HOUSE PASSES HEALTH CARE BILL!!

[tomm2thumbs]

Source: cspan

Live from Cspan - The US House of Representatives passed the Health Care Bill, moving the process on to the Senate now to take up their own version of a Health Care plan.

The historic bill garnered Republican support from a single member, Joseph Cao (pronounced Gow) from Louisiana. The final vote 220-215.

In the end, only 39 Democrats voted against the legislation and, again, Republican support from across the aisle was gained with a single vote of support by Rep. Cao (R-LA)

For breaking updates and a vote timeline of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/07/house-health-c...

Read more: http://www.cspan.org

---

For those of you who are interested, and want to send a note of support to Cao, his website link is below:

http://josephcao.house.gov/Contact/

[BadGimp]

1. it's a step in the right direction and certainly a victory

[KatherineEgan]

26. How much will I have to pay

every month? Where can I find the information?

[pnwmom]

42. Nothing if you already have health insurance.

If you don't, the final bill will only come after the House and Senate bills are reconciled, assuming the Senate bill gets passed.

[mullard12ax7]

68. How much does health insurance cost a person or family? Do you even know?

I do, anywhere from $300 to $2000 a month, hardly "nothing". That's for basic catastrophic insurance too, with $5000 deductibles and up.

[truedelphi]

88. As someone who was paying $ 957 for the two of us

On Cobra each month, I am glad to see someone else understands that no one out there will be paying NOTHING.


People wil be paying for their premiums, and then possibly co-pays and deductibles.

The good thing about the bill is that it means fewer people will be without anything in the way of insurance.

The bad news is that in terms of cost containment, the only cost that was contained was Congress coming up with the notion that to keep the health CR bill affordable, so that the Federal Government pays only 890 Billion bucks, (Over about a six year period) then huge fines will be levied against those who avoid the insurance mandates.

One is left wondering why it is that the insurers get to continue their excessive gauging, and the treatments that people need may still be unaffordable.

This could well be the case for some people whose deductible is costly enough to prevent them from seeking treatment doing without needed health care. Except this time around, you are paying the insurers a premium.

[pnwmom]

115. If you already have employer provided insurance, this won't add to your cost.

You can just stay on your current plan.

[Techn0Girl]

122. Very true...

But 36 million (perhaps a lot more) Americans without insurance now will be required to make payments to the insurance industry that they were not able to make before

[ooglymoogly]

162. And that my friend is the rub that will make the aftermath of this bill

go down in infamy as one of the worst bills passed ever and will not bode well for the coming elections.

[pattmarty]

234. Thank you very much! I have been saying EXACTLY the same thing on different threads.

[Leopolds Ghost]

270. Some Dems have already written off the working class as "religiously insane deadbeats"

Who don't pay their health insurance when they can obviously afford to eat steak, and drive a Cadillac.

(Hillary called the uninsured deadbeats while actively campaigning to drive a wedge in the New Deal Coalition)...

Social justice is for us folks who want to revive the "outdated" New Deal coalition of leftists, working class, and the upper middle class. or worse, revive the 60s safety net. Who needs a working class when we have successfully gotten rid of working class jobs under the national policy of offshoring and cap rates? Now it's just the upper middle class and highly (assumed to be expensively, you can't just let anyone in) educated that is the core of the party.

Meritocracy, not democracy

[No Elephants]

297. Not necessarily meritocracy, either. Not everyone who has money got it via his or her

merits.

[Techn0Girl]

315. Some Dems have already written off ...

Too true my Brother. In fact when I told the originator of this thread about the woman's issues and how it negatively impacted them all he responded with was "Yawn". With friends like these ....

[bornskeptic]

228. It is still totally false that anyone would be required to purchase private insurance.

Posters can make that claim 10,000 times, but that won't make it true. The individual mandate does not go into effect until 2013, at which time the exchange, including the public option, will begin to function. Everyone subject to the mandate would have the choice of purchasing either a public plan or a private plan. It is true that the Senate Finance Committee bill would require some people to purchase private insurance, but neither the House Bill or thw Senate HELP Committee bill would do so.

[Leopolds Ghost]

272. If that's the case, then why "require" them to purchase it?

collection agencies for those who dont? (That's worked so well for the subsidized student loan industry...)

Why not just offer it to them? like other services?

You could tax the profits of the insurance industry. Instead of relying on fines... does the house bill rely on fines?

Guilty of being uninsured!

No one is required to purchase stamps if they don't use UPS, but the USPS exists as a national carrier service.

