The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Off-Topic
Reload this Page CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

Off-Topic Hang out with people and discuss whatever's on your mind!

Ad Content
View Poll Results: Is the individual mandate fair? (Please state your reasoning in the thread)
Yes 13 48%
No 14 52%
Voters: 27. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #226   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 24th, 2010 (6:08 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,122
I'm not a Canadian. I know very little about the constitution. But, I believe you're required to purchase house and car insurance. So, what's the difference?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #227   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 24th, 2010 (6:35 PM).
.Gamer's Avatar
.Gamer .Gamer is offline
»»───knee─►
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NSFW
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 1,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthcare summary a few posts above
Individual Mandate:
  • In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
Uh, yeah, no. They can't force individuals into a private contract.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]pair Smogon profile
Reply With Quote
  #228   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 24th, 2010 (7:18 PM).
Simmons_2.0's Avatar
Simmons_2.0 Simmons_2.0 is offline
-_- STOP STARING!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Blood Gulch Outpost Number 1
Age: 30
Gender:
Nature: Bold
Posts: 344
This is the exact bill, it's written in Washington Doublespeak so you'll need like a translator for it... http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
__________________
FC is 0475 0016 9000 this is my Soul Silver FC Battle me when I'm online

Reply With Quote
  #229   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 24th, 2010 (7:42 PM).
bmah's Avatar
bmah bmah is offline
B.A.M.
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 35
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 117
For those of you who'd want to know how the bill acts out over the next decade, refer to this Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

Or I'll just quote the relevant stuff here for the chronologically challenged:

Quote:
WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF ENACTMENT

*Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

*A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.

*Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.

*A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.

*A 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2011

*Medicare provides 10 percent bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.

*Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.

*A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.

*Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.

*Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms.

*An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2012

*Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.

*An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.

*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2013

*A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.

*The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income. The threshold remains at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.

*The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35 percent from 1.45 percent for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. The tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.

*A 2.9 percent excise tax in imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2014

*State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.

*Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

*Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

*Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.

*Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2015

*Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

WHAT HAPPENS IN 2018

*An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #230   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 24th, 2010 (7:51 PM). Edited March 24th, 2010 by Åzurε.
Åzurε's Avatar
Åzurε Åzurε is offline
Shi-shi-shi-shaw!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Posts: 2,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Gamer View Post


Uh, yeah, no. They can't force individuals into a private contract.
Well, they aren't forcing anyone to buy it, they're just putting an annual fine on everyone who doesn't.
__________________
Back from the Hidden Land~
My Pokemon tabletop RPG project. Looking for feedback and ideas!
Reply With Quote
  #231   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 24th, 2010 (7:57 PM).
Reina's Avatar
Reina Reina is offline
pandasaur!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York
Gender: Other
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 337
Not that I'm not interested in this form of healthcare (no, really, I am) and I have no idea if anyone else pointed this out already, but lets just move to the Pokemon form of healthcare- walk into a building, sit on a machine for 5 seconds, get healed from poisoning, frostbite, 3rd degree burns, and even paralysis! Come on, how is that not an amazing idea?

But in all seriousness, whether it's the best idea or not the best idea doesn't concern me too much (at the moment of course, I'm sure when I'm older it'll be a huge deal to me) but I'm just glad that some effort is being made to actually do something rather than nothing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #232   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 24th, 2010 (8:09 PM).
bmah's Avatar
bmah bmah is offline
B.A.M.
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 35
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 117
Agreed, perfection is unrealistic, but what's present (IMO the bill was better before the most recent modifications) is better than nothing. And people should just wait and see instead of losing their heads. That's mainly why I provided the link that contained chronological info of the bill - I'm sure there's a ton of misinformation about the nature of the bill still.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #233   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (6:44 AM). Edited March 25th, 2010 by Netto Azure.
Netto Azure's Avatar
Netto Azure Netto Azure is offline
Kiel
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Alistel, Vainqueur
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Posts: 9,467
Yeah, that's why the individual mandate is there, in that, we need the healthier people to pay for the sicker people. That's how insurance "risk pool" works." (That's why putting everyone in a single system lowers cost. It spreads payment evenly to everyone)

I'm not so sure about these class action lawsuits. Federal Law always supersedes state law, and the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the Constitution can be extended to "any officer thereoff" (AKA The Department of Health and Human Services) so...it's constituutional in that way. :|

