Healthcare Bill

[Geekchick921]

I just want to briefly diffuse this thread with a little humor, funny regardless of your stance on the bill. Sorry if anyone else has already posted this.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I just want to briefly diffuse this thread with a little humor, funny regardless of your stance on the bill. Sorry if anyone else has already posted this.

Wow, that is seriously funny.

 

[7starmantis]

I just want to briefly diffuse this thread with a little humor, funny regardless of your stance on the bill. Sorry if anyone else has already posted this.

LOL Editing fail!

 

[Myuu]

LOL Editing fail!

Or editing win, if the editor hates his job.

 

[Drad18]

Some Gun loving Republicans are now seriously threatening to start civil war!! No Joke.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

What's everyone's 2 cents on the constitutionality challenges about the mandate being brought up by all the attorney generals? From what I'm hearing from my own research and the news anchors, it's not a wise way to spend one's time since the supremacy clause of the federal government trumps state claims here. Delving a little deeper (and I'll try not to throw in too much constitution jargon...not that I know a lot to begin with), the commerce clause says that anyone that makes a "significant impact" to commerce in general is constitutionally under jurisdiction by the federal government to have a tax imposed on them if a law sees it fit. Since people, by just living and seeing doctors and using our health care system, significantly affects the commerce of our health care economy, this mandate is constitutional.

Can someone reaffirm this? I read it a little while ago, it was kinda' complicated and I might have gotten some of it wrong, but I think that's the general idea.

I'd also think that the President, who has made health care his life for the past year, and who also taught Constitutional Law in Harvard, would know whether such an essential piece of his legislation was constitutional.

I find it kind of ironic that if, by some chance that they DO repeal the mandate aspect of the bill (and somehow get President Obama to sign it instead of veto it ), the only way to make sure the free-market doesn't collapse is it impose a public option to the entire system. People, without a mandate and no bars on pre-existing conditions or annual/lifetime caps, could otherwise just get insurance ONLY when they're sick, get treated, then drop the coverage again right afterwards; aka apocalypse for the private market.

Edit: hahahahaha, that's the best fail ever.

 

[SteinUmStein]

What's everyone's 2 cents on the constitutionality challenges about the mandate being brought up by all the attorney generals? From what I'm hearing from my own research and the news anchors, it's not a wise way to spend one's time since the supremacy clause of the federal government trumps state claims here. Delving a little deeper (and I'll try not to throw in too much constitution jargon...not that I know a lot to begin with), the commerce clause says that anyone that makes a "significant impact" to commerce in general is constitutionally under jurisdiction by the federal government to have a tax imposed on them if a law sees it fit. Since people, by just living and seeing doctors and using our health care system, significantly affects the commerce of our health care economy, this mandate is constitutional.

Can someone reaffirm this? I read it a little while ago, it was kinda' complicated and I might have gotten some of it wrong, but I think that's the general idea.

I'd also think that the President, who has made health care his life for the past year, and who also taught Constitutional Law in Harvard, would know whether such an essential piece of his legislation was constitutional.

I find it kind of ironic that if, by some chance that they DO repeal the mandate aspect of the bill (and somehow get President Obama to sign it instead of veto it ), the only way to make sure the free-market doesn't collapse is it impose a public option to the entire system. People, without a mandate and no bars on pre-existing conditions or annual/lifetime caps, could otherwise just get insurance ONLY when they're sick, get treated, then drop the coverage again right afterwards; aka apocalypse for the private market.

Edit: hahahahaha, that's the best fail ever.

Obama's the most intellectual president we've had in a very long time, so I very much doubt his signature piece of legislation will be ruled unconstitutional. The NYTimes today had an article about why the attorney generals' arguments against the bill's constitutionality have no real chance in court.

 

[Drad18]

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): “They’re gonna pass this on the backs of the armed forces. This should not be passed by anyone unless they eat it. If they eat it, then I’m in favor of them passing it, otherwise, don’t pass it.”

 

[Tutmos]

Obama's the most intellectual president we've had in a very long time, so I very much doubt his signature piece of legislation will be ruled unconstitutional. The NYTimes today had an article about why the attorney generals' arguments against the bill's constitutionality have no real chance in court.