Would you have to justify (on your tax return?) why you aren't paying for private insurance before becoming eligible for a limited public plan?

I for one don't want to be asked to justify my personal health care decisions on a tax return.

Health care privacy is very strict, no?

[pnwmom]

293. Because the only way to make it affordable is to have a pool including

healthy people. If you let people wait to pay premiums until they're sick, then it won't be affordable for anybody.

[Techn0Girl]

331. I really don't mind paying for health insurance....

But give me something that I can afford ...
Under this bill I would be paying 2000 a year (I make right now only 24,000 a year - hard times ) and I would be getting a policy WITH A $2000 deductable - WTF ??? That's like a crappy catastrophic plan for me.

Got the flu - got bronchitis? It will STILL cost me a couple hundred OUT OF MY POCKET to see a doctor.

At my income level I am barely keeping afloat - THIS bill will cost me $4000 out of pocket before I ever see a dime in benefit.

And I'm not alone - Families of three and four making in the thirties are in the same boat.

If you're wealthy then you benefit fro this bill and it's additions to your already existing insurance.
If you're barely getting by then you will be screwed.

[pnwmom]

350. Does that figure take into account the subsidy?

Since you are barely keeping afloat now, what happens if you have an accident and end up in the hospital for a week -- and you have no insurance?

[northernlights]

275. good.

By that time I should be through MLT school and pretty mucy hirable anywhere in the world.

[Techn0Girl]

317. It is NOT totally False :(

No, I am afraid that you are wrong.

Look here :
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summa...

It's the house ways and means report regarding the bill. Look at the paragraph that says "Individuals"on page 2. It says:

"Individuals are required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fee equal to lower of 2.5 percent of their adjusted income above the filing threshold or the average premium on the Exchange."

You are REQUIRED to obtain this insurance (if you have no other) or else pay a federal additional incone tax of 2.5%. You make 50K and don't wan't to pay Blue Cross (or whoever)? Prepare to fork over a $1500 fine on your next tax return.

[pitohui]

257. oh ffs what a bunch of hooey (thanks bornskeptic)

if you can't afford insurance then you weren't getting care to begin with, you were only receiving emergency stabilization and otherwise you were being told tough titty, see if you live to be 65 and maybe we'll give you treatment then, if you can find a doctor who is accepting new medicaid patients -- THAT'S THE CURRENT SYSTEM and it needed to be attacked

people who don't have any $$$ are not going to be "required" to "make payments," i'll tell you a secret, there is no way to get blood out of a turnip

HOWEVER the corrupt health industry will now be "required" to provide treatment to those who previously weren't able to get treatment

i love it when defeatists individuals want to snatch defeat even from the jaws of victory

we must start from somewhere better than nowhere

the current system kills, it is unacceptably bad

[pnwmom]

294. +1. nt

[Techn0Girl]

325. Blood out of a turnip

"people who don't have any $$$ are not going to be "required" to "make payments," "

Did you read the report in the bill? Did you read it at all or are you just mouthing platitudes that you heard?

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summa...

That's the bill.

I make 24,000 a year right now. I can barely pay my rent.
This bill says that I am REQUIRED to purchase crappy private insurance at 2000 a year (that's the subsidized rate by the way) and STILL have a 2000 deductible. Read The Report.

I can't afford that.

If I don't then I will get an additional FEDERAL FINE on my taxes of about 400 bucks a year.

" i'll tell you a secret, there is no way to get blood out of a turnip"

You ever default on a STudent Loan or your Federal taxes there, Sparky?
I'll tell you a secret - not only CAN you get blood out of a turnip - you can mash it to pulp while you're doing it.

Read the Bill (summary) and let people know what is REALLY going on.

[superconnected]

356. Love your post. You are sooo right.

Nothing like someone who can't afford insurance at all complaining about this. I suppose if he suddenly did have an emergency room visit (average 6 thousand) he may have a clue. And if he ever does really have an on going medical issue, then he would also wake up instantly. But instead, ignorance is rolling the dice. It's not a good bill but it's a start and it's a heck of a lot better than the current, which is what that poster is on - no insurance, welcome to bankruptcy and possible death from avoiding to get help because of the cost, when you suddenly need help.

[pnwmom]

292. Not true. They can choose the public option, and if their income is low

they will be subsidized.

[Techn0Girl]

318. You need to read the Bill.

1. There is NO public option.

2. The "subsidy" still requires that you pay 2000 premiums each year to Blue Cross (or whoever) even if you make as little as 25000 each year - WTF ?? Oh yeah , by forking that over you will STILL get a crappy policy that allows you to pay a $2000 deductible each year.

