Healthcare Passed

[Neutral Zone Trap]

Yes it is.

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

Not in it's original form, it wasn't amended until 1909.

[squishyx]

Not in it's original form, it wasn't amended until 1909.

If that's the case then I guess you don't have a right to own a gun.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

If that's the case then I guess you don't have a right to own a gun.

Does not interest me, being forced to pay for other people does.

[David Puddy]

Now that sounds like a great idea.

Okay, so here's what could happen if you choose not to buy health insurance because you don't want to...

You don't have health insurance.

You have a major health catastrophe.

The hospital cannot refuse emergency care, so they treat you and bill you.

You can't afford to pay the bill, so you ignore it.

The creditors come knocking.

You still can't afford to pay.

You file for bankruptcy and society winds up helping paying your debt anyway.

----

The #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical bills. 62% of all personal bankruptcies are medical related, compared to 8% in 1981. Something has gone severely wrong in health care since that point.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

Okay, so here's what could happen if you choose not to buy health insurance because you don't want to...

You don't have health insurance.

You have a major health catastrophe.

The hospital cannot refuse emergency care, so they treat you and bill you.

You can't afford to pay the bill, so you ignore it.

The creditors come knocking.

You still can't afford to pay.

You file for bankruptcy and society winds up helping paying your debt anyway.

----

The #1 cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical bills. 62% of all personal bankruptcies are medical related, compared to 8% in 1981. Something has gone severely wrong in health care since that point.

There is nothing wrong with health care. Health INSURANCE is out of control, caused by frivolous malpractice lawsuits championed by the most corrupt vocation known to man. Lawyers.

Doctors have to protect themselves from ambulance chasers who represent people who are already dead.

If anything needs reform, it's high time that the "legal system" was overhauled.

To the bolded, that is subjective. Not everyone has a catastrophic medical emergency.

Just because a person does not have health insurance does NOT make that person more susceptible to having health problems. That is a fallacy, misguided and down right lying. AKA fear mongering.

[squishyx]

There is nothing wrong with health care. Health INSURANCE is out of control, caused by frivolous malpractice lawsuits championed by the most corrupt vocation known to man. Lawyers.

Doctors have to protect themselves from ambulance chasers who represent people who are already dead.

If anything needs reform, it's high time that the "legal system" was overhauled.

To the bolded, that is subjective. Not everyone has a catastrophic medical emergency.

Just because a person does not have health insurance does NOT make that person more susceptible to having health problems. That is a fallacy, misguided and down right lying. AKA fear mongering.

People who don't have health insurance are indirectly more likely to have health issues then others. If you don't have insurance you are less likely to get yearly checkups and regular screenings that can catch big problems while they are still small.

Ignoring that, because I don't think anyone until this point was trying to make that argument, you can't rule out people without insurance needing major coverage at some point. There are some 46 million Americans right now who don't have insurance for one reason or another. Unfortunately odds are a good percent of those people will get into car accidents, have heart attacks, or need some major medical procedures in some facet or another. As puddy points out, at that point the tax payer is picking up the tab for you, via government subsidies or increases in your insurance premiums.

Now, how is that fair?

Edited March 24, 2010 by squishyx

[thegame346]

This bill gives me so many different emotions and I have so many different opinions on it. Rather then go into them all I will touch base on one fundamental thing that pisses me off and makes ALL the other problems I have with it secondary.

I don't care how well intentioned a bill is. I don't care how many specialists, doctors, lawyers, or individuals with an extensive field of knowledge on the subject commenting on it positively you get. Nothing can justify forcing a decision like this on people. Human beings in the USA should always have a right to choose. If they want healthcare and are willing to pay for it more power to them. If they decide to roll the dice and gamble on their future then thats THEIR decision. I am very agitated big brother is forcing its way into our personal lives in this way. This bill does not need to be shot down because it does not go far enough. It needs to be shot down because IT GOES TOO FAR AND TAKES AWAY THE MOST BASIC OF RIGHTS FROM US! It is blatantly unconstitutional and unfortunately that gets swept under the rug because its well intentioned.

Wrong is wrong people. I don't care if you wrap dog sh!t with pretty wrapping paper, a beautiful pink bow, and a wonderful heart felt card. It's still dog sh!t at its core.

Edited March 24, 2010 by thegame346

[David Puddy]

To the bolded, that is subjective. Not everyone has a catastrophic medical emergency.

Just because a person does not have health insurance does NOT make that person more susceptible to having health problems. That is a fallacy, misguided and down right lying. AKA fear mongering.