Also:

US health bill sent back for new House vote


The bill has sharply divided politicians and voters alike

Quote:
The landmark US healthcare reform bill must be sent back to the House of Representatives for approval after two issues were raised by Republicans.
During an all-night voting session, two points relating to student loans were found to violate Senate procedure, said an aide to the Senate majority leader.
They were described as "relatively minor provisions".
They will have to be deleted, approved by the Senate and then sent back to the House for approval.
The bill was passed in the House of Representatives by 219 votes to 212 on Sunday, with no Republican backing.
It extends coverage to 32 million more Americans, and marks the biggest change to the US healthcare system in decades.
As part of the package, on Sunday the House also approved a separate set of amendments.
That package returned to the Senate for a vote, under a process known as budget reconciliation, where amendments have to relate to budgetary rather than policy issues.
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans submitted 30 amendments - which were all rejected by Democrats during the marathon overnight voting session.

Democrats 'confident'
However, Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin upheld two Republican challenges on points of order under budget reconciliation rules, Senate Democratic aides said.
Jim Manley, spokesman for the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said: "After hours of trying to find a way to block this, they (Republicans) found two relatively minor provisions that are violations of Senate procedure which means we're going to have to send it back to the House."
He added that he was "confident that the House will be able to deal with these and pass the legislation".
Mr Manley said 16 lines will be deleted from the bill, but any change required another House vote.
One of the changes was technical, and the other involved a provision to prevent reductions in the federal Pell Grant student aid programme, Associated Press reported.
President Barack Obama signed the healthcare bill into law without delay after the House vote, as he did not need to wait for the Senate vote on the reconciliation bill.
He is due to travel to Iowa on Thursday to promote the benefits of the health care reform.
Some supporters of the bill had received threats and abusive messages, prompting them to call police and the FBI.
Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said more than 10 Democratic politicians had reported incidents since Sunday's vote, some of which he described as "very serious".
Well MOST of the law is in place already. The last changes are just on financials and the accompanying Higher Education bill.

(I want mah increased Pell Grants XD)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #234   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (10:16 AM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Åzurε View Post
Well, they aren't forcing anyone to buy it, they're just putting an annual fine on everyone who doesn't.
That means they are forcing it. They fine you becuase you disobeyed the law and are now being charged with a minor crime called a infraction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 View Post
I'm not a Canadian. I know very little about the constitution. But, I believe you're required to purchase house and car insurance. So, what's the difference?
You are not required to purchase home insurance at all.
You are required to purchase auto insurance only if you drive. You can easily avoid that mandate by biking and using public transportation. There is no way to avoid the health care mandate.
Reply With Quote
  #235   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (10:23 AM).
Red1530's Avatar
Red1530 Red1530 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York State
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
Posts: 1,664
The bill that was passed is unconstitutional. There is no provision that allows the Federal Government to force someone to by a product or service as a condition of legal residence.
__________________
Platinum FC: 1849 2675 2234
HeartGold FC: 2579 5430 9434
Reply With Quote
  #236   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (10:30 AM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,497
What is worse is this will hurt small businesses. A business with as little as 50 employees will be required to provide coverage for their employees. Last time I checked 50 employees isn't a very large company at all.

Yes I know there will be tax credits and subsidies but these only cover so much and some business owners will fall between the cracks of eligibility for these just like individuals will.
Reply With Quote
  #237   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (10:33 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 10,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
You are required to purchase auto insurance only if you drive. You can easily avoid that mandate by biking and using public transportation. There is no way to avoid the health care mandate.
Part of the taxes people pay go to emergency services like your local fire department. Just because you don't avail yourself of their services doesn't mean you can stop paying money that keeps them running. Same general idea with the mandate. The manner is different, but the result is more or less the same: everyone pays so that those who need it can get it.

And off topic, biking and public transportation aren't always an option depending on where you live.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #238   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (4:04 PM).
Netto Azure's Avatar
Netto Azure Netto Azure is offline
Kiel
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Alistel, Vainqueur
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Posts: 9,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red1530 View Post
The bill that was passed is unconstitutional. There is no provision that allows the Federal Government to force someone to by a product or service as a condition of legal residence.
If you can't stop the bill, just have another Bush v. Gore

Quote:
In today's Washington Post, Randy Barnett outlines various theories for attacking health care reform if it is passed. If all else fails, he offers the remarkable suggestion that the Supreme Court might try what it did in an infamous case decided almost exactly ten years ago-- Bush v. Gore.

