Reform's A Comin'

[futureboy]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was actually referring to her better half.........

😕

Not sure Bill would run again if he could. He's got it pretty sweet right now -- probably rakes in $100,000+ per speech. Plus, the wifey is overseas a lot, so we all know what that means: party time! All the booze, chicks, and weed he can handle! No inhaling, of course...

 

[Hoody]

Not sure Bill would run again if he could. He's got it pretty sweet right now -- probably rakes in $100,000+ per speech. Plus, the wifey is overseas a lot, so we all know what that means: party time! All the booze, chicks, and weed he can handle! No inhaling, of course...

maybe a cigar..or two?

 

[JaggerPlate]

i bet a 50 she'll be elected next time to the presidency..

honestly.. i still say al gore should run for president again..
and that we should forbid ron paul from running again..

I'll take that bet because I bet it's gonna be repubs across the board next go around. Obama is a one termer and people are going to want to crank it far back to the right next time. We never get the middle, unifying ground the country needs.

 

[Vol tron]

I know everyone's saying he's a one-termer, but you don't think there's the least chance he'll keep the office? It's only been one rough year so far, not four.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I know everyone's saying he's a one-termer, but you don't think there's the least chance he'll keep the office? It's only been one rough year so far, not four.

I could rant for hours about why I don't believe he will ever be re-elected, but it's probably easier just to say 'NO.'

 

[redsquareblack]

I know everyone's saying he's a one-termer, but you don't think there's the least chance he'll keep the office? It's only been one rough year so far, not four.

I'm gonna go with yes, just for balance.

 

[Insulinshock]

I think he'll get re-elected; 2010 will be a big year for him either way, though.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I wonder what the bill that finally passes will really do for primary care salaries. Could you imagine the new threads: I really want to land a FIPO (family med, Internal med, Peds, OB/GYN) field, but I'm afraid my USMLE isn't high enough and I'll have to settle for Rads. Any suggestions? Am I screwed?

 

[apoptosis123]

.

 

[Slack3r]

Why would they? Cosmetics is typically all cash, and barring any downturn due to poor economic climate, they'll be just fine. Vanity will never go the way of the dodo.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Why would they? Cosmetics is typically all cash, and barring any downturn due to poor economic climate, they'll be just fine. Vanity will never go the way of the dodo.

They would get kicked because one bill had a 10% tax on cosmetic procedures and the senate, before it was revised, had a 5% tax on cosmetic procedures. Both are dropped.

 

[cbrons]

So, I stopped paying attention to the reform issue to avoid having a stroke. Does anyone want to break down what's up for me (the links wouldn't load)?? From what I've heard, the public option is out, and it seems like more of the same, but trying to require people to get insured???

Dude I made the mistake of reading the wallstreet journal section under 'Health Overhaul' which I avoided for the past few weeks to keep from breaking something. You don't even wanna know what's going on, better just to avoid it. I look at it all, even since Bush 2nd term when the bailouts, TARP, etc. started and every single day I feel more and more like I'm living in a country run by Boss Tweed.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Dude I made the mistake of reading the wallstreet journal section under 'Health Overhaul' which I avoided for the past few weeks to keep from breaking something. You don't even wanna know what's going on, better just to avoid it. I look at it all, even since Bush 2nd term when the bailouts, TARP, etc. started and every single day I feel more and more like I'm living in a country run by Boss Tweed.

I know. I started reading a little bit today and I feel like I've been walking in a haze all day with it continually on my mind. Ugh, I just wish some slick analyst could say what they think is going to happen (realistically) to physician salaries, and if something like PC fields being paid to the level of specialists or whatever is going to happen. Whenever I read through the muck, I get super pessimistic and it's hard for me to even analyze.

 

[cbrons]

I know. I started reading a little bit today and I feel like I've been walking in a haze all day with it continually on my mind. Ugh, I just wish some slick analyst could say what they think is going to happen (realistically) to physician salaries, and if something like PC fields being paid to the level of specialists or whatever is going to happen. Whenever I read through the muck, I get super pessimistic and it's hard for me to even analyze.