Obviously. It's not a fallacy, nor is it fear mongering. I'm not saying everyone will have a catastrophic medical emergency It's a hypothetical backed up by statistical evidence. 62% of people who go bankrupt do so because of medical expenses. 78% of those people have health insurance. 60% have private insurance (not medicare/medicaid). The fact is if you don't have health insurance, you're rolling the dice with your life. How many people expect to get cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or in a traumatic accident requiring chronic care and rehabilitation?

You can make all the arguments you want against this bill. The problem is how do we, as society, reform the system such that the cost of medical care does not cause people to go into poverty, while still providing emergency care as necessary? No one of note arguing against this bill has provided any kind of workable solution.

It needs to be shot down because IT GOES TOO FAR AND TAKES AWAY THE MOST BASIC OF RIGHTS FROM US! It is blatantly unconstitutional and unfortunately that gets swept under the rug because its well intentioned.

What is the most basic of rights this bill takes away, and what part of the Constitution does it violate?

[thegame346]

Obviously. It's not a fallacy, nor is it fear mongering. I'm not saying everyone will have a catastrophic medical emergency It's a hypothetical backed up by statistical evidence. 62% of people who go bankrupt do so because of medical expenses. 78% of those people have health insurance. 60% have private insurance (not medicare/medicaid). The fact is if you don't have health insurance, you're rolling the dice with your life. How many people expect to get cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or in a traumatic accident requiring chronic care and rehabilitation?

You can make all the arguments you want against this bill. The problem is how do we, as society, reform the system such that the cost of medical care does not cause people to go into poverty, while still providing emergency care as necessary? No one of note arguing against this bill has provided any kind of workable solution.

What is the most basic of rights this bill takes away, and what part of the Constitution does it violate?

Do you honestly need to ask that? The most basic and fundamental right we have as citizens of the United States. The whole thing that makes this country what it is in the friggen first place. The right to choose dude.

[Daniel]

Obviously. It's not a fallacy, nor is it fear mongering. I'm not saying everyone will have a catastrophic medical emergency It's a hypothetical backed up by statistical evidence. 62% of people who go bankrupt do so because of medical expenses. 78% of those people have health insurance. 60% have private insurance (not medicare/medicaid). The fact is if you don't have health insurance, you're rolling the dice with your life. How many people expect to get cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or in a traumatic accident requiring chronic care and rehabilitation?

You can make all the arguments you want against this bill. The problem is how do we, as society, reform the system such that the cost of medical care does not cause people to go into poverty, while still providing emergency care as necessary? No one of note arguing against this bill has provided any kind of workable solution.

What is the most basic of rights this bill takes away, and what part of the Constitution does it violate?

Somehow I am very skeptical that 62% of all personal bankruptcies are the result of catastrophic medical expenses. Perhaps 62% of bankruptcies include medical expenses as a liability, but it is certainly not the ONLY liability which makes that number misleading.

You ask what part of the Constitution does it violate. The Constitution does not work that way. The powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated. Thus the correct question is what part of the Constitution PERMITS Congress to require individuals to buy health insurance. Proponents say both the interstate commerce clause and Congress's power to tax allow it. My personal view is that an honest reading of the Constitution would tell you that this is bunk. But I expect the courts, for esoteric reasons, will disagree with me.

Finally, you ask how do we reform the system in such a way that allows everyone access to quality medical care that is affordable. You either create an entitlement system that is unaffordable in the long run or you ration. In other words, you're asking for a free lunch. It doesn't exist. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

[Daniel]

People who don't have health insurance are indirectly more likely to have health issues then others. If you don't have insurance you are less likely to get yearly checkups and regular screenings that can catch big problems while they are still small.

Ignoring that, because I don't think anyone until this point was trying to make that argument, you can't rule out people without insurance needing major coverage at some point. There are some 46 million Americans right now who don't have insurance for one reason or another. Unfortunately odds are a good percent of those people will get into car accidents, have heart attacks, or need some major medical procedures in some facet or another. As puddy points out, at that point the tax payer is picking up the tab for you, via government subsidies or increases in your insurance premiums.

Now, how is that fair?

I'll venture a guess that many of those 46 million will not, despite the government mandate, buy health insurance or will end up needing public assistance to buy their health insurance anyway. As the savior himself said when he was pushing something else, when push comes to shove, the government isn't going to lock you up for not buying health insurance.

[Daniel]

If you are going to say that the deficits argument should be out the window because we can't say for 100% sure what the costs will be, then you should nix the unpopular stuff too like the total cost because thats likely to change as well.

I still don't see how any of that makes it a push poll.

