Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[mykevermin]

That's precisely what I'm arguing: the health care industry doesn't have enough resources to lobby for itself.

[Msut77]

i thought the goal was to make health care cheaper overall.

The goal in my opinion is act like a civilized society and make sure healthcare is available to all.

The fact that millions will no longer be forced into bankruptcy and how merely getting a grip on the rate of which health care costs increases means savings in the potential trillions over time are just pleasant bonuses.

[thrustbucket]

Who needs lobbyists when you have Dick Morris (http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/10/19/donate-to-the-new-ad-campaign-against-obamacare/)?


;)

[mykevermin]

I like how the picture of Dick Morris on the website header is like two decades and 75 pounds ago.

Dude's made a helluva living biting the hand that fed him. I don't believe a thing he says, because it's clear that it's his "former Clinton taskmonkey" status that keeps him employed, not his wit or wisdom.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Ideally there should be no tax increase, just cut wasteful spending in defense and other areas to shuffle the tax money around.

That is part of the problem. If this social program has to tap into the general fund, some people will bitch. It doesn't matter that costly, elective wars don't have to pay for themselves.

Personally, I'll take single payer and the additional taxes if aggregate care is improved. Waiting for a year for my annual physical doesn't bother me nearly as much as even the best insurance companies trying to renege on paying for care because a certain form wasn't filled out.

[dmaul1114]

i thought the goal was to make health care cheaper overall.

Only a public option can really do that. As private insurance has to lower premiums to compete with a public option being ran as a non-profit that's not burdened with absurd executive salaries etc.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Only a public option can really do that. As private insurance has to lower premiums to compete with a public option being ran as a non-profit that's not burdened with absurd executive salaries etc.

You know better than that. The salaries of a few people at the top making huge salaries is nothing compared to the advertising budgets to attract customers and departments designed to enforce compliance with government regulations.

[dmaul1114]

True, it's all the overhead geared toward making profit that drives costs up. Salaries and bonuses are just part of it.

But at the same time, kill huge salaries and bonuses and there's less pressure to be uber aggressive in advertising, so it's kind of a vicious circle.

But yeah, I should have been more objective and not let my bias against the elite executive class shine through.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

True, it's all the overhead geared toward making profit that drives costs up. Salaries and bonuses are just part of it.

But at the same time, kill huge salaries and bonuses and there's less pressure to be uber aggressive in advertising, so it's kind of a vicious circle.

But yeah, I should have been more objective and not let my bias against the elite executive class shine through.

I just don't want you to become a self-hating elitist.

If you or your girlfriend churn out any books used by a large number of students, you could very easily be making more than most of those bastards.

[dmaul1114]

Neither of us write textbooks (nor have interest in doing so). With many exceptions it's more teaching faculty and teaching schools who write undergrad textbooks. They don't do shit for you towards getting tenure at a research university where you have a 50% research, 50% teaching contract. Peer reviewed publications and grant funding are what get you tenure and promotion.

Royalties on academic books in general aren't great--you have to be pretty luckily to become rich from a text book since there are tons and tons of book options for every course.

Full professors in my field who are very successful tend to make $100-200k. With a few who publish like mad men making around $300K. That's counting 9 months salary, summer salary on grants, book royalties etc. Just a matter of how much you want to work and how much a life you want to have outside of work in terms of how much you can publish, land grants and make a name for yourself to have lots of school trying to hire you so you can move for better salary or get your employer to match offers etc.

Point being, pretty much no one in my field makes anywhere near what "those bastards" make. :D

[willardhaven]

Things have come so far that we could all work a handful of hours a week and live comfortably (including those in third world countries). The people at the top of the food chain have gotten richer exponentially while everyone else has been flat lining (dipping if you take into account the onset of dual income households).

Free health care is the least the government could do to throw the working poor a bone.

[JolietJake]

I was surprised by my history professor's house. Community college professors usually don't make as much, but he's made money from something if not his salary. That or his wife has an incredibly good paying job.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, community college jobs tend to pay about 50% what a tenure track position at a research university would. And history (and all social sciences) aren't that high paying anyway as salaries are meant to be semi-competitive (still lower) than what the person could make in the private sector in that field.

Was it an older professor? Some community college (and university part time non-tenure track lecturers) are people who retired but wanted to teach so they're not doing it for need of money but just to keep busy and because they like teaching etc.

Or it could be the wife, an inheritence etc. Or just someone living beyond their means. Hard to say.

[speedracer]

The rampant unfounded popularism for hating health care company's is insane.
A simple question thrust: what value does an insurance company add?

I think you might have me ignored though, in which case carry on with the faux libertarian support of an industry with an anti-monopoly exemption. The irony is hilarious.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

A simple question thrust: what value does an insurance company add?

It employs millions of middle men and allows hospitals to charge outrageously different prices for the same procedure.

[Snake2715]

It employs millions of middle men and allows hospitals to charge outrageously different prices for the same procedure.

Its buying power, your part of a big name carrier and they have more potential customers, then they can negotiate a bigger discount for said services. The smaller carriers normally compete by making less profit, as they typically cannot get the same discounts.

Customers off the street get the worst of it, although more and more cash paying customers can negotiate a discount if they come in ready to pay... better to cut your losses and get income for services rendered, than have someone just not pay.

Its not just the comapnies, its the machines, and drugs as well. The cost of these things are insane.

[Snake2715]

I think the idea is that premiums on people who choose to take the public option must be set at a level that allows the system to break even.



If you knew at what point you would break even,, then insurance wouldn't exist... there are unforeseen things that come up, we have no control (directly/legally) over what peoples health is. So short of limiting visits, etc we cant control costs. So there are going to be some limitations to the government option, so they can forecast and control costs, or there is going to be no breaking even or predicting costs.

I literally just insured someone that was in his late 20's, firefighter, got hired on full time. Wanted an individual policy, fills out the application accordingly...

Premium is ~$200 a month for some basic plan 1500 deductible, 80% coinsurance, 15//30/50 RX card...

This was in May... come to find out 9 days after taking the policy he has $2300 in RX filled, does so again the next 2 months.

Obviously to protect itself from fraud the carrier orders a complete medical history... and what do you know 2-3 months prior to taking the insurance was diagnosed with a few conditions... skipping out on the medicine until he can get insurance.

The insurance carrier has the legal right to retroactively cancel the prescription portion of the coverage, and they did so... now the Pharmacy is looking at the insured asking for its $8000 back... Thats the discounted amount as well.. its probably closer to $10,000 in RX if you dont have medical insurance.

Had he been straightforward on the application we could have gotten it rated to reflect his issues, and this wouldn't be a problem. For him last year this issue probably didn't exist. And he is the typical young person that didn't have insurance before this... most 20-30 year olds are invincible as far as they are concerned. I was in the same boat and thought the same thing.

The idea of insurance is that you pool your money together, pay more than you should need, and if you ever need it the money is there for you.. there has to be a profit made to account for a heavy loss the following year, that you have not had enough income (premiums) from.


This happens all the time. I saw a single mother insuring her daughters... one child, one accident and $30,000 later the ER visit is over... her premiums for 3 children? $244 a month... Thats 122 years worth of premium at that same rate to break even with just one claim on that policy.

These are both low examples. You cant just break even, and you can just blame the insurance companies...

Commission for an agent on a health plan is the lowest in the insurance business. Personal lines agents typically make 10-13% or so. Commercial lines make anywhere from 8-25% on a policy, and health agents typically make 2-7% at most. Life insurance agents can make upwards of 65% on term insurance, but thats a one year payment, after that your the agent for another 10-35 years, servicing the policy free of pay.

Keep in mind most agents have to split the commission with their agency as well. A typical split is anywhere from 30-40% going to the agent the first couple years, with 60-70% going to the agency... The agency supplies, liability (Errors and Omissions) insurance, supplies, contracts with carriers, assistance personnel, etc.

There are so many sides to this argument its not even funny. There is much more going on behind the scenes than most realize. Most carriers offer a direct buy option, and pay an internal agent he same,a nd charge the insured the same amount, its not the way to go, you always want an unbiased representative on your side. Their interest is taking care of customers in most cases.



You have pharmacy companies researching new drugs, marketing, paying salesmen to sell their drugs to doctors, and kicking back the doctors for prescribing their drugs. Then you have equipment manufacturers, doing the same thing...

All the time the states are all self regulating smaller changes to the minimum government mandates, so crossing state lines is not only confusing for agents, it is also a nightmare for carriers. I have a few great carriers that are Michigan based and not set up to compete in all states, due to the various state minimums, or changes to what is required.

Its regulation that is getting us into this mess, and causing less competition. I don't agree that one state should say 50% is the minimum coverage we are going to offer for mental health, and another to say X is. It needs to be a set standard, and allow for more competition.

The legal system also needs to be looked at. Both sides of that argument have points. If we take the option away to sue for customers, we need to have some sort of rating system put in place, so your not going in blind to a some nut job doctor that leaves utensils inside you and stitches you back up.

[dmaul1114]

If you knew at what point you would break even,, then insurance wouldn't exist... there are unforeseen things that come up, we have no control (directly/legally) over what peoples health is. So short of limiting visits, etc we cant control costs. So there are going to be some limitations to the government option, so they can forecast and control costs, or there is going to be no breaking even or predicting costs.


I doubt it varies greatly from year to year across a whole insurance company though. From person to person sure. But across the millions of members a company insures? Probably not much unpredicatable flucutation.

After a few years they should have a good idea of total costs every year and be able to set premiums at a level to cover that, cover salaries and overhead, and make small profits to have a nest egg for unexpected higher costs in future years.

Vs. private insurance which is trying to maximize profits and spending a lot of money marketing, salaries etc. vs. what a public option would have to do.

[Snake2715]

I doubt it varies greatly from year to year across a whole insurance company though. From person to person sure. But across the millions of members a company insures? Probably not much unpredicatable flucutation.

After a few years they should have a good idea of total costs every year and be able to set premiums at a level to cover that, cover salaries and overhead, and make small profits to have a nest egg for unexpected higher costs in future years.

Vs. private insurance which is trying to maximize profits and spending a lot of money marketing, salaries etc. vs. what a public option would have to do.

That may hold true.. they cant predict the trend, or if this option will impact it.

They cant predict if they are now insurance tons of americans that were without coverage, and may have had undetected problems, or those uninsurables mounds of medical bills, with out first having a few years to do so though... Were are they going to get the base info? Its a guess and a wild one at that.

I had a small group ~48 lives. give me 5 years history. i placed them in April. The total premium was unbelievably low for medical only (self insured RX). They paid a premium of $150,000 annually, I reduced their HMo coverage from about ~$170,000 to a PPO for $150,000 and its a quality carrier. Got a call last week, one employees child had just had a $60,000 visit.... regardless of how well they performed before this, this year is going to suck for the carriers profit on that company. I am not looking forward to the renewal, although its filed with the state across the entire book, I am guessing its not going to be favorable.

[thrustbucket]

You could ask what "value" any single company in any single industry adds. It's a silly question.

[Msut77]

It employs millions of middle men and allows hospitals to charge outrageously different prices for the same procedure.

We have to protect the insurance companies like the Soviets protected their steel industry.

Otherwise people like snake would have to go out and get real jobs.

We are basically funding an entire class of people who only exist to deny the rest of us healthcare.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

We have to protect the insurance companies like the Soviets protected their steel industry.

Otherwise people like snake would have to go out and get real jobs.

We are basically funding an entire class of people who only exist to deny the rest of us healthcare.

I'm sure Snake makes more money based on the number of people he signs up instead of rejects.

[Snake2715]

We have to protect the insurance companies like the Soviets protected their steel industry.

Otherwise people like snake would have to go out and get real jobs.

We are basically funding an entire class of people who only exist to deny the rest of us health care.

I don't deny anyone insurance. Actually I find it somewhat rewarding when other agents have turned down the person and told them SOL, and I can place them with a carrier. i have done this with carriers that pay out $25 in commssion... take that split it 60/40 and then get taxed on your 40%....see if it was worth my time.

The best way for me to do that is have the correct/honest info up front however. The alternative is have the same premiums, but an internal agent. Whether you realize it or not, thats how it works. Want to work direct, well good luck if you feel you got the shaft. That carriers employee is your agent, its in their best interest to keep their job, not help you go after their employer.

An independent agent has word of mouth, and his best interest is to protect his insureds. Ever helped someone get a $100,000 claim re reviewed and handled. They are with you for life, and telling their family/friends what you did.

I guess even though it takes time to become an expert and licensing certifications, schooling, its not a real job. On top of having the legal aspect and keeping up with the continually changing fields.

What is it not blue collar enough? You think I am some kind of elitist, or strive to be one?

If you have been denied insurance maybe you need to call a local agent and see what they can do for you, maybe then you will see if their expertise is tangible or not.

You sound a bit sore to me, I am saying we need reform, and I believe it. But on the other end its not always pure profit, and its not always just a black and white issue.






I'm sure Snake makes more money based on the number of people he signs up instead of rejects.

