Senate OKs health care measure, reaching milestone

Kal'Stang said:

It is a fact that if no one had to pay the fine then this issue would not have even been brought up. Obviously the two are linked. You can try to seperate them all that you want. Fact is that with out this fine then the clause's in the tax code would not apply.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and if they didn't make me pay taxes, well, you know, they are linked. But linked is a way of admitting they are not the same thing. You don't go to jail for not having insurance. You have to break another separate law to go to jail.

I was defining the word "Tax" and "Fine". It was not directed at the going to jail part of this discussion. The fact that people are calling it a tax is disingenuous. The fact that the Government is calling it a tax and linking it to the tax codes is also disingenuous and a flat out lie. One needs to only look at the definitions of the two words to see this.

I have a theory as to why the government is calling it a tax and is linking it to the tax code. Though I'm sure that there's no way to substantiate this.

The theory is this.

If it was instead called a fine by the government and treated as such it would be handled through the courts directly. This allows people to challenge it much easier.

Going through the tax code however the government then creates more legal red tape before it ever gets to the courts. All they have to do is use the same kind of argument that you are trying to put forth. Even if that argument is disingenuous because it tries to seperate the two. Even though they are linked.

Click to expand...

Both can be challenged. However, that's a separate issue. The fact is you have to break a second law in order to be concerned about jail. Not having insurance does not land you in jail.

As I said, we can keep repeating all this if you care to, but until you show the basic fact to be false, which is that you do not go to jail because you don't have insurance, words like linked and speculation about things being harder do not change the basic facts.

Bassman said:

Why? Republicans and conservatives have been completely shut out of the process, genius.

Click to expand...

Maybe the should've offered constructive criticism instead of just crying "death panels!" and "socialism!"

Toothpicvic said:

Maybe the should've offered constructive criticism instead of just crying "death panels!" and "socialism!"

Click to expand...

There have been many people that have offered a variety of solutions but they are not politically expedient and thus will never be adopted.

Everyone wants their bread buttered, the facts are that in order to lower costs your going to have to decrease usage and/or increase the amount of medical personnel and facilities.

None of the proposed bills, both Democrat and Republican, do that.

Boo Radley said:

Yeah, and if they didn't make me pay taxes, well, you know, they are linked. But linked is a way of admitting they are not the same thing. You don't go to jail for not having insurance. You have to break another separate law to go to jail.

Click to expand...

This is about the most disingenuous way of denying the reality of the situation that I can think of. It almost makes you feel for criminals like Al Capone.

Look, I will freely say that wording in the legislation from the house, doesn't specifically say that if you don't buy health insurance, then you go to jail. However, the process is there to insure that this is a possible outcome is it not?

There are likely myriads of things just like this spread out within a 2,000 page bill that is too arduous to read. That is the reason that it is so lengthy. Because, not only will the American people, many of whom are so busy with work, and other activities in their lives to read this steaming pile of crap, but couldn't understand the legalese to begin with. Hell, Senators that ARE lawyers won't read it, or don't understand it fully.

Government never comes to you while taking your money and says that there is an option about anything concerned with the taking of that money. The option is to pay, period.

Both can be challenged. However, that's a separate issue. The fact is you have to break a second law in order to be concerned about jail. Not having insurance does not land you in jail.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. Because if you don't buy Health Insurance, the law is that the fine is automatic. There is no one arbitrating whether or not you get the fine. Therefore, they are tied together as one. The Tax, is unconstitutional, And it is my sincere hope that someone has the balls to challenge this in court, and before this takes real effect.

As I said, we can keep repeating all this if you care to, but until you show the basic fact to be false, which is that you do not go to jail because you don't have insurance, words like linked and speculation about things being harder do not change the basic facts.

Click to expand...

Here we go. Just like all the years I have known you Joe. Look, just because you repeat something over and over, doesn't make it a fact. As you told me once, things have many shades of grey. Right?


j-mac

Grim17 said:

Really? And why is that?

Could it be, because the democrats won't tell America what's really in it?

Based on the secrecy, lies, lack of transparency and bribing democrats for their votes, nobody should vote on this bill spawned from hell.

Click to expand...

You know Grim, I will agree with you on one item in this post. I felt the same way during the GW years and the "GOP congress contract with america" times.

Those that lack power wish they had it, and they feel like the powerful party is corrupt.

This is the problem with partisan politics.

The Truth said:

Each one of the items I listed would indeed save billions and the overall solution would lower prices for all and cover all the uninsured. Did you actually read through it?