Aren't you supposed to be a scientist or at least striving to be one? Kindly tell me your quantitative measures used to rank Mr. Obama as "the most intellectual president we've had in a very long time." Is there a test score or records of his grades that were finally released? Without fail ABSOLUTELY EVERY democrat running for president is always the smartest person ever. How do they keep outdoing themselves every election cycle, each one always the smartest ever?

I can authoritatively say, with every bit as much factual foundation as you have that, President Obama is one of the dumbest presidents we've had in a long time. My point is that saying he's the smartest man ever with no foundation doesn't magically make it true. If you're going into medicine I'd try to look for evidence of something before preaching about it because the New York Times told you. As for the New York Times, wasn't that the paper that had to fire Jason Blair, one of their writers, for just making stories up?

Edit: For my supporting evidence I'll use the fact that he has trouble remembering more than three words in a row. Have you ever seen him give a speech without his TOTUS? He's a laughing stock. Every three words his head shoots down to the podium, then up to say the three words, then back down for three more. It's like watching tennis seeing his head bounce up and down for 15 minutes. I seem to recall at his little Canadian speech people were actually snickering about him doing it live.

 

[Drad18]

.

 

[Drad18]

Aren't you supposed to be a scientist or at least striving to be one? Kindly tell me your quantitative measures used to rank Mr. Obama as "the most intellectual president we've had in a very long time." Is there a test score or records of his grades that were finally released? Without fail ABSOLUTELY EVERY democrat running for president is always the smartest person ever. How do they keep outdoing themselves every election cycle, each one always the smartest ever?

I can authoritatively say, with every bit as much factual foundation as you have that, President Obama is one of the dumbest presidents we've had in a long time. My point is that saying he's the smartest man ever with no foundation doesn't magically make it true. If you're going into medicine I'd try to look for evidence of something before preaching about it because the New York Times told you. As for the New York Times, wasn't that the paper that had to fire Jason Blair, one of their writers, for just making stories up?

Tutmos are you serious? Here is a real quote!

"Hmmm, uhh, hah -- ummm -- I, the answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that way, heh, heh. Heh. Here's how I think of it. Ummm -- heh heh. First I've heard of that, by the way, I, ah -- uhh -- the, uhh -- I, I guess I'm more of a practical fella. Uhh. I vowed after September the 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And, uhh -- my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.ha ha ...ummm Let me see... I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated, and lethal, to fly hijacked airplanes, uhh, into -- facilities that would, we would, killing thousands of people, innocent people, doin' nothing, just sittin' there goin' to work." -- President George W Bush, after being asked if the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse

 

[fitz0809]

Tutmos are you serious? Here is a real quote!

"Hmmm, uhh, hah -- ummm -- I, the answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that way, heh, heh. Heh. Here's how I think of it. Ummm -- heh heh. First I've heard of that, by the way, I, ah -- uhh -- the, uhh -- I, I guess I'm more of a practical fella. Uhh. I vowed after September the 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And, uhh -- my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.ha ha ...ummm Let me see... I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated, and lethal, to fly hijacked airplanes, uhh, into -- facilities that would, we would, killing thousands of people, innocent people, doin' nothing, just sittin' there goin' to work." -- President George W Bush, after being asked if the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse

1st. LOL how eloquently said.

2nd. I agree with Tutmos. Even if Obama is the most intellectual president of recent times there was no supporting evidence presented. Sounds like an opinion to me.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

While I do agree that Bush was... just terrible at coherently articulating what was on his mind (if anything), it doesn't support how smart President Obama is.

But Tutmos, are you serious? It's pretty common knowledge that Obama is a smart guy. No I don't have his IQ score at hand, or his college transcript, but I don't need that to judge his intellect or his temperament. When he speaks, it is very easy for you to follow what he is saying, and it is all very logical and incredibly well articulated. When he went to Baltimore for the Republican retreat, he took very tough pre-thought out questions on from a whole host of harsh critics, and answered them masterfully. To go into the lions den and not only come out alive, but come out triumphant, is a testament to his intellect. Why else do you think everyone was thinking how the Republicans were gonna' prepare this time, for the Health Care Summit.