Exactly... I cant tell you how many times I have went to put accounts together and went through 30+ carriers options, made a presentation, etc to have the buyer/insured use my work and turn it over to a buddy or current agent... guess what I make on that a big fat $0.

As far as the rescinding type accounts, its a charge back in commission. Its not like I get my commission now, so 3 months after I added it to my running total and expected the money to come in, and actually cashed some of the commission checks, then I get a request to repay the carrier. It does not do me any good to write dishonest business. Plus I jeopardize my customer and carrier relationships with this stuff.

[Msut77]

I don't deny anyone insurance.

First off, Obviously someone is denying people insurance.

Second, I said healthcare not insurance.

Learn the distinction.

You sound a bit sore to me

I have health insurance, decent coverage at that. So, no I am not "sore".

There are tens of thousands of Americans every year who die because of our peculiar health care system, I am rather sore about that.

Thankfully nothing so egregious has happened to my family other wise I would be aggrieved or simply grieved.

What is it not blue collar enough? You think I am some kind of elitist, or strive to be one?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

[speedracer]

You could ask what "value" any single company in any single industry adds. It's a silly question.
I'm not asking about every industry. I'm asking about this one specific industry. I just want to know how they add value.

I should hope that asking how a company adds value isn't silly! My business professors would be quite distressed to hear that we live in a world of middle men that add zero value and just skim off the top.

[Snake2715]

First off, Obviously someone is denying people insurance.

Second, I said healthcare not insurance.


You did say that, I should have caught that. Lets pull out a bulls eye and target someone that gives a slightly different point of view, although with the same goal in mind. I am obviously the one denying insurance, and healthcare. I made the rules so complicated, and I ran the costs of RX and Diagnoses equipment so high, as well as covered the uninsured who never come back to pay... thus transferring those costs on to the paying folks.




"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Once again I never said reform shouldn't happen.... I think it needs to. I see the nsured businesses/individuals struggling with 10-35% rate increases on their entire group insurance every year... I hate making that call. Then I turn around and help them renegotiate with another carrier new benefits to keep that cost down. See its in my best interest to get them the best coverage for the best price. I love making a call that they had a reduced premium (happend a few times this year actually) or a flat/level renewal.

You apparently have never worked with any specialist in any field have you? You buy all your commodities direct then?

My next guess to your response is this is health care and is not a commodity.. i kind of feel that way, as I think it should be mandatory as well as auto insurance is mandatory.

Who's the next bad guy in that line? The guy that works as a government official that gets paid hourly to explain what the insurance means, and tells people after their claim why its not covered, and what to do about it if they don't agree? How concerned is that guy with your outcome? He gets paid either way.

Who may I ask is going to replace the 'entire class of people that deny health care' that I apparently am apart of... wouldn't then the government take my role and do the same thing, with less of the publics interests in mind? Or would it be the doctor that refuses to see those who have the public option?

[Msut77]

Snake:
wouldn't then the government take my role and do the same thing, with less of the publics interests in mind?

You think the government would have less of the public interest in mind than a profit seeking company?

Really?

How many medical Bankruptcies are there in Germany or Switzerland?

[Snake2715]

Snake:


You think the government would have less of the public interest in mind than a profit seeking company?

Really?

How many medical Bankruptcies are there in Germany or Switzerland?

Your confused. I am strictly salaried. I do not get an hourly rate and I am not a single carrier agent/employee. I am an independant agent, and therefore do not represent one carrier or mindset. I shop the prices/coverage. I help my customers get the best they can get.

I have a vested interest in keeping them the insured happy, and working to get their claims resolved in a timely fashion. If company A sucks, then I move them and watch how much business I place with that carrier going forward.

I help the insured understand that there are differences between to similarly looking plans by competiting carriers, and I am also legally on the hook if I misrepresent something to an insured.

I am not an hourly employee, or tied to any set of companies or sales pitches. If they arent happy I lose income.



The governments intrest right now is keeping the plan below the 1 billion mark.. That is going to require something be cut. They are also wanting to keep it self sufficient... like they did with medicare and social security right?

If your a citizen and your forced to take something then what do you do if you do not understand it? Pay an agent out of your pocket to go over it (counsel) you on it? Thats what will happen if the goverment does not replace agents.


How is the government going to dictate how much an prescription company/doctor/surgeon, is going to make for the cure of aids, cancer, diabetes, crohns, alzheimers...? If they set a flat rate for those cures, nothing will get cured. There will be no answer.

They are not going to control how much an MRI machine costs, and if they do put a cap on what they will pay, then they are not going to have the best. The privately insured will get better care.. This whole argument can start over again.


And for the record there are plenty of non profit HMO's around. Whats your thought on them? They deny coverage, they have formulary's on what drugs are coverred and which arent... how else could they continue to do what they do?

[Msut77]

You are confused.

Am I?

I at the very least have some clue about how healthcare works in other countries.

Way back in June proved beyond any doubt that you have no idea, literally zero. You are in a bubble.

[speedracer]

It's been an interesting conversation to read. Thanks for the long posts.

If your a citizen and your forced to take something then what do you do if you do not understand it? Pay an agent out of your pocket to go over it (counsel) you on it? Thats what will happen if the goverment does not replace agents.
We aren't talking single payer here. Why would agents disappear?
How is the government going to dictate how much an prescription company/doctor/surgeon, is going to make for the cure of aids, cancer, diabetes, crohns, alzheimers...? If they set a flat rate for those cures, nothing will get cured. There will be no answer.
Brother, I appreciate the sentiment, but they ain't cured shit in a loooooooong time. Hell, it might even be reasonable to assume that business models that increase revenue based on focusing on cures rather than treatments would spring up if the chase for dick pills and treatment revenue went down enough.
They are not going to control how much an MRI machine costs, and if they do put a cap on what they will pay, then they are not going to have the best. The privately insured will get better care.. This whole argument can start over again.
I'm just speaking from my personal opinion here, but I don't see why there shouldn't be better care available to those that want to supplement a baseline measure of care. I buy more than the baseline of every other insurance (auto, life, health, dental, renters) and don't see why I wouldn't continue to do so with a public option. As someone who supports a public option, I realize that the rich get better service in all areas. That's the way it is. But we also realize that a base level of support is necessary, like education. I don't see the difference in reality.
And for the record there are plenty of non profit HMO's around. Whats your thought on them? They deny coverage, they have formulary's on what drugs are coverred and which arent... how else could they continue to do what they do?
Sure. They're also, to paraphrase Grover Norquist, small enough to drown in a bathtub. You put the negotiating power of tens of millions together and you should get somewhere with these companies... right? I mean, we're talking about market forces and bring tens of millions of new customers into the market place. How can this end badly for health companies?

Unless they truly do want to cherry pick and have no intention of giving Americans the kind of health care support that most of us believe should be available to all of us.

[Snake2715]

Am I?

I at the very least have some clue about how healthcare works in other countries.

Way back in June proved beyond any doubt that you have no idea, literally zero. You are in a bubble.



Ok when I get a moment I will jump back and search my posts to see where I strayed off track.

in reality I am not entirely sure what you want or your ideal is even possible, within the limits that are being set.. you mentioned people not going bankrupt but the country will if we just open it to all the way it is. There are many underlying problems that will be there even if the government steps in and offers something. There are other rules and regulations that need to change, before the cost increases are going to slow down.

Also is there nothing that the people of those other countries would prefer to have setup the way we do?




It's been an interesting conversation to read. Thanks for the long posts.


We aren't talking single payer here. Why would agents disappear?



I dont think they will to be honest. Msut was categorizing, it seemed, and I was trying to say that people cannot lump anyone that does earn an income from insurance into one big pile of assholes. To be blunt.



Brother, I appreciate the sentiment, but they ain't cured shit in a loooooooong time. Hell, it might even be reasonable to assume that business models that increase revenue based on focusing on cures rather than treatments would spring up if the chase for dick pills and treatment revenue went down enough.

Your more than right here. I think it helps them more to create a pill that offers some reduction of this problem, but then leads to another, potnetially cureable ailment. I mean how many medications may cause high blood pressure as a side effect? I personally take one that increases my risk of cancer considerably.



I'm just speaking from my personal opinion here, but I don't see why there shouldn't be better care available to those that want to supplement a baseline measure of care. I buy more than the baseline of every other insurance (auto, life, health, dental, renters) and don't see why I wouldn't continue to do so with a public option. As someone who supports a public option, I realize that the rich get better service in all areas. That's the way it is. But we also realize that a base level of support is necessary, like education. I don't see the difference in reality.

Once again I agree here. I think thats how it is going to be in the end if we can even get any reform passed through. Kind of like a buy up option or the medicare advantage plans were... until they were recently axed starting 1/01/10.



Sure. They're also, to paraphrase Grover Norquist, small enough to drown in a bathtub. You put the negotiating power of tens of millions together and you should get somewhere with these companies... right? I mean, we're talking about market forces and bring tens of millions of new customers into the market place. How can this end badly for health companies?

Unless they truly do want to cherry pick and have no intention of giving Americans the kind of health care support that most of us believe should be available to all of us.

I think a lot of them do want to cherry pick. I see it all the time, its easier to do on the individual policies as well. There are a bunch of loopholes that allow these carriers to get away with not covering things on the individual side of things. The good thing is, normally, unless its hidden by the customer, the carrier denies them from the get go. The bad thing is it can become difficult to find anyone that will offer coverage, especially if you had not had continious group coverage without a 62 day break in that coverage. otherwise most individual carriers and a lot of group carriers can exclude that condition for a set period of time.


The buying power is another huge argument and I think its going to help. I am not sure how they will implement it from day 1 though. There is no buying power at first, technically. I am sure thats easy enough to get around however once they get this plan laid down. They will know when X people will be covered, and thats the power right there.



I dont think they can accurately predict the costs. At least not for the first couple years. I dont think that all carriers are denying all large claims, and finding ways to get 'rid of the dogs' as its been put on the news. I also

[Msut77]

in reality I am not entirely sure what you want or your ideal is even possible

It is.

you mentioned people not going bankrupt but the country will if we just open it to all the way it is.

Not at all.

Also is there nothing that the people of those other countries would prefer to have setup the way we do?

There is no country with a Universal Healthcare system that has citizens struggling for the right to have a more expensive system that denies people care or causes bankruptcies.

[Snake2715]

It is.



Not at all.



There is no country with a Universal Healthcare system that has citizens struggling for the right to have a more expensive system that denies people care or causes bankruptcies.

Here is what I am trying to say, now that I am out of work and had a few minutes to think about it.

Its fine that you think we should aspire to have a system, or match the system that is in place in your examples.

The thing is its not a switch. You cant say as of Jan 1/2010 its going to work like example _X_. There are some changes that have to take place before we can just jump to that example.

I agree with you, and add that I dont think its just a simple answer.

[Msut77]

The thing is its not a switch. You cant say as of Jan 1/2010 its going to work like example _X_. There are some changes that have to take place before we can just jump to that example.

There will be a transition period but there is no reason to wait.

I agree with you, and add that I dont think its just a simple answer.

It really is not that complicated.

[UncleBob]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/22/leahy-no-one-questions-our-authority-to-impose-federal-insurance-mandate/

Q: I just want to know where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?

LEAHY: What — we have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?

Q: I’m asking –

LEAHY: Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.

Q: But where — I mean, which –

LEAHY: Where do we have authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway?

Q: Well, the states do that.

LEAHY: No, no, the federal government does that.

Actually, no, the federal government does not set speed limits.

BUT DO NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS!

These are not the droids you're looking for.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/22/leahy-no-one-questions-our-authority-to-impose-federal-insurance-mandate/



Actually, no, the federal government does not set speed limits.

BUT DO NOT QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS!

These are not the droids you're looking for.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It can mean SO many things.

[thrustbucket]

Good one Uncle.

I love laws and policies that get past just because the general population assumes the gov can, even though they legally can't.

[Msut77]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It can mean SO many things.

Leave it to What About Bob...

What would have Universal Healthcare looked back in the Founding Fathers day?

"All citizens to be provided three drams of leeches per annum"?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Good one Uncle.

I love laws and policies that get past just because the general population assumes the gov can, even though they legally can't.

Wouldn't everybody having access to healthcare be promoting the general welfare if it could be done without bankrupting everybody?

[speedracer]

I love laws and policies that get past just because the general population assumes the gov can, even though they legally can't.
Helvering v. Davis + Steward Machine Company v. Davis + "general welfare" preamble + stare decrisis = legal.

So what exactly are you referring to thrust?

[JolietJake]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It can mean SO many things.
Pfft, idiots. You can't have a "more perfect" union.

[mykevermin]

"stare decrisis."

heeheehee. typo, i know, but funny.

[UncleBob]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It can mean SO many things.

Eh... one could argue that it would "promote the general welfare" to, say, exterminate all people infected with HIV/AIDS. I mean, it's the perfect way to cure the country of AIDS, right?

It would "promote the general welfare" to, say, force all citizens to give 100% of their earnings to the State and let the State decide how to use the money, right?

Less extreme - it would "promote the general welfare" to force all able-bodied citizens to exercise for an hour a day. Would you be okay with that?