Read the bill

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summa...

It's not what you think.

[DemBones DemBones]

186. Premiums will go up if this bill becomes law.

Employers will also drop employee health insurance and tell them to go on the government plan. This is going to be one big clusterfuck.

[pitohui]

259. premiums ALREADY go up and up and up and up

one yr my husband's plan thru his employer went up 100%!!!!

there is no worse clusterfuck than what we already have, a system where people pay and pay and pay and get damn little back

small business ALREADY has had to drop employee health insurance and tells them "well, get on the plan at your spouse's company," of course you're fucked if you don't have a spouse with a high end job

apparently half the people on DU has a spouse in a six figure a year job with a gold plate plan, a job from which they can never get fired mind you, and so they are happy with the current system which fucks everybody else, insured and un-insured alike

i'm amazed, where do all these rich fucks come from? i thought people like that were maybe 1 percent of the population and that's why we die so much younger than people in countries with universal health insurance

seems to me the statistics don't lie, we are dying younger than all these people in all these other countries with universal health insurance but for some reason there is a large loud contigent on DU who thinks that's just fine

[pattmarty]

299. I totally agree with you. When you look at the 1% rich fucks you have................

...............to remember that we are a country of 304 million people, so 1%=3 million people. Think of Chicago. 3 million is an awful lot of dickheads driving around in Lincoln Navigators and "Cadillac" health insurance.

[superconnected]

357. worse, they have no insurance and are rolling the dice hoping not to need it.

"apparently half the people on DU has a spouse in a six figure a year job with a gold plate plan, a job from which they can never get fired mind you, and so they are happy with the current system which fucks everybody else, insured and un-insured alike"

If they actually do get sick, they're screwed far worse than the health bill's payment requirements.

[niceypoo]

260. Both illegal under this bill

You sound like a republican

[truedelphi]

330. I don't think that employers will be able to drop insurance

At least not while they remain the same business entity that they are.

So if Roscoe's Pizza in suburban Anaheim Calif. doesn't like this bill, they would dissolve and become Suzannah's Pizza. And then they weould turn to hiring people here illegally, who don't care whether Soc. Security is paid, and don't care if health insurance is paid. So in states like Arizona, California, New York and Illinois, it will continue the policy of many jobs going automatically to the underclass, rather than to Americans born here. (This is already one rason why those in the 19 to 24 category cannot find work. To find work in areas with high concentrations of people from the other side of the border, a person must know enough and be willing to tell the employer they will work under the table.)

[pattmarty]

233. Except when the rates go up or your employer changes plans and...............

............your RX is dropped and your co-pays and deductible go up.

[CrispyQ]

371. +1

[glinda]

246. Medicare Advantage is in the hole because of the Insurance Companies. No health

care plan is worth anything if it does not either eliminate them or keep them in line. They can't seem to keep the Banks or big corporations in line though so I hope the final Bill is strong for consumer rights and pocket book.

[Techn0Girl]

92. The problem is ...

That if your skimping on health insurance because you are too darn poor (because maybe your job has been outsourced or you were replaced by an H1B worker) then you no longer have that option. 2.5% of your income MINIMUM will be taken anyway and given to the insurance industry.

That's what this bill just did.

Oh, and it MANDATED that insurance companies who participate in the new exchange - every one of them - will NOT pay for abortions. Rape, incest - you name it - it doesn't get paid.

[MajorChode]

124. Here's the part you're convieniently leaving out

You can say the same thing even with countries that have a single payer system. If you have a job, you pay for health insurance. Period. If you are too darn poor, your health insurance will be heavily subsidized or it will cost you nothing.

The Stupidass amendment has about as much chance of reaching the President's desk as a fart in a whirlwind. The process is far from over. A bill will have to go through the Senate, it will have to go through a compromise committee, and it will have to be voted on again. Few (if any) blue dogs will be invited to the compromise table and their amendment, which was never anything more than an attempt at a poison pill, will be nothing more than a bad memory.

[Techn0Girl]

126. I do hope that you are right...

About the Stupack amendment. But my guess is that it will not be withdrawn unless there is an incredible outcry against it.

And by the way - here is how to ragister your displeasure with it to your State Senators...

http://advocacy.barackobama.com/healthcare/campaigns/13...

Regarding your assertion that if you are poor than your health insurance will cost you very little....
I disagree.