Of course the WAY he speaks isn't indicative of intelligence, but it is part of it. The bottom line is, I can't convince you of how smart he is, it's something that you should just see in him. An African American man does not become the President of the United States without being exceptional, and intellect is a pre-requisite to this. Hmm, off the top of my head, I remember CNN judging Obama as #3 in the "Sexiest Presidents Ever" hahaha, and one of the reasons he was ranked so high was because he was a very smart man.

Obviously none of these DEEM intelligence, but they point in that direction. He was a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, if that does anything for you?

 

[Drad18]

While I do agree that Bush was... just terrible at coherently articulating what was on his mind (if anything), it doesn't support how smart President Obama is.

But Tutmos, are you serious? It's pretty common knowledge that Obama is a smart guy. No I don't have his IQ score at hand, or his college transcript, but I don't need that to judge his intellect or his temperament. When he speaks, it is very easy for you to follow what he is saying, and it is all very logical and incredibly well articulated. When he went to Baltimore for the Republican retreat, he took very tough pre-thought out questions on from a whole host of harsh critics, and answered them masterfully. To go into the lions den and not only come out alive, but come out triumphant, is a testament to his intellect. Why else do you think everyone was thinking how the Republicans were gonna' prepare this time, for the Health Care Summit.

Of course the WAY he speaks isn't indicative of intelligence, but it is part of it. The bottom line is, I can't convince you of how smart he is, it's something that you should just see in him. An African American man does not become the President of the United States without being exceptional, and intellect is a pre-requisite to this. Hmm, off the top of my head, I remember CNN judging Obama as #3 in the "Sexiest Presidents Ever" hahaha, and one of the reasons he was ranked so high was because he was a very smart man.

Obviously none of these DEEM intelligence, but they point in that direction. He was a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, if that does anything for you?

I can't believe you actually took the time to explain this to him/her.

 

[FlowRate]

Tutmos are you serious? Here is a real quote!

"Hmmm, uhh, hah -- ummm -- I, the answer is -- I haven't really thought of it that way, heh, heh. Heh. Here's how I think of it. Ummm -- heh heh. First I've heard of that, by the way, I, ah -- uhh -- the, uhh -- I, I guess I'm more of a practical fella. Uhh. I vowed after September the 11th that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And, uhh -- my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks.ha ha ...ummm Let me see... I knew we were at a war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated, and lethal, to fly hijacked airplanes, uhh, into -- facilities that would, we would, killing thousands of people, innocent people, doin' nothing, just sittin' there goin' to work." -- President George W Bush, after being asked if the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse

If anyone actually bothered to type up obama's stuff with all the uhhs and umms, it would look pretty bad, too.

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

I can't believe you actually took the time to explain this to him/her.

No body, and I mean no body, disses my president and gets away with it!!

lol jk, but I actually got curious and did some research. While he hasn't published his GPA or LSAT/SAT score online, he DID graduate from Harvard Law School with Magna Cum Laude, so that's pretty impressive.

Also, apparently his IQ is high enough to get accepted into MENSA.

So yeah Tutmos, what up?

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/d-prez.html

I know this isn't the most credibly source, but you can't find much on stuff like this.

 

[Drad18]

If anyone actually bothered to type up obama's stuff with all the uhhs and umms, it would look pretty bad, too.

the uhhs and umms? I was looking at the context of Bush's comment with utter loss of words and then dribble even when he made coherent words into sentences. Don't try to fabricate this into something it is not.

Next

 

[Tutmos]

But Tutmos, are you serious? It's pretty common knowledge that Obama is a smart guy.

That's about what I expected. It's just common knowledge. How could you even say that with a straight face in public without feeling silly?

I didn't really claim he was stupid. I was just toying around with how childish the claim of his vast intellect is with no basis outside of his ability to read out loud off a teleprompter. If that were a true measure of intellect my 7 year old daughter would be smarter than many of you in this thread.