Besides, the accepted legal definition of the "General Welfare Clause", as determined by the Supreme Court, is that it allows Congress to spend Federal dollars to "promote the general welfare" - and that is it. It doesn't give Congress the power to set speed limits or force citizens to buy certain services.

[Msut77]

Eh... one could argue that it would "promote the general welfare" to, say, exterminate all people infected with HIV/AIDS.

Yes... But then one could be trying to derail any chance at a serious discussion with wanton buffoonery.

Besides, the accepted legal definition of the "General Welfare Clause", as determined by the Supreme Court, is that it allows Congress to spend Federal dollars to "promote the general welfare" - and that is it. It doesn't give Congress the power to set speed limits or force citizens to buy certain services.

Now perhaps if you would allow me to be Bobesque for one moment, what would a constitutional provision for healthcare have looked like in the Founders day?

A laudanum subsidy? Free leeches for the poor?

[speedracer]

"stare decrisis."
Now that I've seen it both ways, it should have the r. Definitely.

It doesn't give Congress the power to set speed limits or force citizens to buy certain services.
Certain services like those provided by a massive army? You just tax them and then spend it on certain services. The entire government is built on that principle. Just because you don't like certain services doesn't somehow put them on shaky constitutional ground.
It would "promote the general welfare" to, say, force all citizens to give 100% of their earnings to the State and let the State decide how to use the money, right?
How about thinking about in in reverse. With every libertarian I've ever debated, sooner or later you find the nerve that they're willing to allow government to control. For most baby libertarians it's defense, as they get older and bitchier it's roads, or police, or fire. For the really stuck-on-stupid Randians you just go with the simple act of taxation, which even they at a base level understand is necessary.

But how much is too much tax Bob? 1/10th of 1 percent? OMG YOURE A GODDAMN COMMUNIST AND YOU SHOULD BE SENT TO SOVIET CHINA WITH THE GULAGS AND POLISH.

That's not really a reasonable position from which to engage someone in debate.

[UncleBob]

I think you're really confused. Congress provides funding for the "massive army" (which is, of course, part of the Executive Branch).

I'm not arguing the idea that Congress doesn't have a right to impose taxes and spend the money. But that's not what a health insurance mandate is. It's buy *this* service or we'll penalize you with a tax.

Be 100% honest with me. If the "General Welfare Clause" goes beyond allowing Congress to allocate federal spending (even though that is what the Supreme Court has upheld), what could Congress *not* do under the guise of "promoting the general welfare"?

[Msut77]

I think you're really confused.

Heh.

Congress provides funding for the "massive army" (which is, of course, part of the Executive Branch).

You obviously noticed he put the qualifier "massive" in there since you put quote marks around it for no discernible reason (are you gonna even pretend our military isn't enormous and costly?). The difference being that there is no doubt the founders would have abhorred the set up we have now, there are lots of references against "large standing armies" and don't forget Jefferson and his warning against entangling alliances.

Yet, as it has been pointed out "defense" budgets never have to be justified in any almost any way.

I'm not arguing the idea that Congress doesn't have a right to impose taxes and spend the money. But that's not what a health insurance mandate is. It's buy *this* service or we'll penalize you with a tax.

In my opinion the Necessary and Proper Clause is pretty clear on the matter, but by all means continue the struggle against Wagner's Law.

Be 100% honest with me. If the "General Welfare Clause" goes beyond allowing Congress to allocate federal spending (even though that is what the Supreme Court has upheld), what could Congress *not* do under the guise of "promoting the general welfare"?

1) Why would you ask someone to be something you never ask of your self?

2) I am still waiting for the answer to my Bobesque question.

[speedracer]

I think you're really confused. Congress provides funding for the "massive army" (which is, of course, part of the Executive Branch).
*facepalm*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I'm not arguing the idea that Congress doesn't have a right to impose taxes and spend the money. But that's not what a health insurance mandate is. It's buy *this* service or we'll penalize you with a tax.
Anyone can say that about any program. Anyone. Anything. Why is this (and you) special?
Be 100% honest with me. If the "General Welfare Clause" goes beyond allowing Congress to allocate federal spending (even though that is what the Supreme Court has upheld), what could Congress *not* do under the guise of "promoting the general welfare"?
This circle jerk for the sake of it grows tired.

[UncleBob]

*facepalm*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Yeah, I'm not really arguing that Congress doesn't have the power to tax. I'm not sure where anything gives Congress the power to use taxes as a penalty for not buying specific services, however. You've yet to show that. Anywhere.

Anyone can say [It's buy *this* service or we'll penalize you with a tax] about any program. Anyone. Anything. Why is this (and you) special?

Name me one single other Federal program where Congress gets to force individuals to choose to either buy a service or pay an extra tax. Any program.

This circle jerk for the sake of it grows tired.
Then quit replying. It's not like you're adding much anyway.

[Msut77]

Then quit replying. It's not like you're adding much anyway.

You have a startling lack of self awareness.

[speedracer]

Yeah, I'm not really arguing that Congress doesn't have the power to tax. I'm not sure where anything gives Congress the power to use taxes as a penalty for not buying specific services, however. You've yet to show that. Anywhere.
That's not how it works dude. You're rigging the test. Congress doesn't say "Thou shalt make the drinking age 21". They say "If you make the drinking age 21, we'll hand you a bag of cash". And then all the states jump to get the money. We can pretend to exist in this unicorn land you're conjuring where the Feds never drop mandates on the states, but that's not reality man. At all.
Name me one single other Federal program where Congress gets to force individuals to choose to either buy a service or pay an extra tax. Any program.
This makes the Civics Panda sad.
Then quit replying. It's not like you're adding much anyway.
wat

[UncleBob]

That's not how it works dude. You're rigging the test. Congress doesn't say "Thou shalt make the drinking age 21". They say "If you make the drinking age 21, we'll hand you a bag of cash". And then all the states jump to get the money. We can pretend to exist in this unicorn land you're conjuring where the Feds never drop mandates on the states, but that's not reality man. At all.


Do "this" and I'll give you money is a completely different ball game than do (or don't do) "this" and I'll make you pay money.

Name me any existing Federal program where the Federal government forced individuals to purchase a service or pay an additional tax.

[Msut77]

wat

Yeah, that is just Bob code for not letting him derail the discussion.

As if there is some unspoken agreement to constantly indulge him.

[speedracer]

Name me any existing Federal program where the Federal government forced individuals to purchase a service or pay an additional tax.
Well I guess in unicorn world it would be unfair to say unemployment fits since it's a state program, though that's bull and it's federally supplemented and supported (but we're playing the "What Unclebob demands instead of what's reality" game).

I guess you're going to drop to some nugget on why SS is different because I don't see it.

Yeah, that is just Bob code for not letting him derail the discussion.

As if there is some unspoken agreement to constantly indulge him.
I'm waiting for this to make sense but I think it's just the H1Thust1 illness. Read the Constitution (or at least part of it amirite?). Do nothing more in the way of scholarship to increase one's understanding of the document (does reading the first 10 federalist papers count?). Willfully ignore 250 years of case law modifications. Act completely contemptuous against anything that's socially stabilizing under the guise of faux-Randian intentional ignorance. Require the counter party to do your Constitutional homework for you to continue to make the debate even marginally interesting and then attack the sources with sheer ignorance of their impact in practical terms. Restate original position as if nothing has been said. Rinse. Repeat.

[Msut77]

I'm waiting for this to make sense.

It never, ever will.

I haven't read the back and forth all that carefully and it seems to be semantics on calling it a premium or a tax.

[UncleBob]

Well I guess in unicorn world it would be unfair to say unemployment fits since it's a state program, though that's bull and it's federally supplemented and supported (but we're playing the "What Unclebob demands instead of what's reality" game).

I guess you're going to drop to some nugget on why SS is different because I don't see it.

Okay, let's say you're talking to a complete moron here (there, I gave that one to you).

Explain to me how either Social Security or Unemployment is the Federal Government saying "Buy this service or else we'll penalize you with an extra tax." What service can I opt into buying to get out of paying into the Social Security fund?

[Msut77]

Explain to me how either Social Security or Unemployment is the Federal Government saying "Buy this service or else we'll penalize you with an extra tax." What service can I opt into buying to get out of paying into the Social Security fund?

I am not sure if SS in its role as retirement insurance is making whatever point you think you are making.

[speedracer]

Explain to me how either Social Security or Unemployment is the Federal Government saying "Buy this service or else we'll penalize you with an extra tax." What service can I opt into buying to get out of paying into the Social Security fund?
I think what you're asking for and what the "solution" would be aren't really in your ideological best interests are they? For the government to satisfy your criteria, they would have to require public option insurance and then you could supplement on top of it, a la SS.

As far as has something like what you're describing happened before? I don't think so, but it's not so horrendously removed from everything else to be particularly interesting. I guess some think this question is a big one. Would it pass Supreme Court muster? Probably. Would it pass our suddenly resurgent strict interpretation POV muster? No, but virtually nothing does so no one loses sleep over it.

Maybe if you could come at it the other way. Is there some part of the Constitution you feel this violates?

[mykevermin]

I haven't followed this thread or had my coffee this morning - are we really having a tenther argument in here?

Jesus fucking christ.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I haven't followed this thread or had my coffee this morning - are we really having a tenther argument in here?

Jesus fucking christ.

I didn't see anybody arguing that health care costs outpacing the growth of income for the last 40 years are because of lazy states. Then again, I miss some things.

[speedracer]

I haven't followed this thread or had my coffee this morning - are we really having a tenther argument in here?

Jesus fucking christ.
It hasn't been said yet, but yes. I tried to head it off with the tax and spend clause and my "decrisis" post citing the case law that shows that it doesn't apply but didn't go over. I was trying to get us there with the Article 1 section 8 quote, hoping to move it to section 9, but we hadn't gotten there yet. I figured that by just coming out and asking in my last post what would make it unconstitutional, we'd just get it out there and answer it directly. I think this whole line of thinking is the newest angle for arguing against it.

This page pretty much nails it. (http://paxblog.vox.com/library/post/the-tenther-argument.html)

In Mr. Bob's defense, it's an entirely reasonable position to take if you're unfamiliar with this stuff. I used to be solidly in that camp.. until I read the case law. I was a huge tenther for a long time. The tubes are really good at producing docs that cite the 10th without context and confusing the issue. Thrust does it on purpose because he's a jerk, but I think Mr. Bob's position was in earnest.

I'll stop rambling now.

[UncleBob]

I think what you're asking for and what the "solution" would be aren't really in your ideological best interests are they? For the government to satisfy your criteria, they would have to require public option insurance and then you could supplement on top of it, a la SS.

Actually, I would very much prefer it. Every time the government raises taxes, someone stops and thinks - if only for a moment - about the people we keep sending to Washington.

Maybe if you could come at it the other way. Is there some part of the Constitution you feel this violates?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=9566

[Msut77]

Actually, I would very much prefer it. Every time the government raises taxes, someone stops and thinks - if only for a moment - about the people we keep sending to Washington.

So is your gripe du jour about people being taxed or people being "forced to buy a service"?

Do you even know or care any more?

[dmaul1114]

The senate bill going forward has some form of a public option that state's can opt out of if they come up with an alternative.

Also, going back to the Budget Office discussion earlier--the bill goes to them to get a price tag put on it before going back to congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/26/health.care/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9BIVFK00

[elprincipe]

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/a-70-percent-tax-on-work

[Msut77]

The senate bill going forward has some form of a public option that state's can opt out of if they come up with an alternative.

Also, going back to the Budget Office discussion earlier--the bill goes to them to get a price tag put on it before going back to congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/26/health.care/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9BIVFK00

That is... hopeful.

I sincerely doubt any state will opt out though:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/economy/10charts.html

[UncleBob]

Also, going back to the Budget Office discussion earlier--the bill goes to them to get a price tag put on it before going back to congress.

From a common sense stand-point though, this just doesn't make sense. The bill they looked at and put a price tag on isn't going to be the same bill that gets enacted.

Shouldn't the price tag be put on the final bill?

It's like if a car salesman tells you the car is going to cost $25,000. You go home, talk it over with your wife, then come back and agree to buy the car. Then, the car salesman throws in the XM Radio, 12 disc-CD changer, custom paint job, sunroof, etc., etc... and tells you the car now costs $45,000. But you've already agreed to get it, so it's too late to change your mind.

[dmaul1114]

As I understand it they're sending a couple different bills to the budget office to get price tags put on them for the purpose of the congressmen having those estimates when debating between the options etc.

Perhaps once they have a final bill to vote on it will get another budget office price tag put on it before the vote? I'm not sure how it works.

[speedracer]

Actually, I would very much prefer it. Every time the government raises taxes, someone stops and thinks - if only for a moment - about the people we keep sending to Washington.
Well I'm probably not the target audience because my dream setup would be a mandatory minimum coverage with a public option available along with "buy-up" coverage available to those willing to purchase it, similiar to the minimum car insurance requirements that I buy along with additional coverage. I'd vote for anyone that pressed that in a heart beat. I get your point though.