It is a push poll because they ask respondents, what if I told you that doing x, y and z will reduce costs would you support the bill. Respondents then say ok, based on the false, or at the very least very shaky assumption that x, y and z therefore will cause the entire bill to reduce deficits, which is exactly the way the chart you posted phrased the answer.

You have to be more specific about what other "unpopular stuff" is otherwise speculative. All you can say is that a bill provides this or that. A poll that purports to disabuse people of their fears of what effects a bill will have by assuring the respondent that it will have the opposite effect is a push poll.

[David Puddy]

Do you honestly need to ask that? The most basic and fundamental right we have as citizens of the United States. The whole thing that makes this country what it is in the friggen first place. The right to choose dude.

For 37 years, there have been people arguing the "right to choose" doesn't exist in the Constitution, dude.

Anyway, the "right to choose" has to end somewhere. How come people don't have the "right to choose" to use heroin? How come people don't have the "right to choose" not to wear clothes in public? How come people don't have the "right to choose" to pull their kids out of school and put them to work full time?

[squishyx]

It is a push poll because they ask respondents, what if I told you that doing x, y and z will reduce costs would you support the bill. Respondents then say ok, based on the false, or at the very least very shaky assumption that x, y and z therefore will cause the entire bill to reduce deficits, which is exactly the way the chart you posted phrased the answer.

You have to be more specific about what other "unpopular stuff" is otherwise speculative. All you can say is that a bill provides this or that. A poll that purports to disabuse people of their fears of what effects a bill will have by assuring the respondent that it will have the opposite effect is a push poll.

Again, I suggest you read the poll before you make more false assumptions. The source is from Nate Silver, a guy who analyzes stuff. The poll is from the kaiser foundation, they did not ask a then b then c and then asked if they liked the result z. They asked about each measure individually.

A push poll is when you ask leading questions in an effort to illicit a certain response for another question. For example, say if foxnews asked a series of questions they expect to get negative responses about Obama on, and then after they ask about his approval or favor-ability ratings.

Your whole push poll argument is moot for two reasons, The KFF asks what people they thought of the health care bill BEFORE the asked about each element (it's question 3 to be precise). On top of that, in that chart there isn't even a rating of what people think of the health care bill, it wasn't even factored in. I don't think you know what a push poll is...

[squishyx]

I'll venture a guess that many of those 46 million will not, despite the government mandate, buy health insurance or will end up needing public assistance to buy their health insurance anyway. As the savior himself said when he was pushing something else, when push comes to shove, the government isn't going to lock you up for not buying health insurance.

I wasn't making the argument that all 46 million will have coverage, I said early it's only 32 million. However 46 million is the number of people currently who, when they need catastrophic coverage, get it for free on the backs of the tax payers.

He is saying it's unfair to make people get health care, well then under the same ground I think it's unfair that people get free safety nets if they won't contribute to the system.

[David Puddy]

Somehow I am very skeptical that 62% of all personal bankruptcies are the result of catastrophic medical expenses. Perhaps 62% of bankruptcies include medical expenses as a liability, but it is certainly not the ONLY liability which makes that number misleading.

I don't doubt that. The studied defined that as: "They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point." Here's an article with more details.

Regardless, if the studies have been conducted with the same standards over the years, the trend is valid no matter what.

You ask what part of the Constitution does it violate. The Constitution does not work that way. The powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated. Thus the correct question is what part of the Constitution PERMITS Congress to require individuals to buy health insurance. Proponents say both the interstate commerce clause and Congress's power to tax allow it. My personal view is that an honest reading of the Constitution would tell you that this is bunk. But I expect the courts, for esoteric reasons, will disagree with me.

An honest reading of the Constitution will tell you the President doesn't have the power to wage war, so every offensive military action since the Korean War has been unconstitutional.

The problem is that we have 220+ years of precedent to draw upon. Once you start pulling threads, where does it stop? We can go back and use the same logic to nullify a lot of important laws. It would be hell, and maybe someday it will be necessary, but it's not something that can be done with no overall plan, law-by-law, without destroying the country functionally.

Finally, you ask how do we reform the system in such a way that allows everyone access to quality medical care that is affordable. You either create an entitlement system that is unaffordable in the long run or you ration. In other words, you're asking for a free lunch. It doesn't exist. You may not like it, but that's how it is.

So what's the answer? You deny care to those who lose their insurance because of unregulated loopholes?

[Daniel]

Again, I suggest you read the poll before you make more false assumptions. The source is from Nate Silver, a guy who analyzes stuff. The poll is from the kaiser foundation, they did not ask a then b then c and then asked if they liked the result z. They asked about each measure individually.