The most likely constitutional challenge will be that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance. Barnett omits to mention in his op-ed that the mandate is actually structured as a tax: if you don't buy insurance, you are assessed a tax for each month you fail to pay premiums. Barnett argues that individual mandate must be unconstitutional because the government can't require people to do anything; however, the government can make you pay taxes. It does so every year. Congress pretty clearly has the power to pass such a tax under its powers to tax and spend for the general welfare. This is an easy case for constitutionality.

Congress also has the power to require the individual mandate under the Commerce clause, despite Barnett's objection. That is because Congress can regulate economic activities that have a cumulative economic effect on interstate commerce, and as Justice Scalia pointed out in Gonzales v. Raich (a case, by the way, that Barnett himself litigated and lost in the Supreme Court), Congress can regulate even non-economic activities if it believes that this is necessary to make its regulation of interstate commerce effective. As I've explained elsewhere

Critics charge that . . . people [who do not buy insurance] are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means. When uninsured people get sick, they rely on their families for financial support, go to emergency rooms (often passing costs on to others), or purchase over-the-counter remedies. They substitute these activities for paying premiums to health insurance companies. All these activities are economic, and they have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Moreover, like people who substitute homegrown marijuana or wheat for purchased crops, the cumulative effect of uninsured people’s behavior undermines Congress’s regulation — in this case, its regulation of health insurance markets. Because Congress believes that national health care reform won’t succeed unless these people are brought into national risk pools, it can regulate their activities in order to make its general regulation of health insurance effective.

A second theory for challenging health care reform is that special deals for Louisiana and Nebraska violate the General Welfare Clause because they only benefit particular states. These features will be gone if Congress passes a reconciliation measure, which the House will vote on today. If a reconciliation bill is not passed, Barnett points out, Congress would have to show why these special deals benefit the entire union.

Even if Congress couldn't come up with a reason, the proper remedy would be to hold these special deals unconstitutional, not to declare the entire health care reform act invalid. So here's the irony of Barnett's suggestion: If opponents successfully attack these special deals, they will actually strengthen health care reform because in effect they will have gotten the courts to perform the same function as the reconciliation measure.

A third possibility is that states will pass laws exempting their citizens from the individual mandate. Barnett correctly sees that this strategy is itself unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.

A fourth strategy is a constitutional amendment. Once health care reform is passed, however, it is unlikely that the public will support an constitutional amendment eliminating it. Such an amendment would require approval by three fourths of the states and two thirds of both houses of Congress. But as Barnett suggests, if health care reform ever becomes that unpopular, Congress will simply repeal the legislation first.

A fifth strategy is to attack the House rule for passing the bill. But as Barnett points out, the House decided yesterday not to use "deem and pass" and so this objection is now irrelevant. (It would not have succeeded in the courts in any case, because of the enrolled bill rule).

Barnett's final suggestion is that the Supreme Court might simply decide that the Democrats didn't play fair and strike down health care reform in the same way that it decided that the Democrats didn't deserve the presidency in Bush v. Gore.

I assume that Barnett actually isn't advocating it. Bush v. Gore was widely derided as a travesty of legal reasoning, and the Supreme Court has avoided citing it or mentioning it in its opinions since. Whether or not the individual Justices viewed their actions this way at the time, many people saw Bush v. Gore as five conservative Justices making implausible legal arguments to benefit the interests of a particular political party which they happened to favor. And not to put too fine a point on it, Bush v. Gore helped smooth the way to the Bush Presidency, the dissipation of the federal budget surplus, the war in Iraq, presidentially approved torture, the cratering of the economy, and enormous budget deficits through reckless overspending by the Bush Administration. Bush v. Gore was, in hindsight, not only deeply flawed judicial reasoning, but led to a disaster for the country. Bush v. Gore is an example of what the Supreme Court and federal judges shouldn't do.

If opponents of the bill are reduced to wishing for a second Bush v. Gore, they, and not their opponents, have truly given up believing in American democracy.


UPDATE: In an e-mail to me, Barnett confirms that his reference to Bush v. Gore "was simply about predicting 5 votes." He writes: "If the conservative justices are as lawless as accused, the bill's supporters should worry. But if not, not. Which is it?"
Then again:

So George Washington was a socialist, too!
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, how could our first president require every citizen to buy a gun?