I take a couple of issues with the articles you posted.
Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care.
I disagree 1000%. Uninsured people are uninsured because they can't afford it. No one is trying to save that buck unless they're certifiably insane. And if a damn 27 year hospital manager (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/65911582.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O%20%3Cimg %20src=) can get duped, do you or I really have a chance here, not to mention the good old fashioned proletariat that maybe isn't as sharp as our beloved resident libertarians?
The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly.
Friends, that's putting it mildly. And using a court case (Lopez) from 10 years prior to Raich isn't going to gain the necessary traction. The predictable parties will vote predictably partisan regardless of prior votes (Scalia, I'm looking at you, Mr. Insane With The Raich Opinion), and Kennedy will almost certainly side with the liberals.
Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.
Slippery slope arguments make the baby jesus cry and more importantly, does nothing for the SC jurists. See Raich, Bush v. Gore (oh yes I did just go there *snap* *snap*).

The second article seems pretty spot on to me (go Chemerinsky! I love that guy). But the reality is it's 4-4 with Kennedy as the tie breaker and I'd put solid odds on him going liberal.

[mykevermin]

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/a-70-percent-tax-on-work

"From January 2001 to May 2004, Mr. Capretta served as the Bush administration’s top budget official for health care, Social Security and pensions, education, and labor policy. He was the lead official in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all aspects of Medicare and Medicaid reform policy development and implementation as well as for the development of the President’s other important domestic policy initiatives in education and labor."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/james-capretta

[elprincipe]

"From January 2001 to May 2004, Mr. Capretta served as the Bush administration’s top budget official for health care, Social Security and pensions, education, and labor policy. He was the lead official in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all aspects of Medicare and Medicaid reform policy development and implementation as well as for the development of the President’s other important domestic policy initiatives in education and labor."

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/james-capretta

I expect better from you (i.e. evidence disproving or at least arguing against his arguments, instead of just attempting to discredit them by saying "but he was in the Bush administration!!11!").

[mykevermin]

The argument is ludicrous. It's calling the declining rate of entitlements offered to people as they move up the income scale "taxes." That's patently fucking absurd.

The wealthy are taxed more because, as you move up the income ladder, you see that the dollar amount of food stamp entitlements decline. This in turn is an implicit tax on the wealthy.

What is the slightest bit sensible about what he's arguing? I won't even bother getting into how his math is a shitshow that only further confounds his beyond absurd premise.

[depascal22]

Yup. Still nothing to see here.

[elprincipe]

The argument is ludicrous. It's calling the declining rate of entitlements offered to people as they move up the income scale "taxes." That's patently fucking absurd.

The wealthy are taxed more because, as you move up the income ladder, you see that the dollar amount of food stamp entitlements decline. This in turn is an implicit tax on the wealthy.

What is the slightest bit sensible about what he's arguing? I won't even bother getting into how his math is a shitshow that only further confounds his beyond absurd premise.

I agree with you that the rhetoric of "lost handouts=tax increase" is absurd. But please enlighten me (really!) as to where you think the central argument is wrong. The guy is arguing that if you put in place enough disincentives for work (i.e. for every $1 more you earn, 70 cents goes to the government), especially when considering people who are less likely to have a strong work ethic (i.e. those at or below poverty level), you are going to see less work coming from this group. This is what I was interested to see if someone had a rebuttal to.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I agree with you that the rhetoric of "lost handouts=tax increase" is absurd. But please enlighten me (really!) as to where you think the central argument is wrong. The guy is arguing that if you put in place enough disincentives for work (i.e. for every $1 more you earn, 70 cents goes to the government), especially when considering people who are less likely to have a strong work ethic (i.e. those at or below poverty level), you are going to see less work coming from this group. This is what I was interested to see if someone had a rebuttal to.

Meh. That first dollar earned might have a tax rate of 10% after FICA and other social programs take a bite.

Once federal taxes can kick in, they only take hold if there are no deductions such as kids or a house.

By the time you start hitting a 30-40% tax rate, your job probably has perks like a company car or food unless you're single.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, and with ridiculous executive salaries etc., taxing the hell out of extremely high incomes is a way to discourage that. A progressive tax system with much higher taxes beyond 250,000, 1 million, 2 million etc. is probably a good strategy to get the absurd income inequality down some.

But, you're right in that they'll just get around it with other perks. Just as they already do despite not having enough high income tax brackets (IMO).

[willardhaven]

The problem is that the poor are sustaining the rich to an exponentially higher degree than ever. What the hell do people need $100,000+ a year for?

[fullmetalfan720]

The problem is that the poor are sustaining the rich to an exponentially higher degree than ever. What the hell do people need $100,000+ a year for?

Really? A $100,000 a year? Maybe a house, car, health care, a good school for their kids?

[dmaul1114]

$100,000 isn't all that much money in an urban area with high cost of living. Particularly if that's the income for a family of 4 etc.

I don't have problems with high salaries in and of themselves. It's when the gap between executive salaries and workers salaries gets too high, and when executive salaries stay at absurd levels even when the companies are losing money and laying off employees etc. that I take exception with.

[willardhaven]

You people must suck with money... If I earned 100,000 dollars a year I would be retired in roughly 5-10 years.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You people must suck with money... If I earned 100,000 dollars a year I would be retired in roughly 5-10 years.

It depends.

If you're content with a paid for house, a modest amount of land and sending your kids to a public school and university, $100K is all you need.

Want more land? That's $10K per acre.

Want toys such as a boat? That's a good thousand or two a year to maintain the boat and a place to keep near another place to sail it.

Want to see the world without having to shoot the natives? Vacations cost some. Good vacations cost a lot.

Want your kids to go to a "good" university? http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/13263.html Say goodbye to $40K at a second tier school per year.

[willardhaven]

I have friends in really good graduate schools who went to State college with me which ran about $3,000 per semester for commuters.

I understand that $100,000/year is not rich, so I'll concede my point. Hearing people who make close to 200,000 and up complaining about taxes and whatnot just irks me. Defending multimillion dollar salaries is stupid, as a global community we could be doing a lot more with our limited resources than jetting around the world poppin' champagne. Maybe I'm in the wrong country.

[dopa345]

$100,000/year salary is a decent amount but it is by no means a lot of money when you take into account the cost of education it would require to get a job that paid that much.

[SpazX]

$100k a year for and individual would put you in the top 6-7% of the country. There are only a few places where that wouldn't be "enough" defined as being able to afford everything you need, a house, insurance, raise kids, etc. And very few if any where you wouldn't have plenty of extra money as an individual not raising a family. Chances are if you make that amount of money you won't be working/living in the cheapest environment though.

dopa's point about the cost is also good, but that also depends on how rich your family is as well. Most of the people who will have the opportunity to make that kind of money will come from a background where their parents are making a similar amount of money. So all of the burden of paying for the education might not be on the individual getting the education, but getting the education is definitely not going to be cheap.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, $100K for an single person is a nice chunk of change. For a family of 4 (or more) in a metro area with high cost of living and a lot of mouths to feed, college education to save up for etc. it is not much.

I should be making that or more in a decade or so assuming I bust ass and make full professor. I'll make at least $62K this first academic year--trying to get another month or two of summer salary lined up that would bump that up another $5-10K. So I'm doing pretty well for myself already.

But it's also hard to put a ton of extra money into retirement right now with student loan debt ($53K) a car payment etc. so it will be a while before I can start saving a lot extra. And of course you have to factor in the delayed entry into the job market. i.e. I'll be 31 next month and just started my career in August.

Thankfully my university has a good retirement plan already where I have to put 5% each paycheck and they put 9% in, so I'll at least have a decent amount in that while I'm paying off other debts and not able to channel much extra money into IRAs etc.

[Msut77]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/28/joe-lieberman-healthcare-congress-democrats/print

[mykevermin]

:shock:

[thrustbucket]

$100,000/year salary is a decent amount but it is by no means a lot of money when you take into account the cost of education it would require to get a job that paid that much.

I personally know at least 5 people without higher education that make 6 figures. Several more that are very close. It really isn't that hard, especially if you teach yourself how to program.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I personally know at least 5 people without higher education that make 6 figures. Several more that are very close. It really isn't that hard, especially if you teach yourself how to program.

And got enough experience before the market imploded.

I got mad skillz. I just need a time machine now.

[dopa345]

I personally know at least 5 people without higher education that make 6 figures. Several more that are very close. It really isn't that hard, especially if you teach yourself how to program.

Good for your friends, but they are the exception not the rule. Very few people with only a high school diploma make six figures.

[thrustbucket]

Good for your friends, but they are the exception not the rule. Very few people with only a high school diploma make six figures.

The point is, things aren't the same any more. Less company's out there are really that concerned about degrees, and more concerned about skills and experience; especially in the high tech sector. Now, it really depends on your field though, some fields degrees go a long ways.

There is an in-n-out burger opening 2 blocks from my house. Last week they opened up hiring. It made news that 10 of the people in line that morning had masters degrees.

[mykevermin]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/11/03/voter.anger/t1larg.jpg

Photo from the dipshit town halls over the summer. I demand the woman on the left be made into a meme.

[speedracer]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/11/03/voter.anger/t1larg.jpg

Photo from the dipshit town halls over the summer. I demand the woman on the left be made into a meme.
What's that one thing with the eyes and the mouth with the laser shooting out of the mouth? It's a cartoony meme?

What the hell is that thing? Whatever it is, she needs to have it ASAP.

[detectiveconan16]

Sometimes I wonder if Howard W. Campbell Jr. really exists when I see these pictures.

[thrustbucket]

I wonder if myke would have posted that pic if it were taken at an anti war rally.

[depascal22]

I wonder if myke would have posted that pic if it were taken at an anti war rally.

He wouldn't have to. You, ram, or troy would've already had it up.

[elprincipe]

I wonder if myke would have posted that pic if it were taken at an anti war rally.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vH5f59Og-Sc/RuYtTvZMomI/AAAAAAAABJI/Ll3X10le3DM/s400/Image19.jpg

:?:

[UncleBob]

You know what I love about Canada's socialized health care system?

I love how much better it is than ours - where everyone is treated equally and no one is denied care.

http://www.calgarysun.com/sports/hockey/2009/11/03/11619136.html

Oh, crap.

[SpazX]

Wow Bob, that was....mediocre.

[UncleBob]

No, SpazX - it was mediocare. :)

[thrustbucket]

He wouldn't have to. You, ram, or troy would've already had it up.

I have no problem with anti-war protesters.

Stereotyping any protesters based on a few of the extremists is a poor show.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

In before Crotch points out the word "Sun" is in the paper's name.

[perdition(troy]

I have no problem with anti-war protesters.

Stereotyping any protesters based on a few of the extremists is a poor show.

why did you have to beat me to my almost exact reply.

[Snake2715]

Watching a webinar on this now... Some of the info I am seeing is nuts.

[speedracer]

Well done Republicans!

Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning: The only thing worse than having no health-care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by CBO and making the House Democrats look good in comparison.

Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.

This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans. It's one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It's another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren't even totally sure how to play the game. The Democratic plan isn't perfect, but in comparison, it's looking astonishingly good.

[UncleBob]

How is this "Democratic" and "Republican" bill? Aren't there several different bills being proposed by both groups?

And, suddenly, we're supposed to believe the CBO when all the stuff they said about the Democratic plan was supposed to be BS?

[perdition(troy]

And, suddenly, we're supposed to believe the CBO when all the stuff they said about the Democratic plan was supposed to be BS?

LOL @ suddenly now we are supposed to be believing the CBO

[Snake2715]

I am really interested in the cost cutting of any plan. That is the key to this thing, it really is.

Cross state lines to increase competitiveness, and cut costs. i dont mean costs of the carriers that use ~86% on claims and 14% total on administration. I mean cut the costs of doctors, hospitals, equipment, and RX companies.

[speedracer]

How is this "Democratic" and "Republican" bill? Aren't there several different bills being proposed by both groups?
I think he's comparing to the Dem House bill, which seems to be first in line.
And, suddenly, we're supposed to believe the CBO when all the stuff they said about the Democratic plan was supposed to be BS?
I've hated much of the stuff they put out but realistically man, they're about the most trustworthy source for a baseline cost of a plan. Hell, without em it would be all noise. Even having them as a starting point is helpful.

[The Crotch]

In before Crotch points out the word "Sun" is in the paper's name.
God dammit.

[elprincipe]

How is this "Democratic" and "Republican" bill? Aren't there several different bills being proposed by both groups?

In the House, the three bills passed out of committee have been merged into one through a behind-closed-doors process masterminded by Pelosi herself. That is the bill (all 1,990 pages of it) that will be voted on in the House tomorrow. The Republicans have been allowed to offer a substitute, which will of course be voted down since the Democrats have a large majority. Most people expect the Democratic bill to pass.

Now, for some fun, here is a list of bureaucracies created by the Pelosi bill:

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)

15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)

16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)

17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)

19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)

24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)

41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)

88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

[Msut77]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html

[IRHari]

I'm watching the final debate on the House floor before they vote on the bill.