I suggest going into a bar and telling women that it's common knowledge you're the best lover in 5 states.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Jesus Christ people ... stop replying to Drad.


Why are we arguing his intelligence? He's a smart guy. There really isn't any denying this. However, intelligence doesn't naturally equate to good leadership, instinct, etc. ESPECIALLY without experience, which frankly, Obama was light on before he was elected. Also, to those making Bush comments ... lol, I don't know if anyone on here is going to defend George Bush on an intellectual level, but I don't think he ummm and uhhh anymore than Obama without a prompter.

 

[Drad18]

That's about what I expected. It's just common knowledge. How could you even say that with a straight face in public without feeling silly?

I didn't really claim he was stupid. I was just toying around with how childish the claim of his vast intellect is with no basis outside of his ability to read out loud off a teleprompter. If that were a true measure of intellect my 7 year old daughter would be smarter than many of you in this thread.

I suggest going into a bar and telling women that it's common knowledge you're the best lover in 5 states.

How idiotic. All politicians use teleprompters at some point especially presidents. You sure never cease to surprise me of your ignorance.

 

[Tutmos]

If anyone actually bothered to type up obama's stuff with all the uhhs and umms, it would look pretty bad, too.

I still can't believe we aren't in a desperate panic to find the missing 8 States of America. The smartest president in a long time said there were 58 states! Where did they go?!?


Edit: he had one to go still

 

[Drad18]

Jesus Christ people ... stop replying to Drad.


Why are we arguing his intelligence? He's a smart guy. There really isn't any denying this. However, intelligence doesn't naturally equate to good leadership, instinct, etc. ESPECIALLY without experience, which frankly, Obama was light on before he was elected. Also, to those making Bush comments ... lol, I don't know if anyone on here is going to defend George Bush on an intellectual level, but I don't think he ummm and uhhh anymore than Obama without a prompter.

The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right. ~Mark Twain

 

[FlowRate]

No body, and I mean no body, disses my president and gets away with it!!

lol jk, but I actually got curious and did some research. While he hasn't published his GPA or LSAT/SAT score online, he DID graduate from Harvard Law School with Magna Cum Laude, so that's pretty impressive.

Also, apparently his IQ is high enough to get accepted into MENSA.

So yeah Tutmos, what up?

http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/d-prez.html

I know this isn't the most credibly source, but you can't find much on stuff like this.

Wow, admission to MENSA is far less difficult than I thought. only 180 for PSAT?

 

[Lokhtar]

Republicans were using the word "repeal" a lot in the hours after the House voted to pass the health-care reform bill. But as the hours turn to days, they're talking about repeal less, qualifying it more, and even finding themselves mentioning things they like about the bill. Suzy Khimm runs through the changing rhetoric:

Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the poster boy for the conservative insurgency, said on Monday that he wasn't sure whether he'd support overturning the health care law, calling moves to do so "a little premature." As ThinkProgress notes, Rep. Phil Gingrey told CNN that he "does not want" to throw out everything in the bill, noting that there are many provisions — including health insurance exchanges, electronic medical records, greater coverage for dependents, expanded Medicaid, and increased consumer protections — that he supports. Rudy Giuliani also opposes repealing the bill. And the Chamber of Commerce — the business lobby group which often backs conservative causes and which spent some $144 million campaigning against health care reform — has said it won't support a GOP effort to throw out the legislation. [...]
Senator John Cornyn, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, saidTuesday that Republicans should only focus on repealing the most controversial elements of health reform. Like Guthrie, he maintained that there are provisions worth keeping. And Senators Jon Kyl and Mike Enzi both said that partial repeal would be a more realistic goal.
​

So in about 12 hours, the GOP's position has gone from "repeal this socialist monstrosity that will destroy our final freedoms" to "there are some things we don't like about this legislation and would like to repeal, and there are some things we support and would like to keep."
"We always said there are things that we can all agree on in the bill," said Rep. Brett Guthrie.
At this rate, they'll be running on expanding the bill come November.

In case anyone doubts me.

