Health Care Bill Passes

Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, 1801.
"Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter—with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

IN YOUR FACE ALL YOU REPUBLICAN RIGHT WING MORONS.

Hey gunsmoke, if what has been going on for the last year is your idea of "The Process" ...

Gunsmoke I am not sure you understand what Jefferson was writing about. If you need help please feel free to contact me.

Gunsmoke I am not sure you understand what Jefferson was writing about. If you need help please feel free to contact me. I can give you a list of his writings, they may help you to understand what he is talking about. Also the world of business and government were much different then.

One time my cat was stuck in a neighbor's garage but we got it out after three days.

But health care... seriously?

Where have you been...the process was legal and used many times before by republicans.

Arguing with brainless Fox News morons makes eating my own soft morning sh#t look appealing.

Ah, how sad it must be to live in your black and white world. I feel for you man, really.

It sort of seems like a lot of other countries can make this work w/o blowing up. Maybe it's time.

This will establish and secure health care as a right in this country.

How long do you think before this bill is challenged in court?

The question is whether forcing all Americans into a contractual agreement with a private health insurance company is a constitutionally permissible by the federal government.

You own a car, you drive it, you have to buy insurance.
You have a body, you live in it, you have to buy insurance. Everyone has insurance, the cost goes down instead of so many people having to use the emergency rooms.

You own a car, you drive it, you have to buy insurance.
You have a body, you live in it, you have to buy insurance.

This will establish and secure health care as a right in this country.

I'm glad you are required to have insurance now, just as I am glad drivers are required to have car insurance. It would be a lot easier if individuals took full responsibility for their actions... but they don't. Therefore, as a society, we now require that everyone pay into the system that already covers your arse. Revolutionary, I know.

Well, I did get through Madbolter's post. In theory, I agree with much of it. Personal responsibility is something that seems to be losing ground in so many aspects of American society. And yet... If you're wealthy and can afford it [medical insurance] great! if you're not should we just say the hell with them because their not smart enough to climb the rungs of success that is the American Way?

By contrast, I cannot "own" my body WITHOUT "living in it," yet I CAN "live in my body" without risking violating the negative rights of others! My mere "living" does not risk infringing upon the NEGATIVE rights of others.

Until you solve the $6 band aid, everyone gets every new drug, cure ED, save everyone from aids/lupus/?, sue anyone for the smallest unintentional mistake mentality, health care costs will explode and giving more people more access will just explode the costs.

the process by which it [the health-care bill] is was passed was wrong.

Increased regulation, yes. Socialism, no.

So while this likely doesn't affect me all that much, I can see how it is important to millions of people

Guyman: Socialism is not "we take from some and give to others bottom line" that's absurd. By that rationale all government is socialist

dirtbag- The great redistribution is not from the rich to the poor but from the health care consumer to the health care system which is why the next step needs to be addressing the costs of health care, something which the bill begins to do indirectly with the medicare task force but does not address head on.

Gunsmoke: no,it won't affect me much directly, I don't think, at least in the foreseeable future anyway. And the contribution to the deficit should be nil because of the taxes imposed .

Say what? I asked, do you think that taxing the [wealthy others] a trillion dollars will have a negative effect on the fragile economy in which you live [, thereby having a negative effect on you]? For the record, the CBO projects that the legislation passed yesterday will raise more in taxes then it spends on health care.

I'm waiting to hear a coherent "take" on what Jefferson was (actually, speaking) about.

No, I don't think a 2.5% tax rate on upper income earners, taxes on tanning salons, and a few other places will be a big deal. Especially when balanced with the bill's benefits.

Why will it be too late to do anything [context: repeal it]? Will that Congress be more cowardly than this one? Will the executive be unwilling to modify this program, make it better? I don't understand why something that took decades to pass, can never ever be tweaked again.

I thought I did Gunsmoke. What did I not answer? Could you please repeat the question?

Fair enough. Here's the Q. Do you think government can extract a trillion dollars of new taxes from the economy, regardless of why or how it is extracted, without putting a significant drag on the economy, an economy that is as fragile as any since, arguably, the Great Depression?

2.5 % here, Tax somebody for using a tanning bed,it all starts adding up to 100%

I guess we're gonna find out. However, keep in mind that it is a Trillion over 10 years. For comparison sake, the US military budget is over $600 Billion per year (2009 budget is $680 B).

Apogee, thanks for expanding on an answer ["no"]to Gunsmoke.

So, dirtbag, "No," the gov can't extract that kind of money from the economy without putting a significant drag on it at a critical time, but "Yes", that fact won't affect you? Did I get that right?

2.5% is not a big deal.

There is no evidence supporting the "slippery slope" argument with regard to increasing tax rates for the wealthy. The most fundamental evidence [whatever that means] shows that tax rates of the wealthy have no [NO, Zero, Zip, Nada] impact on the economy. [In fact, ] There is a very strong [not just strong VERY strong] correlation between economic prosperity in the US and high tax rates on the rich.

I'll repeat it. No, I don't think it will be a major drag on the economy, especially when the benefits are figured into it

Citing Thomas Jefferson about the merits of Health Case reform sounds important, but is ultimately irrelevant to us today -- Jefferson never addressed the subject and medical care was rudimentary and inexpensive in the 18th and early 19th Century. I doubt Jefferson thought that proper medical care was unimportant. But since Jefferson is long dead, we have no idea of his take on the subject.

Edit: Gunsmoke, I thought you were leaving?