One republican congressman actually brought up a baby and said this baby won't have the healthcare his mom has. Another congressman bragged he's a cancer survivor after he was diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer on August 1st. That's 3 months ago folks. They're making some kind of plea to America by emphasizing the fact that its OMG A BIG BILL. It's going to be a bill. You don't want to have any loopholes.

I'm glad I'm not part of the opposition party so clearly desperate to derail this bill. Everything but the kitchen sink guys. That's what we're seeing from the Repubs.

[UncleBob]

>"You don't want to have any loopholes."

Yeah, I'm sure this bill won't have any loopholes at all.

[UncleBob]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/07/2009-11-07_health_care_reform_bill_nears_vote_in_house_ame ndment_restricts_abortion_coverag.html

And so, the denial of medical treatments by the Federal Government begins...

Liberals savaged the anti-abortion provision. "This amendment threatens the health and rights of women to seek a legal procedure," said Westchester Rep. Nita Lowey, calling it "unnecessary and reprehensible."

[speedracer]

And so, the denial of medical treatments by the Federal Government begins...
Go get on your white horse and go fight the Christian Right about this issue. The rest of us will be right behind you.

[UncleBob]

The Christian Right doesn't force my hard-earned money out of my paycheck at gunpoint.

[mykevermin]

The Christian Right fought for that provision. But you know that and choose to ignore it anyway.

[UncleBob]

But see, the Christian Right isn't supposed to be standing up for my rights. The Christian Right isn't funded with my tax dollars. The Christian Right can do pretty much whatever they want, for as much as I care.

I expect politicians to do what's right (well, I don't really expect it... you know what I mean.) Wasn't one of the big pushes for the government take over of health care all about private insurers denying coverage for treatment, prevention and procedures?

Now, you have a perfectly legal medical procedure - and the Federal Government is going to have a blanket denial for absolutely no medical reason.

These are the people you put your trust and faith in.

I can almost see why some people choose to put their faith in Zombie Spacemen...

[mykevermin]

Let me put on the "UncleBob" hat then and ask a ridiculous question based on a foolish intrepretation of your literal cherry-picking words.

Since you're against government denying medical procedures, does this now mean that you support a public option?

[UncleBob]

I've never said I'm completely against a public option, have I?

[mykevermin]

I can't be arsed to look through your hundreds of posts in this thread.

Stop playing semantics and debate. Stop being such a mincing pedant and have an opinion. Your posts show fleeting moments of knowledge and insightfulness, yet the vast majority of them are absurdly naive "gotcha" moments and poorly thought out questions. If you posted 75% less than you do, and spent more time thinking about things before barfing out whatever comes to mind, you could be a far better contributor to the vs forums, irrespective of whether or not we were to agree on something.

I'm looking to discuss ideas, not go tit for tat with poor witticisms or play Fox News with you.

In short, cut the shit.

[UncleBob]

Oh noes - Mykie doesn't like my posts. Perhaps if you took the time to read them, you would have noted already that I'm *not* against the idea of a government option (or an expanded government option). I merely have a few "requirements" for it to get my support.

1.) It cannot raise taxes or increase the deficit. As with any budget, if you want to spend money on one thing, you have to cut spending somewhere else.

2.) The government option *must* compete fairly and equally with private companies. This means it cannot be supported via the public teat, cannot have special laws created to support or protect it and must follow the same exact rules, regulations and laws that private insurance companies do.

[mykevermin]

1 was satisfied with the bill.

2 is ambiguous and useless. Metaphors and vague allusions suggest that you were correct in putting your word of "requirements" in quotation marks.

[UncleBob]

How was 1 met with the bill? Heck the article I linked to above pointed out that taxes will be raised...

"The bill proposes to spend $1.055 trillion to add 36 million Americans to the insurance rolls, largely paid for with a 5.4% surtax on the top 0.3% of earners and cutting Medicare Advantage programs."

As for 2 - I don't think the government option should be funded by taxpayer money if it is designed to "compete" with private insurers as we were told it was. Unless we're going to start funding private insurers via taxpayer funds. Which I don't want to do either. Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that any laws that apply to private companies should apply to the government option as well, do you?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

How was 1 met with the bill? Heck the article I linked to above pointed out that taxes will be raised...

"The bill proposes to spend $1.055 trillion to add 36 million Americans to the insurance rolls, largely paid for with a 5.4% surtax on the top 0.3% of earners and cutting Medicare Advantage programs."

As for 2 - I don't think the government option should be funded by taxpayer money if it is designed to "compete" with private insurers as we were told it was. Unless we're going to start funding private insurers via taxpayer funds. Which I don't want to do either. Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that any laws that apply to private companies should apply to the government option as well, do you?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/an_insurance_industry_ceo_expl.html was a really awesome post by Msut.

Should the public option continue to pay at least double than other countries?

Is that Lipotor that private companies pay up to 10X the price for 10X more effective?

If we were paying the same prices as other industrialized countries, we could probably have a tax refund. Of course, that wouldn't be far to hospitals that are charging up to 10X more for the same services.

http://noolmusic.com/south_park/south_park_not_a_big_deal_the_boys_feel_bad_about_ downloading.php

The public option isn't a big deal, too.

[Msut77]

1 was satisfied with the bill.

2 is ambiguous and useless. Metaphors and vague allusions suggest that you were correct in putting your word of "requirements" in quotation marks.

"Ambiguous and useless" certainly sounds like Bob, has he gotten past his totally awesome plan just to deny people care?

Bob just completely ignores the fact that providing care should be the crux of this whole "debate".

[UncleBob]

Okay, so I just read something - can anyone confirm if this is true or not:

http://consumerist.com/5399893/health-care-reform-bill-passes-house

Insurance mandate: Uninsured Americans will pay a penalty; low-income people exempt. House bill charges a penalty of 2.5% of adjusted gross income: that's $500 on $20,000, for example.

So - wait... "low-income people" are exempt. Aren't these the ones most likely to "abuse" emergency rooms, not have money to pay their medical bills, end up filing bankruptcy, etc., etc... Why is a "low-income" individual exempted from this mandate? Even more so when the government is going to virtually be giving them free insurance anyway?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

So - wait... "low-income people" are exempt. Aren't these the ones most likely to "abuse" emergency rooms, not have money to pay their medical bills, end up filing bankruptcy, etc., etc... Why is a "low-income" individual exempted from this mandate? Even more so when the government is going to virtually be giving them free insurance anyway?

Let's assume it is true.

Subsidies - Households earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for subsidies of health insurance premiums when they buy insurance through the exchange.

2008 HHS Poverty Guidelines

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtml

So, we're going to charge somebody up to $500 a year for "unlimited" health care and remove the possibility of them filing bankruptcy based on medical bills and we're going to subsidize their insurance premiums. Are we taxing them or giving them a huge discount?

[speedracer]

But see, the Christian Right isn't supposed to be standing up for my rights.
Man, arguably the largest voting bloc in America gets a pass on American values. What a luxury you faux conservative/libertarians have, to be able to dismiss out of hand the responsibilities of Constitutional stewardship of the driving force behind the party you default to while wringing your hands.
The Christian Right isn't funded with my tax dollars.
Actually, they are. The tax deduction comes directly out of your pocket via taxes that aren't being paid. But since they don't get involved in politics, it's not a big deal. If they did, well, then it's just basically money laundering of tax dollars for political purposes.

Oh wait.
Now, you have a perfectly legal medical procedure - and the Federal Government is going to have a blanket denial for absolutely no medical reason.

These are the people you put your trust and faith in.
People feel strongly about abortion. I think it should be in there but there's a significant portion of the population that hates it like NOTHING else. I'm ok with it not being there because of their objections. I will continue to donate to PP and have my donation earmarked for low income families that need abortions.

That's called negotiation. It would be much easier to do more of it if you guys would stop stomping your feet like petulant children and actually came back with something workable that isn't the antithesis of the ruling party's vision. No, it's just easier to QQ.

[rmb]

Thought some might enjoy this one. Regardless of which side a person takes if this much control is in one person's hands I'd be scared. Though, I will state that may be the goal of this release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RATaYBa4HCA

[dmaul1114]

So - wait... "low-income people" are exempt. Aren't these the ones most likely to "abuse" emergency rooms, not have money to pay their medical bills, end up filing bankruptcy, etc., etc... Why is a "low-income" individual exempted from this mandate? Even more so when the government is going to virtually be giving them free insurance anyway?

You can't get blood from a turnip, kind of pointless to expect the impoverished to pay a fine.

Hopefully they'll set it up so there's not much of a gap (if a gap at all) between being eligible for medicaid and having to buy into the subidized low-income insurance or pay a penalty.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You can't get blood from a turnip, kind of pointless to expect the impoverished to pay a fine.

Hopefully they'll set it up so there's not much of a gap (if a gap at all) between being eligible for medicaid and having to buy into the subidized low-income insurance or pay a penalty.

Let me see if I can impersonate the opposition...

It isn't fair. Poor people in their 20s should be saddled with permanent debt because of an accident or have a bankruptcy on their record.

Those poor people should have the ability to buy a home taken from them FOREVER!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah and taxes are a disincentive for working harder. Having a 50K hospital bill or a bankruptcy ruining your ability to build wealth doesn't.

What do you think?

[RAMSTORIA]

im just glad congress had enough time to read the entire bill in detail before voting on it.

[depascal22]

So what do you think the Senate will add or subtract from the bill that passed?

Do you think they even know what's in the bill?

[mykevermin]

I think they know what's in it.

There's some cognitive disconnect (or, rather, unintentional dishonesty) involved when people accuse politicians of not reading bills.

1) Those who levy the criticisms don't read the bills themselves (which is fine by itself, as that's an arduous task, right?)

2) They allow their online networks of like-minded colleagues to do the legwork, citing their critiques with virtually no follow-up to verify those criticisms.

So they (like elprincipe above) rely on the "knowledge of the aggregate" to take care of the burden of being expected to read, crossreference, and critique a several thousand page document.

The disconnect happens because folks seem to think that the "knowledge of the aggregate" technique works for them, but could never work in Congress. No explanation is given, and we are led to believe that this is the case based on stereotypical assumptions of laziness and ineptitude on Capitol Hill. It's not quite that self-evident, really, and the dishonesty in crab-assing about "they don't read the bills!" is quite tiresome.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I think they know what's in it.

There's some cognitive disconnect (or, rather, unintentional dishonesty) involved when people accuse politicians of not reading bills.

1) Those who levy the criticisms don't read the bills themselves (which is fine by itself, as that's an arduous task, right?)

2) They allow their online networks of like-minded colleagues to do the legwork, citing their critiques with virtually no follow-up to verify those criticisms.

So they (like elprincipe above) rely on the "knowledge of the aggregate" to take care of the burden of being expected to read, crossreference, and critique a several thousand page document.

The disconnect happens because folks seem to think that the "knowledge of the aggregate" technique works for them, but could never work in Congress. No explanation is given, and we are led to believe that this is the case based on stereotypical assumptions of laziness and ineptitude on Capitol Hill. It's not quite that self-evident, really, and the dishonesty in crab-assing about "they don't read the bills!" is quite tiresome.

My job isn't to create legislation. If my job ever became creating legislation, I'm pretty sure reading the legislation would become a requirement or preferred by my employers.

Let's try another example.

You're teaching students and give a test with 100 questions. Do you give all of the students passing grades if one student gets all of the questions correct, but the rest of the students gets 0-10 questions correct?

[mykevermin]

I'm calling a penalty against you for an illegal procedure: failure to properly ask an UncleBob question.

I'll get back to you with the point of what I'm trying to state.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I'm calling a penalty against you for an illegal procedure: failure to properly ask an UncleBob question.

I'll get back to you with the point of what I'm trying to state.

Boo!

I'll admit it. I'm too lazy to read a 1500 page bill. I'm going to rely on other people to find faults with it. I may only look at a few points of view of the bill.

When I'm not working, I'm unwinding or studying for a certification exam.

If I was unemployed, I would have the time to read some of this bill.

However, memorizing this bill will not change whether or not it passes. It probably won't give me an additional ability to change somebody's mind about it.

So ... we back to representatives with no other job or no real room for advancement ignoring the "reading bills" part of their job.

[mykevermin]

I'm going to rely on other people to find faults with it. I may only look at a few points of view of the bill.

I see what you're trying to point out. Nevertheless, what I'm trying to say is that there are more than 638 people on Capitol Hill who come across the bill. Call it a division of labor, call it relying on gophers, call it what you will - reading the text of a given bill is not the only way to come across knowledge of what it contains and implies.

In short, criticizing politicians for not reading legislation is an apt criticism if you want them to read it. But criticizing them for not knowing what is in the bill because they have not read it personally is not an inherently factual claim.

[UncleBob]

Myke - Do you agree that the health care reform bill will *DRASTICALLY* change our country and our daily lives?

Because I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with that (for better or for worse, mind you).

I want those who are elected to represent us to both read the bill and know what's in the bill. Not to simply assume what they're being told is correct.