 

[wjdghks]

I still can't believe we aren't in a desperate panic to find the missing 8 States of America. The smartest president in a long time said there were 58 states! Where did they go?!?


Edit: he had one to go still

You must be really stupid if you believe that Obama truly thought there were 58 states and he didn't just misspeak.

 

[Drad18]

 

[7starmantis]

From what I'm hearing from my own research and the news anchors, it's not a wise way to spend one's time since the supremacy clause of the federal government trumps state claims here. Delving a little deeper (and I'll try not to throw in too much constitution jargon...not that I know a lot to begin with), the commerce clause says that anyone that makes a "significant impact" to commerce in general is constitutionally under jurisdiction by the federal government to have a tax imposed on them if a law sees it fit. Since people, by just living and seeing doctors and using our health care system, significantly affects the commerce of our health care economy, this mandate is constitutional.

Well, the supremacy clause only applies if the "supremacy" is constitutional which is what is being challenged. The state in the best situation is Virginia with their passed (and signed) bill that bars a mandate to purchase insurance.

The commerce clause is really used wrong in this kind of argument. I wont go into the etymologies of the words in the commerce clause, but regulating commerce (even as defined incorrectly today) only affects action, not lack of action. Just being alive and breathing isn't affecting commerce at least not by any precedent we have in America. Also, your overlooking the interstate part of the clause.

I find it kind of ironic that if, by some chance that they DO repeal the mandate aspect of the bill (and somehow get President Obama to sign it instead of veto it ), the only way to make sure the free-market doesn't collapse is it impose a public option to the entire system.

Well, the courts dont need his signature first of all. Most people talking about repealing are also talking about once he is out of office, and I dont think anyone is talking about simply repealing the mandate and leaving everything else the same.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): “They’re gonna pass this on the backs of the armed forces. This should not be passed by anyone unless they eat it. If they eat it, then I’m in favor of them passing it, otherwise, don’t pass it.”

Where in the world did you find that one? I know Louie and he is a good guy, as are most people in Washington if we were to get to know them personally. Thats hilarious.

When he speaks, it is very easy for you to follow what he is saying, and it is all very logical and incredibly well articulated.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the many writers actually writing his speeches.

BTW, research what the word "regulate" meant back when the commerce clause was written. I'm sure no one is going to argue with her, right?

 

[Tutmos]

In case anyone doubts me.

You're quoting a source that links the following sources: Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Think Progress and Boston.com? I'm starting to get a sense that you might not be entirely unbiased. In all fairness it did have one quote from WSJ but the others are a bit laughable. Those are on par with me quoting Michael Savage, which I don't.

 

[Drad18]

Where in the world did you find that one? I know Louie and he is a good guy, as are most people in Washington if we were to get to know them personally. Thats hilarious.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT1dhH9x1Uo&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]

 

[XxNemesis29xX]

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the many writers actually writing his speeches.

According to TIME magazine, Obama writes his own speeches. The article I read was from back when he was running for president, so it's possible that he's been getting more help recently with his speeches since he delivers so many now a days. David Axelrod said, "He is the best speechwriter in the group and he knows what he wants to say and he generally says it better than anybody else would." This might be the source of why he's such a great orator - what he says, he means.

 

[Lokhtar]

You're quoting a source that links the following sources: Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Think Progress and Boston.com? I'm starting to get a sense that you might not be entirely unbiased. In all fairness it did have one quote from WSJ but the others are a bit laughable. Those are on par with me quoting Michael Savage, which I don't.

I was trying to find the quotes online. They are all over Fox, CNN, MSNBC saying how they want a repeal, but not 'all of it', just the mandate and taxes. That it was their idea all along to have insurance pools and no denials of pre-existing coverage.

Whether that's true or not is not my point, the point is they won't repeal the entitlements and they're flat out saying so.

 

[7starmantis]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT1dhH9x1Uo&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]

Thats hilarious, and ironically a little "medical" humor. lol

 

[JaggerPlate]

I was trying to find the quotes online. They are all over Fox, CNN, MSNBC saying how they want a repeal, but not 'all of it', just the mandate and taxes. That it was their idea all along to have insurance pools and no denials of pre-existing coverage.