Oh well, that pretty much lays out most of the theories on unconstitutionality of the bill out the window.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #239   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (4:17 PM). Edited March 25th, 2010 by SBaby.
SBaby's Avatar
SBaby SBaby is offline
Dungeon Master
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Nature: Calm
Posts: 2,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
And off topic, biking and public transportation aren't always an option depending on where you live.
Well, they can't force you not to walk.


Now, don't get me wrong. I agree with 90 percent of this bill. I do believe that people should be entitled to insurance, even if they have pre-existing conditions, and I do believe that children should always be allowed to be covered. But I also believe that there are flaws in this.

Here's the thing. This is the first time in US History that the government can legally force you to buy a product that is unrelated to direct taxes or an imminent threat, against the will of the American people (a majority of people were against this, according to many polls done by both the right and left; both sides got similar results). Not only are they going to require you to buy insurance, but they have specifically stated that you have to be covered to an extent that satisfies the IRS. So now, the IRS can tell you to buy insurance, and even make you buy whatever policy they want. Say you have Allstate or one of those other insurances. Maybe it isn't enough for the IRS. Now all of a sudden, they're telling you that you have to buy a different policy, or maybe even MULTIPLE policies. They will have the authority to make you do this, and you WILL have to do this. And those that don't, will be slapped with a fine. Anyone who doesn't have insurance is going to have to pay by the year. And if you don't, your wages will be garnished. The government should not be allowed to force you to do this. To be allowed to force you into this is nothing more than Socialism. It's unconstitutional, and I think it's high time for people to wake up.

If this remains - and it probably will - then what's to stop the government from passing a bill forcing you to buy cars from specific companies, or forcing you to go with DSL instead of Cable, or forcing you to go with AT&T? This is happening right now.


And I'm not even going to talk about College tuitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Netto Azure View Post

So George Washington was a socialist, too!
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, how could our first president require every citizen to buy a gun?

Oh well, that pretty much lays out most of the theories on unconstitutionality of the bill out the window.
[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]
I just think it's hilarious how people try to rationalize this with things that happened 200+ years ago. I can do that too, you know. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

First off, I suggest you do a little research as to the validity of that claim, and look at the bigger picture of what was going on at the time. George Washington did not require every citizen to have a gun because he felt that the government would make more money off it. He required it because the country was at war with Britain at the time and most people living in the Colonies already owned firearms anyway for hunting. And even if they didn't, alot of them were provided for free and people often made their own firearms and even their own BULLETS. You can't make your own insurance. Not to mention, having guns didn't exactly bother anyone. A one-time payment of a few dollars for something that would protect you on a regular basis for your entire life back then is alot better than a 200 dollar a month payment for something that you might not ever use. I love all the misinformation that the media is feeding the public. It really just goes to show how far downhill this country's going.

Anyway, I've already explained on my site why this is unconstitutional, and what is going to be happening in the future. You can take it as you will. But this situation won't magically go away just because some words are changed or because a few historical points are misconstrued to give someone a fleeting debate advantage. And this is the tip of the iceberg. It only gets worse from here. Alot worse.
__________________
If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you will never get it done.

- Bruce Lee

The worst thing you can do in a business is blame the customer.

- Willie 'Jack' Degel
Reply With Quote
  #240   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (7:17 PM).
Åzurε's Avatar
Åzurε Åzurε is offline
Shi-shi-shi-shaw!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Posts: 2,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netto Azure View Post
=So George Washington was a socialist, too!
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, how could our first president require every citizen to buy a gun?

Oh well, that pretty much lays out most of the theories on unconstitutionality of the bill out the window.
Also, how does saying that somebody else did it justify someone doing it this time?

The above sentence is applicable in too many situations to count.
__________________
Back from the Hidden Land~
My Pokemon tabletop RPG project. Looking for feedback and ideas!
Reply With Quote
  #241   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 25th, 2010 (9:34 PM).
HeidiMoose's Avatar
HeidiMoose HeidiMoose is offline
[Insert User Title Here]
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hicktown, IA
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Nature: Calm
Posts: 264
Sarah Palin sure isn't happy about this.