Gunsmoke, in contrast I don't think you can look at only the costs without looking at the benefits. The benefits to many individuals is likely to be considerable.

MadBolter wrote at length about a mindset of the Founding Fathers. This mindset is reflected in the Jefferson quote back on Post #3. That is an overarching principle that gives clear insight into how they would view this debate. The question is, has society changed sufficiently in the past 200 years to make their paradigm antiquated and in need of replacement?

Yes, let's revisit that comparison, and repeat it over and over:

The 2009 US Military budget is $680 Billion, which will be spent on bombs, wars, killing people, supporting endless defense contractors, and hopefully maintaining a few jobs and actually a little defense for the citizens.

This bill theoretically will cost $940 Billion over ten years, which works out to $94 B/per year. Which is about 1/7th of the current military budget.

In that kind of light, I really don't have much of a problem spending that kind of $ on preserving the lives and well-being of the citizens. Hell, it would be easy to argue that doing so will provide far more protection and 'defense' than the US military.

The right to disagree -- without all the rhetoric and fear mongering -- was something the Founding Fathers would endorse.

So is my grandmother. On the other hand she says it's the best country in the world. I always find it humorous that she will rail against many of the things that have helped make this country great while still insisting on it's greatness.

I have an uncle in his late 70's who would punch anybody in the nose that said FDR screwed up the country...FDR's programs kick-started a dead economy...My uncle was given a job created by FDR....Electricity was brought to rural American farms by FDR's programs...My uncle's brother in law was given a job....there were a lot of people starving that FDR helped bail out....I'll tell you where this FDR is a communist rumor started...Rush Limbaugh...F*#k you republican idiots and your destructive lies....! quit being parrots and try coming up with some original material for once...rj

The Republican leadership, such as it is, seems to have seriously underestimated Obama's will and leadership.

This turkey will end up in court, and Obama may live to regret humiliating the Judges at the State of The Union

As an edit to FatDad while I was writing, the point is not whether Obama was right or wrong (although he did "misstate" facts,) but rather that he took the unprecedented step of cornering and attacking the Judges at a function where they could not respond and are not even required to attend but do so out of courtesy. I'll bet they sit his next one out.

Now, what happens to positive and negative rights when we decide we do not want to drive past people dying alongside the road. This is a choice. And as is always the case with choices, people get upset when they feel the choice was not left to them. When the community makes a decision that costs me money, the community (that's you or whomever else I am talking to) has taken a positive step that has injured me. Apparently I am not normal. I don't feel shooting you is a viable approach to making myself whole.

The central fact is in an entirely unplanned fashion we have said to the caregivers, "We have decided not to let people die beside the road. MAKE IT HAPPEN."

This has injured me, and many others.

Tell me how I can make myself whole. If I thought voting republican would do anything other than increase the profits gained by insurers and pharmaceutical corporations I would consider that option. But the data says pretty clearly that's an oxymoron. Perhaps even lower.

To continue the military-healthcare comparison, there are supposedly 40,000 people who die every year presumably due to a lack of medical care and insurance. That's probably a hyperbolic overstatement by the left, but even if it's only 1/4 of that amount...

If 10,000 Americans died each year due to terrorism, would the country do anything about it? You betcha. Big time. If 100 people per year died due to terrorism, there'd be a massive military backlash.

Yessiree, this keeps sounding better and better.

but dktem, you're destroying a myth upon which rests much of left-wing analysis of the 21st Century.

1) Seatbelt laws protect children from irresponsible parents. Not just irresponsible people from themselves.
2) Healthcare laws protect children from irresponsible (or unfortunate) parents who avoid important healthcare for financial reasons.

In general, there is a very relevant philosophical consideration at the center of this debate: are children worthy of any protections in life beyond what their parents see fit to grant them in a laissez-faire world? Are all humans created equal at their birth and raised in a society that maximizes the chance of each citizen to apply their unique endowments for the advancement of the society, or are they prioritized by the socio-economic station at their birth and condemned to a strata of societal contribution and consumption as in the caste system? The reality at present is somewhere in between.

Funny how some folks tend to always see themselves as the gifted surgeon who gets to make a choice, and not as the person lying on the side of the road.

Not to nit pick, but it won't go into effect until after his term.


Really...you might want to recheck your sources.

Not to nit pick, but it won't go into effect until after his term.


Really...you might want to recheck your sources.

Did anyone mention that in the last three months the dropout rate at Loma Linda Medical School has spiked, and I don't know, but I would be very interested to learn what the dropout rate does this week nationally.
I have not met a doc over 60 yet who does not plan to quit, and there will be fewer new doctors, you will have coverage, just no access.

And he gave an answer, that can be easily disputed if not true.

There are immediate benefits.

Isn't your Supreme Court pretty much required to hear cases between the federal and a state government/governments, or between two state governments? Is it the court of first instance for such cases, or?

Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip.

There's a pretty starling thing in the bill that 95% of Americans won't like.

The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable." Then on page 1004 it describes what the term "data" means in paragraph 1, section B:

Quote
14 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘data’ refers to in
15 formation respecting a device described in paragraph (1),
16 including claims data, patient survey data, standardized
17 analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of
18 data from disparate data environments, electronic health
19 records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the
20 Secretary"

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see...

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radiofrequency
transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan. This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case. Children who are "born in the United States who at the time of birth is not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage" will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). With a name like CHIP it would seem consistent to have the chip implanted into a child. Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip. And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.