Click to expand...

Honest question. Do you feel that if we started to save the insurance companies money, they would feel the need to respond is the same manner and lower prices, or not discontinue insurance for those with catastrophic (sic) illness?

Harry Guerrilla said:

This bill does nothing to reign in medical care cost inflation and may in fact cause prices to rise, especially for younger people who are already hindered in their income with the recession.

Things to expect;

Decreased accessibility for seniors to find doctors.

A general across the board rise in prices.

Employers dropping coverage because it's cheaper to pay the fine than pay part of an employees insurance.

Click to expand...

What are you using to make this forecast?

hazlnut said:

6 mos after the bill goes into effect, insurance companies will not longer be able to deny coverage to children based on pre-existing conditions. People without kids might not fully understand what this means, but on this one point, I think it's a step in the right direction.

Insurance companies can raise their rates, but the smart ones will figure about a better, more efficient way to do business. Offer better service at a more completive price.

Also, the insurance exchange will put the power back in the hands of the consumer. Policies will be rated according to cost and coverage and quality of service and we'll have more information. There are many things about both bills that I don't like; it's not perfect, but it is indeed a happy Christmas.

Click to expand...

Hazlenut, :applaud

Isn't this called capitalism? Hmmm, some say it is socialism?

We work with cancer patients and have witnessed the crap insurance companies do to people with cancer. Honest working Americans, many GOP members, who voted for GW, Reagan, etc., and they were screwed and lost everything because the insurance companies profit margin, and the decision to drop them.

If the GOP could come up with a solution to prevent this from happening, I'd jump ship and vote for it?

gunner said:

This has indeed been a polarising topic

BBC News - US Senate passes landmark healthcare reform bill

"The Senate bill was adopted by 60 votes to 39, with senators voting along party lines"

"Fifty-eight Democrats and two independents backed the legislation, while Republicans voted unanimously against it"

on the bright side,

"The bill aims to cover 31m uninsured Americans and could lead to the biggest change in US healthcare in decades"

What alternative is available for these 31m Americans?

Some interesting views on our NHS [UK]

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Americans give their view on NHS

for non emergency appointments

"The current waiting time for an initial outpatient's appointment should be no longer than 13 weeks. Once at the outpatient clinic, you should be seen within 30 minutes of your appointment time"

To get treatment

"The waiting time to actually receive hospital treatment can vary depending on your local PCT. However, by the end of 2008, no patient should have to wait longer than 18 weeks for hospital treatment, after referral by their GP"

How long will I have to wait to see a consultant?

Emergencies are pretty much as soon as the Ambulance arrives at the hospital

Paul

Click to expand...

I really love those stoopid people, the teabaggers or whatever they are called. Apparently all the people in Britain are telling them not to adopt the NHS model. When challenged, which people, they say "it's on the news". Would that be the biased liberal media making things up about what British people think?

Why would they make lies that up when the British people, and any other free peoples who have socialized medicine, are overwhelmingly in favour of their systems and mostly wish it had the level of funding that the wasteful US system has?

But then all these countries (practically the whole advanced industrialized world) that have socialized medicine are just communist tyrannies, where conservatives are all locked up, elections are banned, and the people cower as commisars and gauleiters stalk the streets.

There was that priceless argument in America that if Stephen Hawking had been British, the NHS would have left him to die. That was my favorite.

There are other lies of course. Such as the one that Princess Diana died because of socialized medicine. That Ted Kennedy would have been denied NHS treatment. There were lots of lies. And if you build a campaign on a tissue of lies, what better tactic than to endlessly call your opponent a liar, with no foundation whatsoever.

The Right have done a lot of criticizing of their friends and allies over this, casting us as communists, and Nazis or Obama as such for wanting to lead the US a tenth of the way towards the systems we have. And of course they have found out that where we spend half of what Americans spend on healthcare in the UK we have some problems at the edge. They find people on waiting lists who keep getting bumped. They don't find too many people who due for lack of treatments.

But when it is pointed out to them by American doctors that thousands of people due due to the American system, they come out with the "healthcare is not a right; it's a personal responsibility". Callousness has always been a conservative weakness, so much that it embarrases some. But here there is little embarrasssment for deaths. These people deserved it. They didn't take care of themselves. There is no such thing as bad fortune, unforeseen circumstance, circumstances beyond an individual's control. Just people, not taking responsibility. To be blamed for their own misfortune. It is a nice argument. It draws lines clearly. It reminds me why I am not a conservative. And why I find conservativism incompatible with Judeo Christian values. It's a dark, and evil creed that rejoices at so much suffering amidst so much prosperity and excess and that has so little concern for ones neighbour.