It's just a nightmare that never ends, and no not just the health care reform. You see headlines like "Debt Ceiling Raised" (why even have a ****ing ceiling in the 1st place?), you see a President that gets elected in large part due to his anti-war, withdrawal platform commit thousands more troops to an unwinnable Vietnam part deux, you see a so-called reformer President/Community Organizer tell the people he's going to bring in the most transparent government in history all the while those rats are doing deals behind close doors and showing no one the 2k+ page bill before the day its voted on...

you see frauds like John McLame get up in front of the U.S. Senate and criticize backroom deals and pork barrels all the while forgetting he did the exact same thing on his abominable amnesty bill... you see them try and lie about how the whole thing actually REDUCES the deficit (cause they were correct on Social Security, Medicare, Medicare part D, etc.),

you see Debbie Stabinow (that low life hag) tell a group of reporters she "FEELS global warming when she flies on airplanes" (how can the lowest garbage in the country rise to the very top of the political world? these people are so stupid its incredible) and worst of all, you see people actually buying this garbage from this gang of republicrats and its just a never ending nightmare. The Constitution has become totally irrelevant to these people, as have their constituents.

But make no mistake about it I place a lot of this right at the foot of George W. Bush, the socialist and corporate frontman. Another words I believe Bush just pitched the first 8 innings of this disaster and now Barry has been put in as closer and he's one hell of a Cy Young prospect. The America our children will grow up in is going to be a hell of a lot different than the one we did, and not for the better. Just one mans opinion, that's all.

 

[redsquareblack]

you see a President that gets elected in large part due to his anti-war, withdrawal platform commit thousands more troops to an unwinnable Vietnam part deux

I'm personally pretty disappointed in the Obama presidency so far, but this bugs me. He's just doing what he always said he'd do wrt Afghanistan, even on the campaign trail.

you see a so-called reformer President/Community Organizer tell the people he's going to bring in the most transparent government in history all the while those rats are doing deals behind close doors and showing no one the 2k+ page bill before the day its voted on...

I'm not gonna say he turned everything around and made it super transparent, but you're confusing the transparency (or lack thereof) of the executive branch with that of the legislative branch.

you see Debbie Stabinow (that low life hag) tell a group of reporters she "FEELS global warming when she flies on airplanes"

Well, it was a pretty stupid thing to say. Thank goodness the strength of global climate science doesn't rest with its sound bites.

 

[7starmantis]

I'm personally pretty disappointed in the Obama presidency so far, but this bugs me. He's just doing what he always said he'd do wrt Afghanistan, even on the campaign trail.

I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but wanted to make a few comments. I don't agree with this at all. He never said he would commit more troops to the war effort in any area. Not that its relevant to try and just catch semantical mistakes, but this is a serious showing of lack of character or experience in my opinion. Either he simply just doesn't care to hold himself to his promises or he had so little experience he made promises he didn't understand he couldn't keep (my views on the whole issue).

I'm not gonna say he turned everything around and made it super transparent, but you're confusing the transparency (or lack thereof) of the executive branch with that of the legislative branch.

Actually I think Obama did that for everyone. He has been so quick to usurp power and authority over the legislative branch that he simply can't back up. He did promise legislative debates on c-span and such. Promises we the people should have seen were unattainable. No one thought long enough to call him on it though. He keeps saying how he is involved in the process and keeps showing his support of how they are doing. This just confounds the issue of his lack of transparency or even a push for any transparency at all.

Well, it was a pretty stupid thing to say. Thank goodness the strength of global climate science doesn't rest with its sound bites.

Strength of global climate science? 🙄

 

[futureboy]

I wonder what the bill that finally passes will really do for primary care salaries. Could you imagine the new threads: I really want to land a FIPO (family med, Internal med, Peds, OB/GYN) field, but I'm afraid my USMLE isn't high enough and I'll have to settle for Rads. Any suggestions? Am I screwed?

That would be funny.

 

[redsquareblack]

I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but wanted to make a few comments. I don't agree with this at all. He never said he would commit more troops to the war effort in any area.

Uh, this is completely incorrect. It's not a question of opinion, here, either; this is factually wrong.

As early as August 2007, Obama was talking about increasing the U.S. presence in the Afghanistan theater.

"Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."

Obama has from the beginning espoused the view that Afghanistan is the "good" war, worthy of attention, while Iraq is the "bad" war, distracting us from completing our objectives in the war on terrorism.

Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but at the same time, I take issue with anyone acting surprised that he committed more troops to Afghanistan.