In other threads here I pointed out how the Bill itself says that if you make only 25,000 a year (pretty darn little!) you will be required to pay about 2,000 in premiums PLUS you will have a 2,000 deductible on top of that.

As someone currently living on 25,000 a year (unemployment) I can assure you that an additional 4,000 dollars out of my pocket is impossible. Completely impossible.

The figures came from the Ways and Means Committe report Oct 29,2009 that can be obtained here:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_hcr_complete_summa...

[MajorChode]

138. You are reading the numbers wrong

It isn't a $2,000 deductible, it's a $2,000 cap. What that means is that if you manage to pay $2,000 out of your own pocket in a given year, you will pay nothing more. That's not the same as a deductible. It's a catastrophic limit that prevents you from going bankrupt if you have very high medical expenses.

[Techn0Girl]

143. That's an excellent point...

It is a 2000 Cap. Nothing will force insurance companies to make their annual deductible for these lower cost policies equal to the annual cap. Nothing will stop them from doing it either. You will have to pay for the policy no matter what they do.

However there is nothing in the bill that limits what an insurance company can charge as a deductible.

Now given the insurance company's record so far....
Do you honestly believe that they will not charge the maximum (the CAP) for the deductible to maximize their profit for these low cost policies? There is nothing stopping them from doing this in the current bill. Nothing at all.

Of course we don't know whether insurance companies will create policies that maximize their deductibles to the CAP limit . They could decide to be nice and have much lover deductibles for their policies, right? It could happen.

But you know what I'm thinking .....

[MajorChode]

152. They wouldn't be very smart if they did

For one thing, the bill does say that they can't charge a deductible or even a co-pay for preventive services.

I haven't read every single line of the bill, but even if insurance companies are free to set whatever deductible they want, I don't think they are going to be able to set the deductible on a per person basis. Since the cap works on a sliding scale, how are they going to establish a deductible that meets everyone's cap, which is based on income? Furthermore, insurance companies have to compete and monopolies are going to be nearly impossible in most markets. Since coverage probably won't be that much different, I suspect most people are going to make their choices based on the deductible.

[Techn0Girl]

156. Wouldn't be very smart ....

"For one thing, the bill does say that they can't charge a deductible or even a co-pay for preventive services."

That's good to keep in mind I suppose. But remember that preventative services are usually (unfortunately) lower cost services. Flu shots cost a lot less than getting a cast in the E.R.

Since people are being required to take this insurance - Literally required by an additional Federal tax on their income of from several hundred to several thousand dollars a year - what possible incentive would insurance companies have to make a lower deductible than the maximum allowed by law? They have a captive audience.

Did the passage of "no-fault" auto insurance lower premiums at all? NO, it was an insurance industry initiative to make it illegal to not have auto insurance - ? Premiums rose radically in each state within a few years after the "no-fault" law passage. Why should they have lower rates? No insurance and you can't drive - you can't even register you car in most states without insurance. There is no free market when you are REQUIRED to buy the product.

They have never shown any interest in being generous or having a social conscious thus far.

Don't get me wrong - I am FOR universal health insurance for everybody.
But this ain't it. It's not even close.

[MajorChode]

168. Did anyone actually think that anyone would be able to opt out of buying insurance?

In all countries that have universal coverage, those that can pay, do pay. The only question is how much.

Under the bill that passed today, Medicaid gets expanded and will cover more people, which is a great thing. Those who are struggling and still not covered by Medicaid or Medicare will be subsidized or even if they do have coverage it may get subsidized, which is also a great thing. Where people keep getting wrapped around the axle is they think they are being forced to subsidize private insurance. Not many people are going to fall into that category. The reality is that the vast majority of those who don't presently have coverage are going to either get free coverage or a subsidy. So it's more accurate to say that someone else will be subsidizing private insurance, not them.

Private insurers already see the writing on the wall. No longer are they going to be allowed to rape consumers without getting checked. That's why they lobbied so heavily against this bill. Whether you like it or not, the public option is there and it has its foot in the door. The more private insurers profiteer, the more they will be checked by it which could include putting them out of business entirely as the legislation is expanded. So at the very least it makes them more accountable, which is also a great thing.

[Techn0Girl]

180. Did anyone actually think ....

"Under the bill that passed today, Medicaid gets expanded and will cover more people, which is a great thing. Those who are struggling and still not covered by Medicaid or Medicare will be subsidized or even if they do have coverage it may get subsidized, which is also a great thing."