It's fine for us internet-armchair-politicians to take the word of someone else for it - quite frankly, we're not being paid by the taxpayers to represent people and if one of us makes a bad decision on supporting the bill based on misinformation, it's not going to actually effect the passage of that bill.

[dmaul1114]

In short, criticizing politicians for not reading legislation is an apt criticism if you want them to read it. But criticizing them for not knowing what is in the bill because they have not read it personally is not an inherently factual claim.

Absolutely. One can have a firm grasp of all the facets of a bill from detailed bullet points put together by staffers etc. Bills have a ton of useless language and can be condensed into summaries and bullet points that accurately outline the laws it would put in place etc. And the congressmen can go by that and look up the parts of the bill that concern them based on those summaries in the real bill.

I do the same sometimes in my research work with having an assistant read and summarize a stack of articles related to the topic so I have that as my starting point and can just read the ones that are most pertinent in more detail.

[dmaul1114]

Myke - Do you agree that the health care reform bill will *DRASTICALLY* change our country and our daily lives?


Country--hopefully. As we won't look like a third world country in terms of health care (lack of) for the working poor.

Daily lives? Not really. Some will be better as they have access to health care. The rest of us that have always had health care will be relatively unaffected. Maybe premiums will go up or down for some, but I don't see my daily life changing at all since I did well for myself and will never have issues getting jobs with good benefits.


I want those who are elected to represent us to both read the bill and know what's in the bill. Not to simply assume what they're being told is correct.

Again, they can do just as well with having other prepare detailed summaries for them. Sure one staffer may miss some key point--but across all the 100s of congressmen and 100 senators, every key point will come up and be addressed in floor debate, so I don't see it as a huge issue personally.

[UncleBob]

Again, they can do just as well with having other prepare detailed summaries for them. Sure one staffer may miss some key point--but across all the 100s of congressmen and 100 senators, every key point will come up and be addressed in floor debate, so I don't see it as a huge issue personally.

You'd think that, until you remember these guys (well, some of them) passed the Patriot Act.

The summaries they read were probably something like this:

1.) Vote for this, or you support terrorists.

[thrustbucket]

Absolutely. One can have a firm grasp of all the facets of a bill from detailed bullet points put together by staffers etc. Bills have a ton of useless language and can be condensed into summaries and bullet points that accurately outline the laws it would put in place etc. And the congressmen can go by that and look up the parts of the bill that concern them based on those summaries in the real bill.

I do the same sometimes in my research work with having an assistant read and summarize a stack of articles related to the topic so I have that as my starting point and can just read the ones that are most pertinent in more detail.

Then don't take this the wrong way, but now that you have written that it is public record on the internet, and many people, including myself, wouldn't vote for you if you ever ran for anything - simply based on what you just said there.

I expect my elected officials to read entire bills. If they are too big and complex then I expect them to find a way to prevent that or change that, since that right there is the root of many problems. You know as well as I do that they wordsmith these things into as big, long, as complicated documents as possible in order to hide things and hope they won't be caught till it's too late. This combined with bullrushing bills through is how many lawmakers hope to pass unpopular items, create pork, or worst of all - create slippery slopes and set ups to worse bullshit down the road.

[mykevermin]

I expect my elected officials to read entire bills.

Reading ≠ knowledge. Clinging onto the "they must read it" argument is simply tenuous, because you're not addressing that people come across plenty of knowledge and understanding without actual hands-on work. Copy notes, read summaries, cliffs notes - so many people do it in education as is.

Would you hold so strongly onto this idea if a given politician could accurately and immediately respond to any question about the bill, thereby demonstrating their knowledge? Of course you wouldn't, as you inherently distrust politicians. Not a bad starting point by itself, mind you, but let's be honest: you're holding steadfast onto a ritual that is absolutely separable from the problem that you think results from it. You therefore have little reason to hang onto the exaltation of that ritual.

[dmaul1114]

Then don't take this the wrong way, but now that you have written that it is public record on the internet, and many people, including myself, wouldn't vote for you if you ever ran for anything - simply based on what you just said there.

I expect my elected officials to read entire bills.

No worries. I have 0 desire to every do anything related to politics or public office. :D

But I agree wholeheartedly with Myke. The key is that they have a knowledge of the bills. And they can acquire that without reading these stupid, overly long and wordy pieces of legislation by having trusted aids condense it down to a more usable format. Every key issue will be raised at some point by someone in the house or senate. Pork and other things get through as people don't care about it, or as you note, bills just get rushed to votes etc. Less from senators going off bullet points/summaries which probably included the pork anyway.

Honestly, there should probably be a congressional office tasked with condensing bills down to a more digestible format that's approved by a committee as being 100% representative of the bill so there's an official "cliff's notes" version of each bill--at least each bill over a certain length.

[dmaul1114]

You'd think that, until you remember these guys (well, some of them) passed the Patriot Act.

The summaries they read were probably something like this:


I don't think the summaries were like that, they probably had very detailed summaries of what powers were being extended etc.

It was just a time period when elected officials couldn't risk looking soft on terror and thus voted for it despite any objections to the content.

Just like states can't get rid of stupid laws like three strikes and you're out etc. as politicians can't risk looking soft on crime.

There's a lot of problems with politicians and the way laws are passed. I don't believe that not reading full bills has much to do with it.

[thrustbucket]

You're right myke. I wouldn't care if they actually read every page if they could answer any question on it. So make them pass a quiz before they can vote, at least.

As a side note, I have a feeling that next year it will be the new popular thing to bust politician chops about - "How many bills did you read in it's entirety" after this past year.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Would you hold so strongly onto this idea if a given politician could accurately and immediately respond to any question about the bill, thereby demonstrating their knowledge?

Will there be a penalty if they disseminate false information? I understand that violates the First Amendment, but they aren't required to follow the laws they pass so the Constitution doesn't always have to apply to them.

How about a quiz or test a week or so before the final vote and have the results posted online?

Then, the conservation of "Gee, your representative is (for/against) the bill and knows (nothing/some/everything) about it." can happen.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You're right myke. I wouldn't care if they actually read every page if they could answer any question on it. So make them pass a quiz before they can vote, at least.

As a side note, I have a feeling that next year it will be the new popular thing to bust politician chops about - "How many bills did you read in it's entirety" after this past year.

Damn customers tying me up so I can't post the idea first.

[depascal22]

Maybe there should be a ten question quiz on any legislation before a vote can be made? It's all electronic so it shouldn't be that hard.

You could even say that a Congressman must have a least a 80% passing percentage during his/her term to be eligible for re-election. Some people might bash it and say that the elites are trying to take over Congress though.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Maybe there should be a ten question quiz on any legislation before a vote can be made? It's all electronic so it shouldn't be that hard.

You could even say that a Congressman must have a least a 80% passing percentage during his/her term to be eligible for re-election. Some people might bash it and say that the elites are trying to take over Congress though.

I would say no because so many bills are fluff.

In this isolated case, the government is taking over 1/7th 1/6th of the US economy.

[UncleBob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D3mqiKgquY#t=9s

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I can't wait until that movie comes out.

[speedracer]

As a side note, I have a feeling that next year it will be the new popular thing to bust politician chops about - "How many bills did you read in it's entirety" after this past year.
Was there something special about this year?

[elprincipe]

Then, the conservation of "Gee, your representative is (for/against) the bill and knows (nothing/some/everything) about it." can happen.

Although that would never happen, it would be absolutely fascinating. Just take these for examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DALcHFTKlzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8XSo0etBC4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_YT6SE7iY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdNKQ8XapIA

Of course, the easy way to find more of these sorts of things is to look up just about everything politicians say about video games, but we all knew that.

[thrustbucket]

Was there something special about this year?

It's been major news stories repeatedly that nobody in Congress and the Senate can/do read legislation.

[UncleBob]

YES!

SOMEONE agrees with me in regards to an individual health insurance mandate being a *STUPID* idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnDxqboVxMY#t=8s
Someone should have voted for that guy...

[speedracer]

It's been major news stories repeatedly that nobody in Congress and the Senate can/do read legislation.
You know full well you can't trust any major news stories.

Politico just pointed out that the RNC's health coverage for the last 18 years has covered abortion. lol.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Has anybody pointed this out yet?

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102801/Jailing_the_uninsured

Republicans point out that the House bill specifies “a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

The rest of the article claims nobody will go to jail, but "imprisonment of up to five years" sounds like a real possibility.

I'm trying to load the actual text of section 7201 or 7203 of the bill, but my puny browser is having trouble loading a 300 thousand word bill.

EDIT: For some reason, I can't find sections 7201 or 7203. The sections stop in the 800s.

[Msut77]

The rest of the article claims nobody will go to jail, but "imprisonment of up to five years" sounds like a real possibility.

From what I have read it is possible, but you would have to pull some really major and blatant fraud for their to be jail time. Just like when skipping out on taxes.

[UncleBob]

People go to jail for tax fraud?

I thought they just got special appointments by President Obama.

[perdition(troy]

People go to jail for tax fraud?

I thought they just got special appointments by President Obama.

:lol::lol:

well said.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

From what I have read it is possible, but you would have to pull some really major and blatant fraud for their to be jail time. Just like when skipping out on taxes.

What is the exact wording in the bill?

I can't find it.

[depascal22]

:lol::lol:

well said.

One more and it's a circle jerk.

Oh, and conservatives believe Mexicans are stealing our jobs.

And for the finish, Faux News is mo' garbage than garbage.

[Msut77]

What is the exact wording in the bill?

I can't find it.

http://mediamatters.org/print/research/200911120022

[UncleBob]

One more and it's a circle jerk.

Oh, and conservatives believe Mexicans are stealing our jobs.

And for the finish, Faux News is mo' garbage than garbage.

Awww... I made depascal strike out in anger again. Thought you were working on that?

Has anybody pointed this out yet?

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102801/Jailing_the_uninsured

Bullshit...
Calm down — these "prison sentences" are a myth: The only people who'd face penalties are those who have plenty of money to buy insurance, but choose not to, says Karina Newton at Speaker Pelosi's official blog. And, frankly, they should be penalized: "Right now, every insured American family will pay $1,017 a year in insurance premiums just to cover the medical expenses of the uninsured.
Here's a better idea - how about you penalize them after the abuse the system? Why preemptively penalize them because they may potentially one day abuse the system?

EDIT: For some reason, I can't find sections 7201 or 7203. The sections stop in the 800s.

Here's the trick - the penalty for not having Federally approved health insurance will be considered a part of your income taxes.

Sections 7201 and 7203 refer to the tax code and the penalties for not complying with income tax laws.
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/26/26USC07201.html

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Here's the trick - the penalty for not having Federally approved health insurance will be considered a part of your income taxes.

Sections 7201 and 7203 refer to the tax code and the penalties for not complying with income tax laws.
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/26/26USC07201.html

There we go. If a person chooses to not buy medical insurance and they make more than some threshold, the IRS will bite down on them like a pit bull? Ummm... I don't like that.

Is there a real difference between filing bankruptcy because of medical expenses and bankruptcy because of tax penalties and interest?

[elprincipe]

You know full well you can't trust any major news stories.

Politico just pointed out that the RNC's health coverage for the last 18 years has covered abortion. lol.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html

Yeah, I saw that article this morning. It confirms what many of us who are pro-life believe: the Republican establishment for the most part uses the issue for political purposes, but doesn't really care about it. It's the same way with many other issues, and in both political parties. For example, how wonderful that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over, huh, Code Pink?

EDIT: to clarify, the RNC policy not only covers abortion when the mother's life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest, but elective abortions. And it's done so since 1991. The RNC couldn't care less about the issue, unless it brings them more donations and Republican votes. Fuckers.

[elprincipe]

People go to jail for tax fraud?

I thought they just got special appointments by President Obama.

They either get in charge of the IRS or made chairman of the committee that writes tax law. What a country we live in!

[Msut77]

Is there a real difference between filing bankruptcy because of medical expenses and bankruptcy because of tax penalties and interest?

Well in this case the subsidies are fairly generous so yeah.

And again you would have to be both a relatively big fish and ridiculously blatant at trying to game the system for jail time to be considered let alone prosecuted succesfully.

It isn't literally impossible but it just isn't likely at all.

[Msut77]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/afghanistans-lessons-for-health-care-reform/

[Access_Denied]

I don't really know that much about Obama's health care plan, and I can admit that. I've learned a bit or two here from this thread, but my overall knowledge is hardly any. But I do know ONE thing for sure. Our health insurance rates just nearly doubled. We now either have to start living on a much tighter budget, eating less and buying less, or we have to drop down from high option to standard option insurance. Screw Obama and his health care plan. Maybe someone will come around in 2012 and fix this fuck up.

[Msut77]

You admit you know next to nothing about anything but you do know you are angry.

/facepalm

[fullmetalfan720]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33946165/ns/politics-washington_post/
A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

[Access_Denied]

You admit you know next to nothing about anything but you do know you are angry.