This campaign has highlighted everything reprehensible about conservative ideology: its dishonesty, its embracing of ignorance, its reliance on demagoguery, its callousness, its economic illiteracy, its chauvinism, its estrangement from democracy and its intrinisc nastiness.

And the fact that it has been defeated, which is always the fate of conservativism in the end, as progress rolls on and such reaction is confined to the dustbin of history.

Your problem, Plato, is that you are under the impression that if you quash Conservative thought, all would be hunky-dory, but there must be a buffer against the Liberal agenda, don't you think??

Bassman said:

Your problem, Plato, is that you are under the impression that if you quash Conservative thought, all would be hunky-dory, but there must be a buffer against the Liberal agenda, don't you think??

Click to expand...

I generally like conservative thought, if by that you mean what used to be called classical liberal thought. It's conservative morality I have a problem with. Now that's difficult to explain. This is a US debate, and I think that the healthcare bill is probably flawed. But what this debate has highlighted has been the thuggish mentality of the Right, not their ideology. I am actually one of the few Britons who would change the NHS, but to the French system of a regulated private sector, which from the land of Margaret Thatcher, the first global leader who followed supply side economics, is actually a right wing, overly market favouring point of view.

There are no serious proposals to adopt the US system by anyone outside the USA, and this has nothing to do with anti Americanism which is usually restricted to foreign policy. To posit supporters of socialized medicine as Nazis or communists is a deeply offensive and dishonest act of totalitarian abuse. It is not conservative ideology. It is conservative behaviour.

When it comes to a buffer against the liberal agenda, I don't really know what you mean. Obama's foreign policy is stridently interventionist (his speech in Oslo must have been a slap in the face for the pacifists that gave him the prize) in line with my neo-liberal views. In fact he is continuing and extending the neo-liberal policy of Bush's second term, after Bush got rid of the hooligan Rumsfeld and put Cheney back in his kennel. I agree that if Obama tries to extend the State further then there should be a buffer, but I think the interventioin in America's economy, again started by Bush, will end with the reconstruction of US automotive companies from disastrous over capacity, largely protected by America's very un-laissez faire bankruptcy laws, to a highly efficient new configuration. It will be firmly back in the private sector before Obama stands for another term. Healthcare will not have collapsed. There will be no Death Panels. The surges in both wars will be working. With a bit of luck the Iranian people will depose Ahmaninajad. Obama will storm to a second term.

And if he doesn't, that's democracy, which is the real buffer against an inappropriate agenda.

America's in fine shape. Now it's not torturing people any more and it is consistent with its values of liberty and the rule of law, it's the leader of the free world again and democracy is back on the global agenda.

Dirty Harry said:

Bush and company already distroyed this once great nation. Your children can thank them. It only took 6 years of republican rule to bring it down.
Merry Christmas

PS I still will never understand why the GOP did nothing about heathcare when they had all the power. Now they whine.

Click to expand...

Then let me explain...

It is because the GOP usually falls into a "leave well enough alone" mindset, only attending to that which is getting the most heat at the moment. And as everyone said at the time, "9/11 changed everything".

Dems on the other hand are eternally trying to instill greater FEDERAL government influence. And even their level of effort grows in proportion. As the old line Liberals lost their potency they were replaced by the more strident Progressives. But while Dems do a better job of at least attempting to introduce solutions, their policies do nothing for promoting a strong, vibrant nation. Democrat policy normally benefits individuals at the cost of the main of society.

But let me ask you...if Bush destroyed the nation, is that to say Obama is a continuance of the destruction? Or, do you believe Obama is a step in the right direction toward repair?

Is the destruction reversable? Or permanent?

OT, I'm interested to see what happens to this element that says we have to purchase coverage.

I assume the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional. But if they don't overturn it, I personally will have a difficult time forking out for the tax (premium). My first thought is to not buy a plan, but then the Feds will merely garnish my wages. That will result in my having to walk away from my home (I'm still upside-down). But then again, with a lower rent I will be able to afford healthcare thereby possibly breaking even.

Gee, it's great to have government working for me.:roll:

Telecaster said:

Then let me explain...

It is because the GOP usually falls into a "leave well enough alone" mindset, only attending to that which is getting the most heat at the moment. And as everyone said at the time, "9/11 changed everything".

