" dont get better care but that on average everyone gets slightly better care.

In Canada you go in to a centralized clinic location, wait a few hours to see the doctor that is working today say you have a tweaked back they tell you nothing they can do and just to get some rest. At most he prescribes some Tylenol 4 which you have to go to a different location to find a pharmacy and pay for it. And that is after waiting X hours to see the doctor.

In the US, you go to a clinic which is much closer to where you are, pay $135US and a doctor gives to a cortizone and morphine shot and you are out of the doctors office within 45 minutes total. 35 of those minutes are you grilling the doctor of the safety of the cortizone and morphine shot because your doctor in Canada never once suggested that after 10+ times of going to one yet in the US where you are on vacation that is the first thing he suggests.

And what do you know, for free you get the type of service you would expect with the price tag of free. And with $135 you get something completly different that actually solves your immediate problem and you wonder what everyone on American TV bitches about.

There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't know where to begin. As Comicbook Guy once said, prepare for an itimized list of refutes:

1). Yes, in Canada we all have to walk uphill both ways in -30 weather to see a doctor 30km away. In fact, people in Calgary are only allowed to see doctors in Edmonton, and Edmontonians in Calgary. And e, if you want to go to a pharmacy, you have to scale the Rockies in both directions to get to BC. Your novel idea of putting doctor's office and pharmacies in the same building and close to where people live is a novel one, let me write ol' Stevey Harper with this game changer.

2). And boy are you correct about wait times. In fact, it takes me 3 hours to see a government official before I am allowed to step into a doctor's office. That really adds up, I mean, it's not like waiting 5, 15 or 30 minutes to see a doctor has ever happened in Canada. Our cialized medicine" wouldn't allow it.

And our doctors prescribe you nothing because they really aren't doctors. We in Canada were able to drastically cut our unemployment rates by dressing the homeless in lab coats and stethescopes and having them spin a cardboard wheel to tell you which pills you should take. Come to think of it, has anyone ever really been treated by a doctor before in this country?
It's not really the "socialist" way.

3). I'd gladly go wait 14 hours for my doctor but the government death panel that is deciding the fate of my Grandfather may rule any year now and I really can't afford to miss it up by getting up and going to the doctor.

4). The better alternative was to be denied coverage for hooking up with a burner when I was 16 and on the off chance they accept that, taking out a third mortgage on a house I can't afford to cover my health care expenses sounds like a better option to me. After all, I may be paying 3X as much, be much fatter and live less years, but I'll be danged if I ever catch my daughta datin' a socialist, dag nab it!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

This bill is not great at all really.

However, the opened the door to be able to fix the problems that will come out of the bill at a later date. The major hurdle was getting the door open. Now that it is, it's only a matter of time before a single payer option is passed, but that probably won't be for another 15-20 years.

Does it even matter?

The US is going to be bankrupt by the time that option is brought to the table.

In the meantime I suppose everyone should have healthcare while they're on the way down.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Er.... huh?

So it's NOT black and white--but we should read what it says as excluding every possible thing it doesn't say? By your own logic, the constitution ONLY limits the specific things that it mentions! That's not only nonsense--it contradicts the very argument you're trying to make.


Sorry--you fail at constitutional law.

lol.

You know who else fails at constitutional law? The idiot who thinks the government can mandate a person purchase insurance. There's no Constitutional justification for that power; it simply does not exist.

The Constitution as the founding fathers saw it was thrown out of the window when the Civil War started.

Its all been downhill ever since.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by gargamel

The Constitution isn't what matters. Given who's on the Supreme Court, I could see the decision going either way.

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

The Senate may have passed this bill, but they just started another huge fight.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by amorak

I think we can all agree that we're just happy to live in Canada, were I can go to a Flames game, get drunk, break every bone in my body and still be able to afford Flames ticket!

Public health care, is there anything you can't do?

Yeah, public healthcare can't control its own rising cost.

But hey, keep on dreaming about our perfect system.

[Azure]

The other thing I don't get is how people actually 'think' its a good idea to subsidize anything involved with healthcare.

You're not actually controlling costs if the government is just going to pay for everything in the end.

There ARE private AND public AND two-tier systems in the world that work rather well. But, due to the stupidity in Congress the US is never going to see that kind of system.

[doglover]

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