/facepalm

It doesn't take a genius to realize that our health insurance rates doubled because of his new law, and that we'll be receiving the same coverage as before. :roll:

[dmaul1114]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that our health insurance rates doubled because of his new law, and that we'll be receiving the same coverage as before. :roll:

Huh? There is no new law in place whatsoever. A bill has passed the house, and hasn't even been voted on in the senate yet. Get more informed before posting non-sense.

If anything, you should be encouraging your senators to vote for the bill with a public option as that's the best chance of driving rates down.

[Access_Denied]

Huh? There is no new law in place whatsoever. A bill has passed the house, and hasn't even been voted on in the senate yet. Get more informed before posting non-sense.

If anything, you should be encouraging your senators to vote for the bill with a public option as that's the best chance of driving rates down.

Sorry, I meant to say his new bill. I do know enough to know that it's still in the Senate.

[speedracer]

Access, you need to speak to one of our resident Libertarian or faux-Conservative Customer Service Representatives who will gladly explain to you how the doubling of your premium is not only the magic of the free market at work, but that America would suffer if you paid any less. Don't you love America?

Operators are standing by.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Thanks for call Libertarian Tech Support. My name is fatherofcaitlyn. How can I help you?

I don't really know that much about Obama's health care plan, and I can admit that. I've learned a bit or two here from this thread, but my overall knowledge is hardly any. But I do know ONE thing for sure. Our health insurance rates just nearly doubled. We now either have to start living on a much tighter budget, eating less and buying less, or we have to drop down from high option to standard option insurance. Screw Obama and his health care plan. Maybe someone will come around in 2012 and fix this fuck up.

I'm sorry that is happening. I understand higher medical premiums can be frustrating. I want to help you out as much as possible.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that our health insurance rates doubled because of his new law, and that we'll be receiving the same coverage as before. :roll:

I agree that government ran health care will cause premiums to go up and services to go down. However, there is no new law yet. Perhaps your health care provider is attempt to squeeze its customers one last time before being taken over.

Sorry, I meant to say his new bill. I do know enough to know that it's still in the Senate.

Agreed. It isn't in effect yet. Can I get your health care provider support number to determine if you would be better served with a high deductible/health care savings account plan?

[elprincipe]

Sorry, I meant to say his new bill. I do know enough to know that it's still in the Senate.

There hasn't been any new law passed, so as others have said it's a big leap to blame the possibility of a new law for increases in premiums, which have been increasing at insane rates for years before there was even discussion of an Obama health-care plan.

However, if a new law is passed that looks anything like Pelosi's bill, and you are under 40, expect to pay more (possibly much more) in premiums due to the new law. Since the government will mandate what kind of coverage you can get (i.e. the minimum coverage, as in you can't get something really cheap that only covers catastrophic situations), you'll be paying out the ass even when you're young and healthy. And if you have a good policy through your employer, be prepared for the high probability of losing it in three years, when the government decides your employer's plan doesn't meet specifications, or your employer finds it's cheaper to dump you on the government plan and pay the fine. And of course, taxes and inflation will increase because of the new government liability in the trillions of dollars on top of the tens of trillions we already face. This deal is getting worse all the time.

[mykevermin]

Oy, now that's a sleight of hand argument. "Premiums will go up b/c of this bill" ≠ "this bill means you can't buy next to no medical coverage."

And isn't coverage the point of the bill?

[elprincipe]

Oy, now that's a sleight of hand argument. "Premiums will go up b/c of this bill" ≠ "this bill means you can't buy next to no medical coverage."

And isn't coverage the point of the bill?

Coverage is the point of the bill. And I should have added to my reply that if you are at a certain level of income you'll get government assistance with premiums, so depending on your situation your out-of-pocket costs won't necessarily go up.

[UncleBob]

Coverage is the point of the bill. And I should have added to my reply that if you are at a certain level of income you'll get tax-payer assistance with premiums, so depending on your situation your out-of-pocket costs won't necessarily go up.

Fixed. ;)

[Access_Denied]

There hasn't been any new law passed, so as others have said it's a big leap to blame the possibility of a new law for increases in premiums, which have been increasing at insane rates for years before there was even discussion of an Obama health-care plan.

However, if a new law is passed that looks anything like Pelosi's bill, and you are under 40, expect to pay more (possibly much more) in premiums due to the new law. Since the government will mandate what kind of coverage you can get (i.e. the minimum coverage, as in you can't get something really cheap that only covers catastrophic situations), you'll be paying out the ass even when you're young and healthy. And if you have a good policy through your employer, be prepared for the high probability of losing it in three years, when the government decides your employer's plan doesn't meet specifications, or your employer finds it's cheaper to dump you on the government plan and pay the fine. And of course, taxes and inflation will increase because of the new government liability in the trillions of dollars on top of the tens of trillions we already face. This deal is getting worse all the time.

Yes, but this is the largest increase we've had since my dad started with his insurance company, and I fail to believe that it has no relation to Obama's bill.

[elprincipe]

Yes, but this is the largest increase we've had since my dad started with his insurance company, and I fail to believe that it has no relation to Obama's bill.

Perhaps this doesn't fit in with your anecdote, but...

http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/enlarge/3%20Percentage%20Increase%20in%20Health%20Insuranc e%20Premiums%20Compared%20to%20Inflation1.jpg

Obviously I can't claim to know why your premiums increased so much, but it's a stretch to say it's because of a bill that hasn't passed yet (and may not pass at all, or in a dramatically different form).

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Yes, but this is the largest increase we've had since my dad started with his insurance company, and I fail to believe that it has no relation to Obama's bill.

Do you think your premiums will go down if Obama's bill fails to pass?

[dmaul1114]

Again, the only way premiums will go down is if there's a strong public option as the lower premiums it will offer as a result of not being ran to maximize profits will force other companies to cut their rates or go out of business.

[perdition(troy]

sweet. the government has an advantage of needing no profit to stay afloat (because it will just take our tax dollars if it goes in the red) and everyone tries to say it will be fair competition and won't put anyone out of business. sounds awesome.

[Paco]

Again, the only way premiums will go down is if there's a strong public option as the lower premiums it will offer as a result of not being ran to maximize profits will force other companies to cut their rates or go out of business.


Truth. I've seen too many of my friends unable to afford health insurance due to them squeezing the shit out of everyone. They decided it was wiser to get Cable TV and beer then Health care which isn't really used when you're young.

[dmaul1114]

sweet. the government has an advantage of needing no profit to stay afloat (because it will just take our tax dollars if it goes in the red) and everyone tries to say it will be fair competition and won't put anyone out of business. sounds awesome.

I think it should be required to be self sufficient. It can just be cheaper buy not having the goal of maximizing profits, paying absurd executive salaries etc. Just the goal of making enough in premiums to stay afloat as the population ages etc.

Though I wouldn't be at all opposed to completely nationalized health care either.

[perdition(troy]

If it was a completely separate entity and had no tax payer support whatsoever i would be fine with it.

[Access_Denied]

Do you think your premiums will go down if Obama's bill fails to pass?

Absolutely. Maybe :(

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Absolutely. Maybe :(

I firmly believe I'm going to hit a tree this evening on my way home. Will my airbags be deployed when I get out to my car tonight?

[SpazX]

This bill isn't currently raising premiums and your premiums will not go down if the bill is not passed, they never go down (unless you change your plan).

You might as well blame the bill for the sun rising.

[Msut77]

If it was a completely separate entity and had no tax payer support whatsoever i would be fine with it.

So healthcare is ok with you as long as the entire system receives less subsidies than your average Cabela's or Wal-Mart.

Why should anyone take you seriously again?

[dmaul1114]

This bill isn't currently raising premiums and your premiums will not go down if the bill is not passed, they never go down (unless you change your plan).


Yep. Again, some type of public option is absolutely the only thing that could lower premiums.

They've been rising for years across the board, an without a public option will continue to do so.

If the bill that's passed has no public option--then you can probably bitch about it raising rates. As the companies will do that across the board since they'll be required to cover everyone and no deny people with pre-existing conditions or charge more to people with poor health.

Thus they'll raise everyones premiums so their bottom line doesn't take a hit.

Only a public option being ran as a not-for-profit can force rates down. Otherwise they'll keep going up as health care costs rise and insurance companies keep raising rates to make sure their own pocketbooks aren't suffering.

[thrustbucket]

Do we really want to pass the first bill in our nations history that actually REQUIRES a person pay money for a service or go to jail? In other words, we want to put a tax on just being alive and citizenship? Really?

[perdition(troy]

So healthcare is ok with you as long as the entire system receives less subsidies than your average Cabela's or Wal-Mart.

Why should anyone take you seriously again?

Why do I care if you take me seriously?

[dmaul1114]

Do we really want to pass the first bill in our nations history that actually REQUIRES a person pay money for a service or go to jail? In other words, we want to put a tax on just being alive and citizenship? Really?

I find it much less offensive that having to register for selective service and face jail time if the draft ever came back during a war I didn't support and refused to fight.

I'm not a huge fan of the penalty--especially if there is not a public option and we're forcing people to buy coverage from private companies.

I'd much prefer a nationalized system like France or Taiwan, but that's unfortunately unrealistic for the time being.

[Msut77]

Why do I care if you take me seriously?

Because maybe you would stop looking like a troll for 5 seconds?

Do you have a credible reason for holding healthcare to some standard basically nothing else is?

[speedracer]

Do we really want to pass the first bill in our nations history that actually REQUIRES a person pay money for a service or go to jail? In other words, we want to put a tax on just being alive and citizenship? Really?
I get it. By calling it a service, we aren't comparing it to social security INSURANCE, unemployment INSURANCE, and worker's compensation INSURANCE right?

You aren't clever enough to have put that together all by yourself. Where'd you get that incredible insight thrust?

[Msut77]

I get it. By calling it a service, we aren't comparing it to social security INSURANCE.

I pointed this out a while ago but it is lose-lose, call it a service and they whine if you call it a tax you get a different kind of whine.

It is all the same spiel.

[speedracer]

There ain't a bucket of brains between the lot of em.

[UncleBob]

Why do I care if you take me seriously?

You mean people still read Msut's posts anyway? I put him on ignore some time ago. Live has been better since then. :)

I get it. By calling it a service, we aren't comparing it to social security INSURANCE, unemployment INSURANCE, and worker's compensation INSURANCE right?

You know what's funny about SSI, Unemployment and Workman's Comp? There's not a single law on the books that requires every single living American to pay into those funds. Interesting, eh?

[Msut77]

There ain't a bucket of brains between the lot of em.

Ignorance or stupidity is one thing, dishonesty is another.

[elprincipe]

I firmly believe I'm going to hit a tree this evening on my way home. Will my airbags be deployed when I get out to my car tonight?

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/2245447/Meet_the_Simpsons

[elprincipe]

Yep. Again, some type of public option is absolutely the only thing that could lower premiums.

They've been rising for years across the board, an without a public option will continue to do so.

I don't think that's necessarily true. There are many policies that could reduce premiums, some by a little and some by a lot. Tort reform is the most obvious, since malpractice insurance is insanely expensive and gets passed on to the patient. Allowing more competition is also something that could reduce prices (you can't currently buy across state lines, which is stupid). But those are small potatoes compared to a systemic decoupling of health insurance from employment, although unfortunately we're unlikely to see that happen because most people are happy with their current arrangement (even though it screws a significant number of people).

[UncleBob]

Allowing more competition is also something that could reduce prices (you can't currently buy across state lines, which is stupid).

Yup. My wife's health insurance, which has always been *great*, is dropping her because they no longer wish to do business in Illinois.

Hmm... Illinois. Why does that sound familiar?

[depascal22]

Yup. My wife's health insurance, which has always been *great*, is dropping her because they no longer wish to do business in Illinois.

Hmm... Illinois. Why does that sound familiar?

You'd think a free marketeer would be ecstatic at that news.

[dopa345]

Well, the government is now starting to say that we don't need to screen for breast cancer as much as we do currently (http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/11/17/us_panel_jolts_medical_community_by_recommending_f ewer_mammograms/). This is a U.S. government task force, not a medical society such as the American Cancer Society (which by the way disputes this claim). Kind of interesting timing, with nationalized health care becoming closer to reality. The government is already looking at ways to further cut costs at the expense of quality of preventative care, which is exactly the wrong way to approach curtailing health care costs in the long run.

[speedracer]

You know what's funny about SSI, Unemployment and Workman's Comp? There's not a single law on the books that requires every single living American to pay into those funds. Interesting, eh?

I pointed this out a while ago but it is lose-lose, call it a service and they whine if you call it a tax you get a different kind of whine.
Right on cue. Apparently this dance has been danced before. So then we suggest we codify it in tax law and ya'll then complain about what?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Do we really want to pass the first bill in our nations history that actually REQUIRES a person pay money for a service or go to jail? In other words, we want to put a tax on just being alive and citizenship? Really?

We still tax being dead, right?

[UncleBob]

You'd think a free marketeer would be ecstatic at that news.

Why would a "free marketeer" be ecstatic at the idea of one state preventing me from buying services and products from another state?

Could you imagine a state saying "Well, you can't buy food from another state anymore. All food for consumption in Illinois must be purchased in Illinois."