Dems on the other hand are eternally trying to instill greater FEDERAL government influence. And even their level of effort grows in proportion. As the old line Liberals lost their potency they were replaced by the more strident Progressives. But while Dems do a better job of at least attempting to introduce solutions, their policies do nothing for promoting a strong, vibrant nation. Democrat policy normally benefits individuals at the cost of the main of society.

But let me ask you...if Bush destroyed the nation, is that to say Obama is a continuance of the destruction? Or, do you believe Obama is a step in the right direction toward repair?

Is the destruction reversable? Or permanent?

Click to expand...

To be honest I don't think Obamas plan will do anything to save the nation. They are just postponing the inevitable. When unemployement benifits run out, credit cards are maxed out and banks start really foreclosing on all the homes on their books, then the shiite will hit the fan.

Toothpicvic said:

Maybe the should've offered constructive criticism instead of just crying "death panels!" and "socialism!"

Click to expand...

They happen to factual and to the point. When did plain English become obsolete? We already have death panels as it is but it will get worse. And without any doubt this is socialism by any reasonable measure.

I could write a bill to solve this problem on one page. It's not that complicated.

Dirty Harry said:

To be honest I don't think Obamas plan will do anything to save the nation. They are just postponing the inevitable. When unemployement benifits run out, credit cards are maxed out and banks start really foreclosing on all the homes on their books, then the shiite will hit the fan.

Click to expand...

I'm just interested to know how extensive you believe Bush' destruction of the nation is.

I know Obama is only making things worse. But I also believe Bush left us with nothing that couldn't have been corrected with only a mild amount of pain, but in a shorter time frame than what we are now experiencing.

j-mac said:

This is about the most disingenuous way of denying the reality of the situation that I can think of. It almost makes you feel for criminals like Al Capone.

Look, I will freely say that wording in the legislation from the house, doesn't specifically say that if you don't buy health insurance, then you go to jail. However, the process is there to insure that this is a possible outcome is it not?

There are likely myriads of things just like this spread out within a 2,000 page bill that is too arduous to read. That is the reason that it is so lengthy. Because, not only will the American people, many of whom are so busy with work, and other activities in their lives to read this steaming pile of crap, but couldn't understand the legalese to begin with. Hell, Senators that ARE lawyers won't read it, or don't understand it fully.

Click to expand...

I guess it is disingenuous to be accurate when it is so much fun to be inaccurate, but that's the type of fellow I am. Factually, you do not go to jail for not having insurance. It's a simple fact. I can't change that because you or anyone wants to "believe" something not factually accurate.

And, believe it or not, the bill can be read and understood. It is not purely open to any interpretation anyone can come up with. One reason it is written in legalese is so that it can't be.

Government never comes to you while taking your money and says that there is an option about anything concerned with the taking of that money. The option is to pay, period.

Click to expand...

In context, this makes no sense. As you don't buy insurance from the government, this assertion of yours is meaningless. But, as to paying taxes, yes, you will pay your taxes, one way or another. Nothing new in that.

Sure it does. Because if you don't buy Health Insurance, the law is that the fine is automatic. There is no one arbitrating whether or not you get the fine. Therefore, they are tied together as one. The Tax, is unconstitutional, And it is my sincere hope that someone has the balls to challenge this in court, and before this takes real effect.

Click to expand...

Right. A fine. Not a jail term. A fine that is paid as a tax. You only go to jail if you break the tax law and not pay your tax. Again, this is a fact.

Just because you repeat something over and over, doesn't make it a fact. As you told me once, things have many shades of grey. Right?


j-mac

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I keep telling you and others. Saying you go to jail for not having insurance doesn't make it a fact. And the evidence, the law, the written verifiable written legislation shows there is no jail time imposed for not having insurance. So, it is about the facts and not your repeating misinformation.

I hope the President does the right thing as the same as the Uk,that would be ok for the American poeople,why not,god bless him.

mikeey.

Boo Radley said:

Right. A fine. Not a jail term. A fine that is paid as a tax. You only go to jail if you break the tax law and not pay your tax. Again, this is a fact.

That's exactly what I keep telling you and others. Saying you go to jail for not having insurance doesn't make it a fact. And the evidence, the law, the written verifiable written legislation shows there is no jail time imposed for not having insurance. So, it is about the facts and not your repeating misinformation.

Click to expand...

I think I can read plain English. If you don't pay the tax "fine" you can go to jail. What part of that is not understandable?