A push poll is when you ask leading questions in an effort to illicit a certain response for another question. For example, say if foxnews asked a series of questions they expect to get negative responses about Obama on, and then after they ask about his approval or favor-ability ratings.

Your whole push poll argument is moot for two reasons, The KFF asks what people they thought of the health care bill BEFORE the asked about each element (it's question 3 to be precise). On top of that, in that chart there isn't even a rating of what people think of the health care bill, it wasn't even factored in. I don't think you know what a push poll is...

The chart says +32 under the heading "bill would reduce deficit." The Kaiser report says that 60% of people polled responded that they expected the bill to increase the deficit. The Kaiser report then goes and ignores this concern by magically transforming this concern into a non-concern by saying the bill will reduce the deficit, since people expected it to do x, y and z, even though x, y and z do not equal reducing the deficit.

If you think I used an imprecise definition of push poll that's fine. But either way, the results are disingenuous.

[David Puddy]

By the way, whether you agree with it or not, there's a pretty clear argument that this is enumerated in the Constitution:

Congress is not requiring people to get healthcare. You won't be thrown in jail. You will be taxed if you do not get healthcare. In the 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".

[Daniel]

I don't doubt that. The studied defined that as: "They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point." Here's an article with more details.

Regardless, if the studies have been conducted with the same standards over the years, the trend is valid no matter what.

An honest reading of the Constitution will tell you the President doesn't have the power to wage war, so every offensive military action since the Korean War has been unconstitutional.

The problem is that we have 220+ years of precedent to draw upon. Once you start pulling threads, where does it stop? We can go back and use the same logic to nullify a lot of important laws. It would be hell, and maybe someday it will be necessary, but it's not something that can be done with no overall plan, law-by-law, without destroying the country functionally.

So what's the answer? You deny care to those who lose their insurance because of unregulated loopholes?

The study you cite, even on its face, does not support your blanket assertion that 62% of bankruptcies were caused by medical bills, as it says that the number is comprised of people that lost income due to a medical condition. This has nothing to do with your insurance, unless you're saying that the government should also step into the shoes of Aflac. And that's even disregarding the other part of the article (which you conveniently omit) that expresses skepticism of the study's conclusions.

And yes, you're probably right that most military actions since the Korean War were contrary to the Constitution since Congress had not declared war. That is one of those things, however, that is in effect unreviewable since courts will not weigh into "political questions." (BTW, this is one grounds on which a court dismissed one of the birther lawsuits. Basically saying that even if you're right that Obama was not born in the US, the court won't strip him of office).

The rest of your argument about precedent is wrong, and frankly, illogical. Wrong, because no court has said that it no longer regards the power of the federal government as plenary except where the Constitution says otherwise. It is illogical, in the sense that you're essentially arguing that the enumerated powers of Congress are, or should be a nullity, because they are now inconvenient and don't serve your needs. Hugo Chavez's Venezuela works that way, not the United States.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by denying care because of "unregulated loopholes." But if the "loopholes" you are talking about come from the Constitution, then gladly.

What's the answer to the healthcare dilemma? I have no idea. You have trouble grasping that it's all tradeoffs. You want something for nothing. It doesn't work that way.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Daniel

[Daniel]

By the way, whether you agree with it or not, there's a pretty clear argument that this is enumerated in the Constitution:

Congress is not requiring people to get healthcare. You won't be thrown in jail. You will be taxed if you do not get healthcare. In the 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".

My opinion is that a mandate from the federal government that I pay for my health insurance does not amount to a tax, as that word is used in the Constitution. By the same logic, the federal government can force you to buy Rangers season tickets.

Again, I said that courts will most likely disagree with my view, but then again, they've been wrong on a lot of stuff.

[David Puddy]

The rest of your argument about precedent is wrong, and frankly, illogical. Wrong, because no court has said that it no longer regards the power of the federal government as plenary except where the Constitution says otherwise. It is illogical, in the sense that you're essentially arguing that the enumerated powers of Congress are, or should be a nullity, because they are now inconvenient and don't serve your needs. Hugo Chavez's Venezuela works that way, not the United States.

That's not at all what I'm arguing. The point is that over the years, Congress and the the Supreme Court have tested and interpeted the reach of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

A childish example: The Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to buy jet fighters; it gives Congress the power to "provide for the common defence". No one is going to argue that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the explicit power to buy jet fighters, so Congress can't buy jet fighters.

Not every interpretation is so obvious, though. No where does the Constitution give Congress the power to make it illegal to grow marijuana. However the Supreme Court, in 2005, ruled that even in states where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes, a federal law against growing it for personal use doesn't violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because it indirectly affects interstate commerce.