But on a serious note (besides the fact that I utterly despise Sarah Palin with a passion), I honestly don't know much about the health care bill and therefor can not cast an opinion about it. I've had health insurance my entire life be it through my dad growing up and I have my own health care now at my job.. I do hope that this a good step forward for our country but I've heard enough negative things about the bill up to this point to be concerned as well.
Reply With Quote
  #242   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (6:57 AM).
Sotto Voce's Avatar
Sotto Voce Sotto Voce is offline
woohoo!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Northern Minnesota
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Nature: Modest
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
I'm stunned. I didn't think it would actually pass.


^ Most important part of the bill if you ask me.
I like that last one.

Also:
7. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE-- Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

I'll add on later--still reading thru the summary.
__________________
“Music speaks what cannot be expressed, soothes the mind and gives it rest, heals the heart and makes it whole, flows from heaven to the soul.”
Reply With Quote
  #243   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (8:38 AM). Edited March 26th, 2010 by Netto Azure.
Netto Azure's Avatar
Netto Azure Netto Azure is offline
Kiel
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Alistel, Vainqueur
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Posts: 9,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
First off, I suggest you do a little research as to the validity of that claim, and look at the bigger picture of what was going on at the time. George Washington did not require every citizen to have a gun because he felt that the government would make more money off it. He required it because the country was at war with Britain at the time and most people living in the Colonies already owned firearms anyway for hunting. And even if they didn't, alot of them were provided for free and people often made their own firearms and even their own BULLETS. You can't make your own insurance. Not to mention, having guns didn't exactly bother anyone. A one-time payment of a few dollars for something that would protect you on a regular basis for your entire life back then is alot better than a 200 dollar a month payment for something that you might not ever use. I love all the misinformation that the media is feeding the public. It really just goes to show how far downhill this country's going.

Anyway, I've already explained on my site why this is unconstitutional, and what is going to be happening in the future. You can take it as you will. But this situation won't magically go away just because some words are changed or because a few historical points are misconstrued to give someone a fleeting debate advantage. And this is the tip of the iceberg. It only gets worse from here. Alot worse.
."A lot better than something you will never use..."

Wow that is one of the craziest things I've heard in a while. Because who cares about going to the doctor when I'm sick. Forget about good health choices and live your life to the fullest! >__>

Sheesh, people keep on complaining about rising healthcare cost without realizing it's their own fault. Who the heck pays for your emergency room visit when you waltz down there because you've been in an accident? Our darn premiums go up because we ultimately pay for your visit. People think they are invincible when they are young but that is not the case. V___V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Åzurε View Post
Also, how does saying that somebody else did it justify someone doing it this time?
Because people here cannot accept the fact that Health care access is a vital part of a persons ability to live.

I've explained the reason why the individual mandate is there on another forum post I made but I guess I have to repeat it here:

Quote:
The individual mandate is there, in that, we need the healthier people to pay for the sicker people. That's how insurance "risk pool" works."(That's why putting everyone in a single system lowers cost. It spreads payment evenly to everyone)

Otherwise, the insurance companies wouldn't even bother covering sicker people with lower premiums if there is no one there to balance the payment structure. Then this whole house of cards of a refom bill willfall down. :/
And because NOBODY lieks dem "Socialized" medicine, (Or more accurately insurance) we get a reform bill that forces us to get what you guys love, Private "Free Market" insurance.

Also:


Quote:
The House of Representatives on Thursday gave final approval to the budget reconciliation bill containing a package of changes to the Democrats’ sweeping health care overhaul. The bill, which Democratic leaders hailed as a landmark achievement, now goes to President Obama for his signature.
“The American people have waited for this moment for a century,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said at a news conference. “This, of course, was a health bill. But it is also a jobs bill, an economic recovery bill, was a deficit-reduction bill, was an antidiscrimination bill. It was truly a bill of rights. And now it is the law of the land.”


In a fitting finale to the yearlong health care saga, the budget reconciliation measure that included the final changes was approved first by the Senate and then by the House on a tumultuous day at the Capitol, as lawmakers raced to complete their work ahead of a two-week recess.
The final House vote was 220 to 207, and the Senate vote was 56 to 43, with the Republicans unanimously opposed in both chambers.
The reconciliation bill makes numerous revisions to many of the central provisions in the measure adopted by the Senate on Dec. 24, including changes in the levels of subsidies that will help moderate-income Americans afford private insurance, as well as changes to the increase in the Medicare payroll tax that will take effect in 2013 and help pay for the legislation.
The bill also delays the start of a new tax on high-cost employer-sponsored insurance policies to 2018 and raises the thresholds at which policies are hit by the tax, reflecting a deal struck by the White House and organized labor leaders. It also includes changes to close the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage known as the doughnut hole, and to clarify a provision requiring insurers to allow adult children to remain on their parents’ insurance policies until their 26th birthday.