Whether that's true or not is not my point, the point is they won't repeal the entitlements and they're flat out saying so.

If what you say is true, about trying to cut the mandates and then insurances companies nose diving and the gov coming in, and the GOP knows it ... then it makes sense.

HOWEVER, even if both those things are true, most are arguing that the 36 or so states will still get language together and file a suit, but it's symbolic, and probably something the GOP will use during the midterms. My guess is that even if this thing works out, or the GOP starts to see the positives, many of them will still run on the momentum from hating the process at LEAST (if not still hating the bill), and succeed from doing so.

 

[7starmantis]

Whether that's true or not is not my point, the point is they won't repeal the entitlements and they're flat out saying so.

I dont agree completely with that assessment of what they are saying, but whats the big issue with them not repealing the entitlements? Only the deficit or public option idea? There are other ways to support and administer some of the entitlements than just mandates and taxes. There are entitlements that could be merged, etc. I'm not trying to make a case for them, but think its a little early to be defining their argument. I think they are going to address this in stages. Plus I personally think any repeal of "entitlements" would come with the next administration anyway. Right now the most pressing problem they have with it is the constitutional issue. Ironically the IRS is enforcing this mandate, anyone find that disturbing in the least?

 

[JaggerPlate]

Thats hilarious, and ironically a little "medical" humor. lol

I like Biden saying 'This is a big f*cking deal' more. Jeeze, you guys want to get back into the intelligence discussion


Hi six-pack ... these are microphones, and what they do is ...


you get the idea.

 

[7starmantis]

I like Biden saying 'This is a big f*cking deal' more. Jeeze, you guys want to get back into the intelligence discussion


Hi six-pack ... these are microphones, and what they do is ...


you get the idea.

lol that was funny as well. Personally I liked the Bush a-hole comment better than most of these.

 

[Lokhtar]

I dont agree completely with that assessment of what they are saying, but whats the big issue with them not repealing the entitlements?

Only that the entitlements are really what matter in the end to most people, and as far as policy is concerned. What type of tax or revenue you use to pay for those entitlements is a secondary concern.

 

[lejeunesage]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

 

[7starmantis]

Only that the entitlements are really what matter in the end to most people, and as far as policy is concerned. What type of tax or revenue you use to pay for those entitlements is a secondary concern.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. How would one quantify the idea that the entitlements are really what matter to "most people"? I simply dont agree.

 

[Lokhtar]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. How would one quantify the idea that the entitlements are really what matter to "most people"? I simply dont agree.

Well, we'll agree to disagree there. The people clamoring for healthcare reform were crying out about the ban on preexisting conditions, not whether to add a 1% medicare payroll vs. a carbon tax to pay for it. Throughout the different versions of the bill, there were a million different taxes introduced that would pay for it different ways, and the ones that pissed off the least amount of democrats were kept. If some other type of taxes were more palatable, they would have been introduced.

If the entitlements stay but the method of payment changes, that would be a clear policy victory for the democrats, I thought that was quite obvious.

 

[madamebovary]

we will see whether the health care bill is even constitutional...
see two major problems which includes the mandate (commerce clause) and the dual federalism

 

[7starmantis]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Be that what it may, the people are pissed about the way this thing was passed and I think that will play a huge role in the next several elections (fed, state, and local).

Pelosi 11% favorable?
Reid 8% ?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000937-503544.html

For what its worth this poll was conducted before the House voted on the health care reform bill Sunday.

 

[thamsenman]

Does this bill include 500 B in medicare cuts? I have such a hard time keeping these numbers straight.

 

[7starmantis]

Well, we'll agree to disagree there. The people clamoring for healthcare reform were crying out about the ban on preexisting conditions, not whether to add a 1% medicare payroll vs. a carbon tax to pay for it. Throughout the different versions of the bill, there were a million different taxes introduced that would pay for it different ways, and the ones that pissed off the least amount of democrats were kept. If some other type of taxes were more palatable, they would have been introduced.

If the entitlements stay but the method of payment changes, that would be a clear policy victory for the democrats, I thought that was quite obvious.