Not that its relevant to try and just catch semantical mistakes, but this is a serious showing of lack of character or experience in my opinion. Either he simply just doesn't care to hold himself to his promises or he had so little experience he made promises he didn't understand he couldn't keep (my views on the whole issue).

In this particular case, however, he actually did fulfill a promise. Whether you feel that what he promised to do was right or not is a different matter entirely.

Strength of global climate science? 🙄

Are you kidding me? You're seriously a global warming denialist?

I'm guessing your personal feelings about AGW are pretty entrenched, so I'm not gonna bother trying to convince you. No doubt doing so would be too obvious an indication that I'm just a climate shill.

I would merely recommend you read more about it. It is generally those who have not actually done any independent reading that deny anthropogenic global warming.

 

[Hoody]

I know everyone's saying he's a one-termer, but you don't think there's the least chance he'll keep the office? It's only been one rough year so far, not four.

Historically speaking, I believe we have gone back to electing a Republican most (if not all) the time after a 4 year term by a Dem. So if history repeats itself, Obama is bye bye. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[7starmantis]

Uh, this is completely incorrect. It's not a question of opinion, here, either; this is factually wrong.

As early as August 2007, Obama was talking about increasing the U.S. presence in the Afghanistan theater.

Obama has from the beginning espoused the view that Afghanistan is the "good" war, worthy of attention, while Iraq is the "bad" war, distracting us from completing our objectives in the war on terrorism.

Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with the decision, but at the same time, I take issue with anyone acting surprised that he committed more troops to Afghanistan.

I wasn't surprised but was speaking technically about campaign trail promises. I was wrong, didn't remember him saying that, but it wasn't exactly the main course in his "historical" speeches either.

In this particular case, however, he actually did fulfill a promise. Whether you feel that what he promised to do was right or not is a different matter entirely.

Uh...actually no, he didn't. How did he fulfill the promise at all? That was my point, he hasn't fulfilled the promises he made even the ones he had no business making. How exactly have these debates been transparent?

Are you kidding me? You're seriously a global warming denialist?

I'm guessing your personal feelings about AGW are pretty entrenched, so I'm not gonna bother trying to convince you. No doubt doing so would be too obvious an indication that I'm just a climate shill.

I would merely recommend you read more about it. It is generally those who have not actually done any independent reading that deny anthropogenic global warming.

Dont make assumptions here, I've done plenty of research on my own. You can guess all you want about my "entrenched personal feelings" but you might try asking first. I'm not necessarily denying "global warming" in general as a whole, as much as I am humankind's effect or "blame" shall we say. Its a topic for another thread though, not this one.

 

[strummin]

Historically speaking, I believe we have gone back to electing a Republican most (if not all) the time after a 4 year term by a Dem. So if history repeats itself, Obama is bye bye. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Um. Bill Clinton?

Btw, after the Obama win, many historians said that the Conservative era that began with Reagan was over. That does not mean that the Republicans won't win the presidency in the future, but if they do, it definitely won't be the same GOP we have seen before.

Some say the only way the Republicans can win in the future is if they stress fiscal conservativism more i.e. stop wasting too much time opposing abortion, embryonic stem cell research etc... this would allow them to win many of the socially liberal, fiscally conservative independents. But with people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck as "de facto leaders" of the GOP, I don't know if the Republicans will be able to do this. Oh yeah, and start winning minorities and the young vote. Remember, come 2012, all those who were 14, 15, 16 and 17 last year will be able to vote - and young people are generally more liberal.

 

[7starmantis]

and young people are generally more liberal.

Would love to see the source for this.

 

[Slack3r]

Um. Bill Clinton?

Btw, after the Obama win, many historians said that the Conservative era that began with Reagan was over. That does not mean that the Republicans won't win the presidency in the future, but if they do, it definitely won't be the same GOP we have seen before.

Some say the only way the Republicans can win in the future is if they stress fiscal conservativism more i.e. stop wasting too much time opposing abortion, embryonic stem cell research etc... this would allow them to win many of the socially liberal, fiscally conservative independents. But with people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck as "de facto leaders" of the GOP, I don't know if the Republicans will be able to do this. Oh yeah, and start winning minorities and the young vote. Remember, come 2012, all those who were 14, 15, 16 and 17 last year will be able to vote - and young people are generally more liberal.