Many of the changes were intended to address the concerns of House Democrats, as well as to bridge differences between the original House and Senate bills and to incorporate additional provisions sought by Mr. Obama.
The bill also included a broad restructuring of federal student loan programs, a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s education agenda.
Well the entire Law is now in plce. Thank Goodness for the Student Loan Modification programs. :3
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #244   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (10:52 AM).
Trap-Eds's Avatar
Trap-Eds Trap-Eds is offline
Dig a hole, dig a hole........
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Peach Creek...I wish.
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Nature: Quirky
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmah View Post
bill summary: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

There really isn't one answer as to why a person is happy/disappointed. And it's hard to judge from this thread just from those who have posted here; some are clearly more vocal about it than others.
Hmmmm...I think I understand now. Americans now have to buy health insurance or risk a fine in the future. I don't see a problem with that, unless you can't afford to buy the insurance in the first place. But there's some sort of catch to this, like...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
Here's the thing. This is the first time in US History that the government can legally force you to buy a product that is unrelated to direct taxes or an imminent threat, against the will of the American people (a majority of people were against this, according to many polls done by both the right and left; both sides got similar results). Not only are they going to require you to buy insurance, but they have specifically stated that you have to be covered to an extent that satisfies the IRS. So now, the IRS can tell you to buy insurance, and even make you buy whatever policy they want. Say you have Allstate or one of those other insurances. Maybe it isn't enough for the IRS. Now all of a sudden, they're telling you that you have to buy a different policy, or maybe even MULTIPLE policies. They will have the authority to make you do this, and you WILL have to do this. And those that don't, will be slapped with a fine. Anyone who doesn't have insurance is going to have to pay by the year. And if you don't, your wages will be garnished. The government should not be allowed to force you to do this. To be allowed to force you into this is nothing more than Socialism. It's unconstitutional, and I think it's high time for people to wake up.
...The IRS are the scary tax people, right? The goverment officials who collect taxes; so if you haven't been paying them they won't let you buy health insurance? That seems pretty sensible to me-just pay your taxes! But then again, that could lead into another debate about whether some taxes are fair ot not...and whether it's right to let the IRS control you that much...grrah, my head is spinning. Just how influential are the IRS, anyway?
__________________
"Not only do I not know what's going on, I wouldn't know what to do about it if I did."
"The reason I talk to myself is that I'm the only one whose answers I accept."
George Carlin
:cer_boogie:
Reply With Quote
  #245   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (11:16 AM). Edited March 26th, 2010 by Åzurε.
Åzurε's Avatar
Åzurε Åzurε is offline
Shi-shi-shi-shaw!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Posts: 2,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netto Azure View Post
Because people here cannot accept the fact that Health care access is a vital part of a persons ability to live.
Helpful? Undeniably. Vital? Hardly. Immune systems and livers are vital parts of a person's ability to live.

My guess is you have strong opinions on the subject, and hence, "Fact" and "Vital".
That quote, however, is not a real response to observations of an attempt to justify this bill with an apparently irrelevant example.
__________________
Back from the Hidden Land~
My Pokemon tabletop RPG project. Looking for feedback and ideas!
Reply With Quote
  #246   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (12:33 PM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14 FreakyLocz14 is offline
Conservative Patriot
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 3,497
If healthcare is a vital part of a person's existance explain why me and my siblings have survived a good 13-20 years without it.

Food and shelter and what is vital.
Reply With Quote
  #247   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (2:56 PM).
Netto Azure's Avatar
Netto Azure Netto Azure is offline
Kiel
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Alistel, Vainqueur
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Posts: 9,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Åzurε View Post
Helpful? Undeniably. Vital? Hardly. Immune systems and livers are vital parts of a person's ability to live.