If a person doesn't have the insurance and is fined and then fails to pay the fine, what is the point of having it in the bill? It must have been put there for some reason. If there is zero enforcement, then it will be meaningless. If this is meaningless, then perhaps the entire bill is meaningless.

Am I wrong?

I asked a young lady waiting on tables the other day if she was going to buy insurance. She said she didn't have the money. So she will be fined if that is true. If she doesn't have the money for the insurance nor the fine, then by law she will be jailed if the bill is enforced.

Am I wrong?

Missouri Mule said:

I think I can read plain English. If you don't pay the tax "fine" you can go to jail. What part of that is not understandable?

If a person doesn't have the insurance and is fined and then fails to pay the fine, what is the point of having it in the bill? It must have been put there for some reason. If there is zero enforcement, then it will be meaningless. If this is meaningless, then perhaps the entire bill is meaningless.

Am I wrong?

I asked a young lady waiting on tables the other day if she was going to buy insurance. She said she didn't have the money. So she will be fined if that is true. If she doesn't have the money for the insurance nor the fine, then by law she will be jailed if the bill is enforced.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Yes, you are wrong. You go to jail for not paying the tax and not for not having insurance.

And as there is a hardship clause, not having the money is not really a barrier. Does she pay taxes? If she does, then she does so already and can simply have a few dollars more taken out a month. 2.5% would not be that noticeable.

Again, don;t make excuses and be accurate about what is written. No one goes to jail for not having insurance. You have to break a second law.

Boo Radley said:

Yes, you are wrong. You go to jail for not paying the tax and not for not having insurance.

And as there is a hardship clause, not having the money is not really a barrier. Does she pay taxes? If she does, then she does so already and can simply have a few dollars more taken out a month. 2.5% would not be that noticeable.

Again, don;t make excuses and be accurate about what is written. No one goes to jail for not having insurance. You have to break a second law.

Click to expand...

How does one establish the "hardship clause?" Do we need a bunch of federal bureaucrats do a case study to ensure she meets the criterion? Sounds like a full employment act for federal employees, is it not?

:rofl

Am I wrong?

Missouri Mule said:

How does one establish the "hardship clause?" Do we need a bunch of federal bureaucrats do a case study to ensure she meets the criterion? Sounds like a full employment act for federal employees, is it not?

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Again, yes, you're wrong. We do this with a number of things and it isn't that difficult. We have a problem of people not insured running up cost in a number of ways. While this would have been easier and better to handle with a public option, this is still doable.

Boo Radley said:

Again, yes, you're wrong. We do this with a number of things and it isn't that difficult. We have a problem of people not insured running up cost in a number of ways. While this would have been easier and better to handle with a public option, this is still doable.

Click to expand...

Really? I did casework both in welfare and in child support. In order to establish that one would need to collect all of the supporting documentations and complete about 25 forms to establish the innocence of this dastardly offender. We would have to contact all their bank accounts, verify all of their income, compile their assets, do the math and see if they meet the requirements. I would say that would take several hours to accomplish. Otherwise the law is meaningless.

Am I wrong?

I think I see where this is heading. Obama's full employment act is the medical reform law. Eventually everyone will work for the government. Wasn't that tried in the Soviet Union?

Missouri Mule said:

Really? I did casework both in welfare and in child support. In order to establish that one would need to collect all of the supporting documentations and complete about 25 forms to establish the innocence of this dastardly offender. We would have to contact all their bank accounts, verify all of their income, compile their assets, do the math and see if they meet the requirements. I would say that would take several hours to accomplish. Otherwise the law is meaningless.

Am I wrong?

I think I see where this is heading. Obama's full employment act is the medical reform law. Eventually everyone will work for the government. Wasn't that tried in the Soviet Union?

Click to expand...

You managed to do it, didn't you? People did get it don't didn't they?

And no, silly and dishonest comparisons to the Soviet Union will only work in your mind. You're wrong about many things, and this is just one more area in which your take your hyperbole too far.

Boo Radley said:

You managed to do it, didn't you? People did get it don't didn't they?

And no, silly and dishonest comparisons to the Soviet Union will only work in your mind. You're wrong about many things, and this is just one more area in which your take your hyperbole too far.

Click to expand...

Yeah, what a dumb comparison. The soviet union was a single party state that had a strong central government that meddled in the affairs of it's citizens a great deal. The US, on the other hand, is a single party state with a strong central government that........oh....never mind. :doh