No, not quite obvious. I'm ardently opposed to the bill and I never heard much of anything like a "crying out about the ban on preexisting conditions". Maybe that was something liberal leaning media was touting? I dont know. The only thing I've heard is that its a little unrealistic the way this thing is funded and I still agree with that. However I have no problem with the idea of the ban here. Are you saying a ban on preexisting conditions would be an "entitlement"?

Why are we talking about "policy wins" here anyway? This is the problem with this stuff, we should care less about policy wins for our party an more about wins for the American people. I know, that stuff is just naive though....

 

[Dr Oops]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. How would one quantify the idea that the entitlements are really what matter to "most people"? I simply dont agree.

Im gonna have to agree with loktar, once you give all these people something for "free" it would be political suicide to try and take it back. Its like going to an open bar and then the bar saying o wait were gonna have to start charging and cant do the open bar, youd be pissed and leave.

 

[Lokhtar]

we will see whether the health care bill is even constitutional...

Well the bill overall would be, the individual mandate is the only question. Oddly enough, both the right wing and the really left wing are hoping that is repealed. However, if you look at the wording, it is very carefully worded as a tax which the Federal government has a very clear right to impose.

Source: Section 1501 "Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage"

 

[Lokhtar]

Are you saying a ban on preexisting conditions would be an "entitlement"?

Well yes. It'd be taxpayer funded.....

Maybe we have different definitions of the word.

Why are we talking about "policy wins" here anyway? This is the problem with this stuff, we should care less about policy wins for our party an more about wins for the American people. I know, that stuff is just naive though....

I personally hate this bill, but I haven't really gotten into that. I'm just trying to give my analysis and opinion on what's actually in the bill, if asked.

 

[Drad18]

Here some good information on the Doc fix which has caused some confusion here on SDN:

What is the doc fix?
The “doc fix” or “doctor fix” first came onto the scene of health care reform in October of last year. As Thehill.com reported, the doc fix originally came out of negotiations with the American Medical Association. The maneuver would “fix” payments to doctors at a single level or increase them over 10 years.
In 1997, a law was passed that mandated the payments Medicare makes to doctors be cut every year. The doc fix did not pass the Senate in 2009, though it has been suggested that the Democratic party made a deal with the AMA that the doc fix would eventually be passed; in exchange, the AMA supposedly threw its support behind the health care reform bill. The doc fix has been estimated to cost several trillion dollars over 10 years.
What is the controversy over the doc fix?
The doc fix has found itself in a firestorm of controversy today because of the leaked memo that supposedly instructs Democratic members of congress to not discuss the Congressional Budget Office estimates of the cost of the doc fix. The disputed memo outlines that the doc fix, which has been removed from the main body of the health care reform bill, would “undermine the reform’s budget neutrality”. In short, if doc fix passed, the government would need to find quick cash to pay for it.

http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/03/19/doc-fix-democratic-memo-health-care-reform/

 

[7starmantis]

Im gonna have to agree with loktar, once you give all these people something for "free" it would be political suicide to try and take it back. Its like going to an open bar and then the bar saying o wait were gonna have to start charging and cant do the open bar, youd be pissed and leave.

I agree with you but dont think that was the point he was making here.

Well the bill overall would be, the individual mandate is the only question. Oddly enough, both the right wing and the really left wing are hoping that is repealed. However, if you look at the wording, it is very carefully worded as a tax.

Source: Section 1501 "Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage"

The wording as a "tax" doesn't ease the burden of being constitutional. This will still be fought out, but I dont see it changing anything.

 

[Lokhtar]

I agree with you but dont think that was the point he was making here.

Actually, that's the point I'm making . I probably just suck at getting it across. That's what happened with Medicare and Social Security. This is why no Republican or Democrat wants to repeal those.

The wording as a "tax" doesn't ease the burden of being constitutional. This will still be fought out, but I dont see it changing anything.

Oh, it will most certainly be in the courts. I don't see it actually being successful, which is what I was trying to say. In my opinion, the only way the mandate goes away is if it's repealed by the legislature.