My guess is you have strong opinions on the subject, and hence, "Fact" and "Vital".
That quote, however, is not a real response to observations of an attempt to justify this bill with an apparently irrelevant example.
And so the breakthroughs in medicine are not supposed to be shared to all those that need it? How do you expect to have a healthy workforce if you allow them to work in unproductive conditions. :/

And yeah, while our immune systems are great wonders of human anatomy, it cannot by itself get rid of Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other long term ailments. Plus yeah, our fractures will properly heal themselves without any medical help.

How is it an irrelevant example? Isn't that why you rush a person to the emergency room in case of illness and accidents? The reason we are debating this LAW is because although you might have access to the emergency room, we have to foot the bill with higher premiums.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14 View Post
If healthcare is a vital part of a person's existance explain why me and my siblings have survived a good 13-20 years without it.

Food and shelter and what is vital.
Yeah, because the had of fate was good to you guys. >__>
Just pray that you guys stay safe.

And those 2 are provided if you actually look for it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #248   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (8:09 PM).
Chibi Robo's Avatar
Chibi Robo Chibi Robo is offline
of the entire epoch!
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cali
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Posts: 853
What happens with free health care:

Free healthcare bill is passed.

Lots of people uninsured want it.
More people means longer lines.
Longer Lines meaning longer wait.
Longer Lines mean you might not get your operation in time.
Not getting it in time could lead to a possible death or permanent damage.

Plus in this Health care bill illegal immigrants can get coverage.

Which means more lines :D

Also Doctors get a lowered income.

So now less doctors to treat the many patients.
Isn't this lovely~

Honestly I would love Health care reform, but not done like this.
Fortunately for us this thing doesn't take effect in about 4 years.
I stated my opinion, troll plz
__________________
Pair: Vrai
Reply With Quote
  #249   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (9:23 PM).
Luck's Avatar
Luck Luck is offline
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBaby View Post
Anyway, I've already explained on my site why this is unconstitutional, and what is going to be happening in the future. You can take it as you will. But this situation won't magically go away just because some words are changed or because a few historical points are misconstrued to give someone a fleeting debate advantage.
Since you went out of your way to provide a link for us who are ignorant of your presence, I'll just put this down and be on my way.

»This I think«

Quote:
And this is the tip of the iceberg. It only gets worse from here. Alot worse.
I thought the whole Bush administration was the tip?

ANYWAYS, thanks for the tip Alan Greenspan.
Reply With Quote
  #250   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old March 26th, 2010 (10:02 PM).
Åzurε's Avatar
Åzurε Åzurε is offline
Shi-shi-shi-shaw!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
Posts: 2,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netto Azure View Post

And so the breakthroughs in medicine are not supposed to be shared to all those that need it? How do you expect to have a healthy workforce if you allow them to work in unproductive conditions? :/
Did I say that you were to withhold medicine like that...?

Logical consequences of refusing to buy something such as a car is one thing. Deeming it unlawful to not purchase something is limiting freedom (which is supposed to be one of the things this country was made for). If people wish to put themselves in a position where they are at risk for something, why stop them? If the cards come up wrong, well, they deal with the consequences of the decisions they made. Forcing the matter through government makes no sense to me. Everyone is paying for everyone whether they are benefiting or not. This strikes no chords with you?

Quote:
And yeah, while our immune systems are great wonders of human anatomy, it cannot by itself get rid of Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other long term ailments. Plus yeah, our fractures will properly heal themselves without any medical help.
Hey, they do for me and my extended family at least. As for the rest of this bit, appropriate changes in diet do wonders for diabetes and heart disease, and cancer-specific facilities are already very accessible anyway. If it comes down to "saving my life with drugs and surgery", people are indeed less stupid than other people take them for, and can get it (or find it, rather) themselves.

Quote:
How is it an irrelevant example? Isn't that why you rush a person to the emergency room in case of illness and accidents? The reason we are debating this LAW is because although you might have access to the emergency room, we have to foot the bill with higher premiums.
I was referring to your older post about George Washington.

Quote:
LAW
Okay, okay. Law.

Quote:
Yeah, because the hand of fate was good to you guys. >__>
Just pray that you guys stay safe.
I always do.

Quote:
And those 2 [food and shelter] are provided if you actually look for it.
Exactly right. It's provided if you look for it.
__________________
Back from the Hidden Land~
My Pokemon tabletop RPG project. Looking for feedback and ideas!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Quick Reply

Join the conversation!

Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

Create a PokéCommunity Account
Ad Content

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:03 AM.