Would you support that?

Right on cue. Apparently this dance has been danced before. So then we suggest we codify it in tax law and ya'll then complain about what?

But it's not a tax. Obama says so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFxomW3RqYY&feature=related

Obama wouldn't lie!

Besides, I've said for a long time - I'm against anything that is going to increase taxes.

[speedracer]

I don't get the line of reasoning. You're saying it's killing some sacred cow for the government to charge for health care because it's a service, but if we magically change it to a tax it becomes a sacred cow cause the big guy in the White House says no calling it a tax.

I feel like the whole train of thought is kind of a fool's game. What is the end result you're looking for here Bob? I mean, the thought exercise kind of trying to separate a health insurance mandate from other not-required-but-you're-going-to-pay-for-the-insurance-if-you-work programs doesn't seem to result in anything substantive. I don't get it and I'm trying to see what the goal is.

[UncleBob]

>You're saying it's killing some sacred cow for the government to charge for health care because it's a service,

Not at all. The government is charging for health insurance, not health care. There's a big difference there. And the problem isn't that the government is charging for it - it's that the government proposes to MANDATE it.

>but if we magically change it to a tax it becomes a sacred cow cause the big guy in the White House says no calling it a tax.

It's not because Obama says it isn't a tax. It's because it's a tax increase. Period. Just pointing out that Obama said it wasn't a tax because there are some folks who seem to believe nothing buy butterflies and rainbows come out of this man's mouth.

>What is the end result you're looking for here Bob?
No Mandate.

For the record, I'm no fan of requiring folks to pay into SSI and such. Should be opt-in.

[thrustbucket]

I get it. By calling it a service, we aren't comparing it to social security INSURANCE, unemployment INSURANCE, and worker's compensation INSURANCE right?
Call it whatever you want. Nothing else you mentioned forces every single citizen to pay for something, just for being a citizen, or go to jail. The stuff you mention is on employers shoulders to pay or suffer fines.

The people writing this bill want to simply say "Are you a US citizen? Are you alive? If yes to both, you MUST pay for insurance or you could go to Jail." Stop and think about that for a minute. No matter what you do in life, no matter what type of life you choose to lead, you must pay or fear. How is that MORE freedom? How is that MORE liberty? It's not, it's less any way you cut it.

Last I checked, it actually mentioned in one version of the bill that jail time was a possibility. Once punishment for not having health insurance can't put you in jail, then you can make those comparisons and have a valid point. I'm optimistic that such draconian fascist measures will get removed by the time it passes.

You aren't clever enough to have put that together all by yourself. Where'd you get that incredible insight thrust?
Cute and clever!
Starting to see why so many have you on ignore. Your comments often are not much more substantive than msut's.

[speedracer]

Call it whatever you want. Nothing else you mentioned forces every single citizen to pay for something, just for being a citizen, or go to jail. Last I checked, it actually mentioned in one version of the bill that jail time was a possibility.
Which version being debated right now would I find that provision?
Once punishment for not having health insurance can't put you in jail, then you can make those comparisons, can't you? Getting it yet?
That makes perfect sense. Point me to the bill that's getting consideration that says that.

[UncleBob]

Which version being debated right now would I find that provision?

That makes perfect sense. Point me to the bill that's getting consideration that says that.

I take it you've not been reading much of this thread - we've already discussed that.

Read: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6500175&postcount=1661
Skip three posts, then read FoC's post.
Skip two more posts, then read the last half of my post.

Long story short -The bill passed by the House creates penalties for not having Health Insurance. These penalties are included with your Federal Income Taxes.

Fine for not complying with Federal Income Tax laws: "a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."

[depascal22]

Why would a "free marketeer" be ecstatic at the idea of one state preventing me from buying services and products from another state?

Could you imagine a state saying "Well, you can't buy food from another state anymore. All food for consumption in Illinois must be purchased in Illinois."

Here lies another huge falsehood in this debate. People keep saying that rates will stay the same if people are allowed to cross state lines but there is nothing to support that argument. Insurance companies will just raise rates in cheaper states to offset the higher risk they'll be taking on from people in high risk/more expensive states. It won't matter if you cross state lines if Anthem charges the same regardless of location. Great for New Yorkers and Californians. Bad for people in the South and other low-cost states in the rest of the country.

Your wife's insurance company is pulling out of Illinois because it's unprofitable to insure citizens of that state. Guess what? It'll still be unprofitable for them to insure them if they can cross lines but now they'll be forced to raise rates for EVERYONE to cover the increased costs. They probably would've raised rates anyway but now they have a legitimate reason to bend everyone over.

Keeping it the way it is doesn't help either. Know what helps? A public option.

[Msut77]

Careful Pascal, keeping the discussion actually about healthcare makes Bob cry.

[thrustbucket]

H.R. 3962, Section 7201 (Pelosi's Bill)

Failure to pay the fine can constitute “felony willful evasion” which is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

You can google things like "HR 3962 Jail time" and get all kinds of information and commentary on it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

H.R. 3962, Section 7201 (Pelosi's Bill)

Failure to pay the fine can constitute “felony willful evasion” which is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

You can google things like "HR 3962 Jail time" and get all kinds of information and commentary on it.

I mentioned this. It didn't really go anywhere. They're handling it the same way as tax evasion.

[UncleBob]

Here lies another huge falsehood in this debate. People keep saying that rates will stay the same if people are allowed to cross state lines but there is nothing to support that argument. Insurance companies will just raise rates in cheaper states to offset the higher risk they'll be taking on from people in high risk/more expensive states. It won't matter if you cross state lines if Anthem charges the same regardless of location. Great for New Yorkers and Californians. Bad for people in the South and other low-cost states in the rest of the country.

Your wife's insurance company is pulling out of Illinois because it's unprofitable to insure citizens of that state. Guess what? It'll still be unprofitable for them to insure them if they can cross lines but now they'll be forced to raise rates for EVERYONE to cover the increased costs. They probably would've raised rates anyway but now they have a legitimate reason to bend everyone over.

Keeping it the way it is doesn't help either. Know what helps? A public option.


Wow. You really don't understand how things work.

Individual states are allowed to require insurance operators within a state to offer particular types of services or coverage.

For example, one state may require that, say, mammograms be covered by insurance while another state does not. Another state may require drug rehab therapy be covered, while another does not.

This creates a system where insurers either have to create and market different policies for individual states or decide not to do business in states that are overly regulated.

The "cost of doing business" in Illinois isn't higher than Indiana because people in Illinois "lead riskier lives". Yet so many businesses avoid Illinois and go to Indiana. Weird, eh?

[Msut77]

I mentioned this. It didn't really go anywhere. They're handling it the same way as tax evasion.

We know, either thrustbobbit has a short memory or it is an example of the dishonesty I was talking about.

[UncleBob]

H.R. 3962, Section 7201 (Pelosi's Bill)

Failure to pay the fine can constitute “felony willful evasion” which is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

You can google things like "HR 3962 Jail time" and get all kinds of information and commentary on it.

Keep in mind, Section 7201 doesn't refer to "Pelosicare" - it's in the tax code...
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/26/26USC07201.html

I like this idea that the jail time will only be used in the "worst case offenders".

I mean, nothing bad has ever came out of giving the Federal Government the power to detain people with the understanding that they'll only use said power for "the worst of the worst".

[thrustbucket]

Yeah it's one of those situations, like jaywalking, that nobody is likely going to go to jail for in practice, but the very last thing we need, after the Patriot Act, is to give the government more reason to label good people criminals and punish them.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

We know, either thrustbobbit has a short memory or it is an example of the dishonesty I was talking about.

I'll go with a short memory.

I'm still not comfortable with the government having another way to send me to prison or fine me into oblivion, but I'm a relatively small fish.

[speedracer]

Wait a minute. We're raising a stink about something we all believe will not be enforced? THAT'S our big beef here?

[Msut77]

Wait a minute. We're raising a stink about something we all believe will not be enforced? THAT'S our big beef here?

Thrust and Bob will do anything to avoid talking about real issues.

[perdition(troy]

Speaking of real life msut, how many people do you know in real life that went bankrupt or died because of the "lack of affordable healthcare" in America.

[UncleBob]

Wait a minute. We're raising a stink about something we all believe will not be enforced? THAT'S our big beef here?

I don't think it won't be enforced. I think it will end up being abused like most government powers.

If it's not going to be enforced, why have the law written that way to begin with.

I'll go with a short memory.

I'm still not comfortable with the government having another way to send me to prison or fine me into oblivion, but I'm a relatively small fish.

I fully understand we've already discussed this - however, speedracer was the one who was asking about the jail time aspect of the bill and thus I had to fill him in on the discussion we've already had. And now, I guess I'm filling msut in on the conversation we've had. Man, it sure would be nice if y'all would keep up with this thread.

[Msut77]

Speaking of real life msut, how many people do you know in real life that went bankrupt or died because of the "lack of affordable healthcare" in America.

Just to give you a little lesson in logic perdition(troll.

If you don't know any Portuguese people that doesn't mean Portugal doesn't exist.

[perdition(troy]

Really? I didn't know that.

Just because you think no one will be arrested for not paying for healthcare doesn't mean no one will be arrested under HR3962.

[Msut77]

Just because you think no one will be arrested for not paying for healthcare doesn't mean no one will be arrested under HR3962.

Define "no one", if you ever learned to read, count or stop trolling for five seconds you would know I talked about this previously.

It would take a ridiculously blatant attempt to rip off for jail to be considered let alone prosecuted for.

[perdition(troy]

Four of your last five posts on this page alone are insults thrown at people whose opinions differ from your own. I'll pass on taking any advice from you.

Edit:

Why even have it in the bill if its not going to be enforced. It makes no sense to have a vague law thrown in there if it will never be enforced unless you a "serious" offender (or w/e your argument was).

[Msut77]

Why even have it in the bill if its not going to be enforced. It makes no sense to have a vague law thrown in there if it will never be enforced unless you a "serious" offender (or w/e your argument was).

Replying to your false premise: Deterrence?

Replying if you had any grounding in reality that would be the difference between the law being "enforced"
and the scare tactic of "ZOMG THEY ARE GOING TO THROW PEOPLE IN JAIL".

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Just to give you a little lesson in logic perdition(troll.

If you don't know any Portuguese people that doesn't mean Portugal doesn't exist.

Does that mean your coworker's insurance decided to pay or is she just going to drag that bill to the grave?

[perdition(troy]

I'm totally seeing it as a scare tactic.

Failure to pay the fine can constitute “felony willful evasion” which is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

I'm reading so far into that when I read it and think that you could be punished with up to five years in prison. I mean, I don't think that is even what they are trying to say there. It's like I'm completely twisting what it says when I tell people I don't like a provision in a bill that says you can be punished with up to five years in prison.

[Msut77]

Does that mean your coworker's insurance decided to pay or is she just going to drag that bill to the grave?

She is still teetering on the edge last I checked.

She doesn't like to talk about it, which makes me wonder how many people "I know" I just don't know about.

[elprincipe]

Well, the government is now starting to say that we don't need to screen for breast cancer as much as we do currently (http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/11/17/us_panel_jolts_medical_community_by_recommending_f ewer_mammograms/). This is a U.S. government task force, not a medical society such as the American Cancer Society (which by the way disputes this claim). Kind of interesting timing, with nationalized health care becoming closer to reality. The government is already looking at ways to further cut costs at the expense of quality of preventative care, which is exactly the wrong way to approach curtailing health care costs in the long run.

Ugh, I think we've been through this issue already on this thread. Sometimes (more often than not in fact) preventative care is more costly overall than treating the illness it prevents, since you have to test/evaluate so many people (at a cost) for each that you find needed preventing. So what this task force found is that money would be saved overall by doing less mammograms, or waiting to do them later in life. Of course, saving money is not the only factor involved in health-care decisions...but it may be if those decisions are controlled by bureaucrats.

[speedracer]

The Senate bill doesn't cover abortion. I wonder why not. It's not like that's going to make a difference on the vote, is it?

[RAMSTORIA]

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Here’s the incredibly complicated language:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’


nice

[UncleBob]

<shock>

[elprincipe]

The Senate bill doesn't cover abortion. I wonder why not. It's not like that's going to make a difference on the vote, is it?

It sure made a huge difference in the House. You think the Senate will be different?

[thrustbucket]

Haha, they are now inserting bribes into the bill for the votes they need?

Next years election is going to be pretty interesting....

[speedracer]

It sure made a huge difference in the House. You think the Senate will be different?
I'm not sure to be honest.
Haha, they are now inserting bribes into the bill for the votes they need?
Nothing new there. Shit, $100m is probably cheap by Senate standards.
Next years election is going to be pretty interesting....
Not in LA it isn't. This will be a boon for her personally. LA is one of the few states I've seen where its voters actually goes out of their way to reward scumbaggery.

[elprincipe]

Haha, they are now inserting bribes into the bill for the votes they need?

Next years election is going to be pretty interesting....

Wait, do you really think this is a new thing? I sure didn't take you for someone quite that naive.

[Msut77]

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html