I'm not sure most Republicans even believe this. You'll find that most people who espouse those clowns as "leaders of the GOP" are typically liberals themselves.

 

[MDman87]

I'll be watching C-SPAN at 8/7C in the morning just in case even a single Democrat is bold enough to say NO to the bill and side with what polls are clearly showing to be the American peoples' wish. I don't have my hopes up. Worst case scenario, though, I'll be able to tell my grandchildren I was watching as this terrible legislative failure was taking place. They'll want to know who is responsible for their outrageous taxes and ridiculous excuse for a healthcare system

 

[derek320]

I'll be watching C-SPAN at 8/7C in the morning just in case even a single Democrat is bold enough to say NO to the bill and side with what polls are clearly showing to be the American peoples' wish. I don't have my hopes up. Worst case scenario, though, I'll be able to tell my grandchildren I was watching as this terrible legislative failure was taking place. They'll want to know who is responsible for their outrageous taxes and ridiculous excuse for a healthcare system

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_u0hQGFRSvlONPp8abKCbZajleAD9COJ8N00


Apparently he is voting against the bill, unfortunately the democrats still hold the majority in the House by a big chunk. Hopefully some more will be bold enough to follow this representative and make the right choice.

 

[strummin]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_u0hQGFRSvlONPp8abKCbZajleAD9COJ8N00


Apparently he is voting against the bill, unfortunately the democrats still hold the majority in the House by a big chunk. Hopefully some more will be bold enough to follow this representative and make the right choice.

Dude, this guy was never a democrat in the first place. Have you even looked at his positions? Btw, healthcare is going to pass in the house. It's the senate where there's a chance it can't.

 

[strummin]

I'll be watching C-SPAN at 8/7C in the morning just in case even a single Democrat is bold enough to say NO to the bill and side with what polls are clearly showing to be the American peoples' wish. I don't have my hopes up. Worst case scenario, though, I'll be able to tell my grandchildren I was watching as this terrible legislative failure was taking place. They'll want to know who is responsible for their outrageous taxes and ridiculous excuse for a healthcare system

Really? Can I see these polls please? Because all the polls I've seen (yes, including the ones done by Fox News) show support (in some cases, overwhelming support) for the bill.

 

[arrivee]

Did anyone notice the nice little bounce the health insurance companies got in the NYSE today?

I'm glad someone's benefiting from this horrendous piece of legislation. My current opinion of politicians is so low right now, I doubt it will ever recover.

 

[NickNaylor]

Did anyone notice the nice little bounce the health insurance companies got in the NYSE today?

I'm glad someone's benefiting from this horrendous piece of legislation. My current opinion of politicians is so low right now, I doubt it will ever recover.

I'm not sure how this is necessarily bad? If you wanted to, you could just as easily go buy some stock in these companies.

I understand your sentiment somewhat, but I really don't think the two are correlated.

 

[strummin]

Did anyone notice the nice little bounce the health insurance companies got in the NYSE today?

I'm glad someone's benefiting from this horrendous piece of legislation.

Do you not understand how the financial markets work? The "little bounce" you saw does not mean at all that they're benefiting from this legislation. Actually, maybe they're happy because the Republicans successfully managed to block any provisions that would truly cause harm to the health insurance companies. Greedy health insurance companies for Republicans! yay!

 

[7starmantis]

Do you not understand how the financial markets work? The "little bounce" you saw does not mean at all that they're benefiting from this legislation. Actually, maybe they're happy because the Republicans successfully managed to block any provisions that would truly cause harm to the health insurance companies. Greedy health insurance companies for Republicans! yay!

Haha, I just seriously had to laugh at this. So now the republicans are the ones gunning for the insurance companies? Partisan bias is such an amazing thing.

 

[strummin]

Haha, I just seriously had to laugh at this. So now the republicans are the ones gunning for the insurance companies? Partisan bias is such an amazing thing.

Oh, so the Democrats were the ones who were worried that the public option would kill private health insurance companies?

 

[redsquareblack]

Uh...actually no, he didn't. How did he fulfill the promise at all? That was my point, he hasn't fulfilled the promises he made even the ones he had no business making. How exactly have these debates been transparent?

Oh, no. My mistake. I was referring to his committing more troops to Afghanistan. In that sense, he fulfilled a promise.

The transparent debate thing was an out-and-out failure to deliver on his part.

Its a topic for another thread though, not this one.