There's really no point in debating further. I'm not trying to make the case that this is constitutional; I'm only trying to point out that it's not obviously unconstitutional. I doubt this even makes it to the Supreme Court.

Edited March 24, 2010 by David Puddy

[Daniel]

That's not at all what I'm arguing. The point is that over the years, Congress and the the Supreme Court have tested and interpeted the reach of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

A childish example: The Constitution doesn't give Congress the right to buy jet fighters; it gives Congress the power to "provide for the common defence". No one is going to argue that the Constitution doesn't give Congress the explicit power to buy jet fighters, so Congress can't buy jet fighters.

Not every interpretation is so obvious, though. No where does the Constitution give Congress the power to make it illegal to grow marijuana. However the Supreme Court, in 2005, ruled that even in states where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes, a federal law against growing it for personal use doesn't violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because it indirectly affects interstate commerce.

There's really no point in debating further. I'm not trying to make the case that this is constitutional; I'm only trying to point out that it's not obviously unconstitutional. I doubt this even makes it to the Supreme Court.

Mencken defined a judge as a law student who grades his own papers. He was right.

[thegame346]

For 37 years, there have been people arguing the "right to choose" doesn't exist in the Constitution, dude.

Anyway, the "right to choose" has to end somewhere. How come people don't have the "right to choose" to use heroin? How come people don't have the "right to choose" not to wear clothes in public? How come people don't have the "right to choose" to pull their kids out of school and put them to work full time?

Ok assclown incase you were not paying attention when Daniel spelled it out I will do it again for you. The constitution is a document that explains government limitations. An excellent and justified argument for the right to choose can be covered in our first ammendment rights. As far as your argument of use of heroin or clothes... come on dude. You are grasping at straws now in a last ditch attempt at a failed argument.

It is the will of the people that they want heroin use to be illegal. It is the will of the people that they want clothing to be mandated. EVEN still regrdless of that fact it is up to the states governments to mandate the legality/non legality of those issues NOT the federal government. If Florida wants to make every Friday "no clothes and free heroin use Friday" the state has the right to mandate that and the US government can't do one thing to combat that. If this healthcare bill had a public option to opt out I wouldn't care but it doesn't. It is an incomplete piece of sh!t that erodes one of our most basic rights as US citizens.

[PeteyNice]

Ok assclown incase you were not paying attention when Daniel spelled it out I will do it again for you. The constitution is a document that explains government limitations. An excellent and justified argument for the right to choose can be covered in our first ammendment rights. As far as your argument of use of heroin or clothes... come on dude. You are grasping at straws now in a last ditch attempt at a failed argument.

It is the will of the people that they want heroin use to be illegal. It is the will of the people that they want clothing to be mandated. EVEN still regrdless of that fact it is up to the states governments to mandate the legality/non legality of those issues NOT the federal government. If Florida wants to make every Friday "no clothes and free heroin use Friday" the state has the right to mandate that and the US government can't do one thing to combat that. If this healthcare bill had a public option to opt out I wouldn't care but it doesn't. It is an incomplete piece of sh!t that erodes one of our most basic rights as US citizens.

It's not complicated. It is a tax. The Constitution clearly spells out that the Federal government is allowed to tax you. The bill does have an opt-out. If you don't want to pay for health insurance you don't have to. You just have to pay a tax instead. If you don't think the Government is allowed to use taxes to encourage behavior then I suppose you don't take any deductions?

[SC Devs Fan]

To say personal bankrupcies are up is because of insurance companies or the cost of heathcare is somewhat misleading when comparing 1981 to today. 30 years ago people weren't being saved, or kept alive, by the expensive technology we have today which is a direct factor in the cost of healthcare, much more then insurance companies screwing their customers or doctors adding cost because of malpractice insurance. People now are kept alive, for better or worse, for much longer once their health is in decline. Laugh all you want at the concept of "death panels", but when government is deciding on what is best for your healthcare at some point an administrator has to make a decision about how much is enough for a person, just like HMOs used to do. I see this becoming a very scary situation where some will be fighting against the government for their healthcare - and those people won't be among the 32M newly insured, who had nothing to begin with.

Think of it this way, healthcare can go in two directions for the newly insured; you can raise their healthcare to the level of care that the President gets or you can lower the healthcare the President gets to a lower rung so all can get healthcare. You cannot give everyone the best care and pay for it with hopes and good intentions; at some point to insure everyone the quality of heathcare has to decline for everyone else that already has insurance, its simple supply and demand - and from my experience its the ones who arent paying anything that tend to demand the most.