Fair enough. 😳

 

[redsquareblack]

Do you not understand how the financial markets work? The "little bounce" you saw does not mean at all that they're benefiting from this legislation. Actually, maybe they're happy because the Republicans successfully managed to block any provisions that would truly cause harm to the health insurance companies. Greedy health insurance companies for Republicans! yay!

Uh... make no mistake about it. There is almost nobody in Washington with your best interests in mind, on either side of the aisle.

 

[7starmantis]

Oh, so the Democrats were the ones who were worried that the public option would kill private health insurance companies?

You got it all twisted. I'm certainly not defended the repubs but your misinformed about capitalism vs mandates. It wasn't the republicans who voted in a federal mandate to make everyone purchase goods from insurance companies (which is unconstitutional and the first of its kind ever).

Oh, no. My mistake. I was referring to his committing more troops to Afghanistan. In that sense, he fulfilled a promise.

The transparent debate thing was an out-and-out failure to deliver on his part.


Fair enough. 😳

Gotcha, we agree then.

Uh... make no mistake about it. There is almost nobody in Washington with your best interests in mind, on either side of the aisle.

👍👍👍

 

[Slack3r]

You got it all twisted. I'm certainly not defended the repubs but your misinformed about capitalism vs mandates. It wasn't the republicans who voted in a federal mandate to make everyone purchase goods from insurance companies (which is unconstitutional and the first of its kind ever).

Luckily, there are already people lining up to sue, not only over the constitutionality of the insurance mandate, but also whether the "buying" of Nelson's vote was constitutional as well.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Luckily, there are already people lining up to sue, not only over the constitutionality of the insurance mandate,

Oh good, can they get me out of paying for car insurance while they're at it?

 

[BigRedDeal]

Oh good, can they get me out of paying for car insurance while they're at it?

I hope not. Because when you crash into me due to negligence, YOU better have the insurance to pay for the damage and medical bills you have caused.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I hope not. Because when you crash into me due to negligence, YOU better have the insurance to pay for the damage and medical bills you have caused.

Precisely. And when the uninsured show up in our hospitals and clinics and obtain services for which they cannot or will not pay, they have functionally committed theft. From us.

Given the amount of charity care administered each year, arguing against expanded health insurance coverage is like arguing against getting paid.

 

[7starmantis]

Oh good, can they get me out of paying for car insurance while they're at it?

Completely different issue. Not a federal issue first of all, its all states. For the record I'm against that sort of mandate as well, but can see why its needed in today's society. However your talking about paying for damage to someone else vs paying for your own wants/needs. Simply not the same issue. But thats not going to stop partisan pundits from spouting it.

 

[Parts Unknown]

However your talking about paying for damage to someone else vs paying for your own wants/needs.

Not necessarily. I have made an insurance claim that did not involve damage to anyone else's property. Think act of God. My statement was obviously tongue in cheek, but at their root both health and car insurance do serve to prevent potentially catastrophic financial loss. Should drivers have more insurance security than hospitals and physicians?

 

[Narmerguy]

I find almost all of these polls complete crap because a large portion of the people being asked have no friecking clue what is even IN the bill. People staunchly oppose this stuff because the politicians they support (who usually haven't read it either) strongly oppose it. The same for the ones supporting it. This bill has almost become more of a political statement than anything else.

Either way, I find the people who pull out financial reasons as a basis to attack the bill as completely ludicrous. We're already paying through the nose for tons of patients who aren't giving a dime back. Now we'll actually get paid for this stuff.

 

[7starmantis]

Not necessarily. I have made an insurance claim that did not involve damage to anyone else's property. Think act of God. My statement was obviously tongue in cheek, but at their root both health and car insurance do serve to prevent potentially catastrophic financial loss. Should drivers have more insurance security than hospitals and physicians?

You didn't make a claim (for that reason) on the "mandated" insurance. Well, at least in most states its liability only. I got your tongue in cheek but I dont agree that they are similar at their root at all. It would be a tough argument to make that shows liability (auto) insurance protects against catastrophic financial loss. Dont see many in bankruptcy court from lack of liability insurance. Also, forcing (with threat of federal prison time at worst) people to buy goods from insurance companies does not in fact protect physicians and hospitals. You believe the bills in the senate and house are aimed at protecting hospitals and physicians rather than the uninsured? Either your grasping for straws, disingenuous, or just haven't thought through that line of argument.

Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread.

 

[Slack3r]

Not necessarily. I have made an insurance claim that did not involve damage to anyone else's property. Think act of God. My statement was obviously tongue in cheek, but at their root both health and car insurance do serve to prevent potentially catastrophic financial loss. Should drivers have more insurance security than hospitals and physicians?

I knew you'd show up sooner or later. For starters, you're arguing two different issues. Basically the power of fed vs. state governments. Car insurance is not "forced" upon anyone; don't wanna pay? Don't drive! Also, car insurance is a state issue, nothing to do with the federal govt, which is the argument being made against the bill. When the federal govt FORCES the entire country to buy a service from a private industry, that, as much as you'd like to not believe it, is unconstitutional. Here's to hoping enough people actually realize this.

 

[MDman87]

strummin, care to comment on those polls? Is it safe to say now that a majority of Americans oppose this legislation?

And Narmerguy, the fact that "people being asked have no friecking clue what is even IN the bill" is a serious concern. The fact that Senators, let alone ordinary citizens, have not had time to read, understand, and debate the entire 2700+ page bill is a real problem IMO. I understand the urgency some people are feeling with regards to reforming healthcare, but legislation of this magnitude should have time to be thoroughly debated and amended. They should take every precaution to get it right the first time, instead of rushing the bill to passage before one of the bought-and-paid-for Senators changes his mind and keeps the Democrats from reaching 60 votes

 

[redsquareblack]

strummin, care to comment on those polls? Is it safe to say now that a majority of Americans oppose this legislation?

And Narmerguy, the fact that "people being asked have no friecking clue what is even IN the bill" is a serious concern. The fact that Senators, let alone ordinary citizens, have not had time to read, understand, and debate the entire 2700+ page bill is a real problem IMO. I understand the urgency some people are feeling with regards to reforming healthcare, but legislation of this magnitude should have time to be thoroughly debated and amended. They should take every precaution to get it right the first time, instead of rushing the bill to passage before one of the bought-and-paid-for Senators changes his mind and keeps the Democrats from reaching 60 votes

I, for one, have stopped caring entirely. Just thinking about health care reform depresses me. I genuinely would love to see health care reformed, both in terms of delivery and payment, but something tells me that's NEVER going to happen.

But when someone says "get it right", or implies that some who will be voting for the bill were "bought & paid for", it gets on my nerves. Get it right? We've been sold out, all of us, on both sides of the divide. Very little in the way of meaningful reform that benefits the citizens of the U.S. will ever come out of Congress unless it has something to do with protecting orphans from blood-drinking flaming tigers. It has already happened with Wall Street, and I see little reason to believe this will be substantially different.

Our best hope is the power granted to the HHS Director to tinker with the system without fear of political reprisal.

 

[Parts Unknown]

It would be a tough argument to make that shows liability (auto) insurance protects against catastrophic financial loss. Dont see many in bankruptcy court from lack of liability insurance.

No, but when an uninsured driver causes large amounts of damage to an insured driver, who picks up the tab? The insured motorist's insurance company. When an uninsured person gets ill and needs life saving care, who picks up the tab? The hospital that is required to provide care. Clearly the two are not closely analogous, but they are likewise not widely dissimilar. I just don't find the notion of behavioral mandates to protect others' financial interests to be anything new in this country.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I knew you'd show up sooner or later. For starters, you're arguing two different issues. Basically the power of fed vs. state governments.

That's why it will be interesting to see how the administration of an insurance mandate hashed out.

Car insurance is not "forced" upon anyone; don't wanna pay? Don't drive!

Indeed, and that is where my little analogy breaks down. I have used that same point to argue against the superiority of actuarial models of health insurance.

When the federal govt FORCES the entire country to buy a service from a private industry, that, as much as you'd like to not believe it, is unconstitutional.

And yet we have EMTALA, which one could make a very good argument is unconstitutional. As I alluded to above, I don't know how they are going to deal with enforcing this mandate. We will all have to stay tuned.

 

[dudechiefboss]

passed:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/24/health.care/index.html

 

[redsquareblack]

Luckily, there are already people lining up to sue, not only over the constitutionality of the insurance mandate, but also whether the "buying" of Nelson's vote was constitutional as well.

Think they'll have standing?