I'm not sure where you're getting this all from. Firstly the expanded Medicare coverage will only cover an extremely small percentage. No individual who makes more than 15,000 a year will benefit from it at all. Secondly, as I've already pointed out and linked to numerous times before ...this bill will require someone making a barely subsistence wage of 24,000 a year, who has no insurance, to fork over an ADDITIONAL 2 grand a year to a private insurance firm and THEN pay an additional 2000 a year more for his deductible.

That's not a great thing.

This bill requires that all participating insurance companies not pay for abortions be it by rape, or incest or anything else.

That's also not a great thing.


"Where people keep getting wrapped around the axle is they think they are being forced to subsidize private insurance. Not many people are going to fall into that category. "

Actually each and every person who dies not have insurance falls into that category. This bill requires that you pay up to a private insurance company whether you want to or not. Whether you feel you can afford it or not. And if you choose not to then you will be fined by additional Federal Taxes, close to half the amount you had to fork over to the private insurance company.


That's what this bill currently does.
Read the bill.
Read the Ways and Means committee report that I linked to half a dozen times in this thread.

Read. Don't assume



The reality is"

[winyanstaz]

182. Thank you for your information...and for telling us like it is.

I dont see much in this bill except a big handout to the insurance companies and another kick in the butt for the working poor.
Just where is a family barely making it now going to get another 4 thousand a year to pay for insurance and deductables?
If this is the best they can do..to hell with it.

[Techn0Girl]

190. You're Welcome ....

I appreciate the thought.

Some times ...ok most times I feel that the Progressive movement's biggest obstacle isn't the GOP but rather the people within the cause who can't see beyond their own noses.

For far too many people, the political process is more like some reality TV episode and they have this single minded team mentality where they're only interested in voting some other team off the island. And it's such small minded thinking that enabled politicians, be they GOP or Democrats like Liberman (and many others) , to continue to screw us over while they kowtow to Big Business and rake in the bucks.

We have to grow bigger than "Yeah Team!".
We have to grow smarter than that.
We have to put in the effort.

[winyanstaz]

194. exactly....

I think a lot of the art of critical thinking has been lost due to todays educational system..or something...hell maybe it's too much tv.
All I know for sure is a large majority of people don't stop to think things out..or even research before they open their yaps.

[musicblind]

266. You ignored all of the information she just gave to you

it seems in political debates... information just isn't important to some people.

[Techn0Girl]

332. What information am I ignoring...

You will have to be specific.

I think that MJ and I are just concentrating on differing aspects of the bill. I am concentrating on the impact it will have to the lower and lower-middle class ,

What is it do you feel that I am ignoring?

[Techn0Girl]

199. ---

[whathappened]

227. health care for all , bs

my wife and i are on disability and she has just got her medicare , to show u what this bs bill will do , it will take from the poor and give to the rich , well wife was waiting to get her disability i was getting my part d plan paid for , as soon as she got her 550 buck check a month , the gov decided we make to much money and took my part d away from me and denied her for part d , we make 1200 to much a year , beware about this new health care , it may end up costing everybody more then it gives , i say vote it down and go after single payer and raise the limit on how much the min amount , we bring in 22,000 , and were turned down , they got allot of loop holes no body see's tell you get into the nuts and bolts , this is just another part d plan , made over to look like a health care for all bill

[No Elephants]

140. That's like saying, if you have a job, you pay payroll taxes, period.

[MajorChode]

145. In some countries, yes

Some single payer plans do implement premiums that way, others have specific income limits. In the House bill, Medicaid is expanded so if you are 150% over the federal poverty level or lower, you pay nothing and if you are as much as 400% of the poverty level your premiums will be subsidized.

So yes, some people who may not be all that well off are going to be paying some out of pocket if they don't have health insurance now, but in some cases they will be getting a lot for very little which is a damn site better than what they have now which is nothing for nothing.

[No Elephants]

157. We should not be mandated to buy from private companies, only from government.

That is very fundamental. It doesn't have to be single payer, but people who are mandated should have AT LEAST the option of purchasing from the government, if not the requirement. This is no different from a government imposed tax. It should not enrich private companies. This is worse than taxation without representation. It's taxation by government that benefits private interests instead of the general population.

I am not even sure this would pass Constitutional muster with any SCOTUS to date, with the possible exception of the shameful Roberts Court.

[MajorChode]

170. On what basis do you think it wouldn't pass USSC muster?

Do you have any relevant case law you can cite? I keep hearing this, but I have yet to see one iota of anything relevant that proves that assertion. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just haven't seen a proof of it or even much of an attempt.

There's all sorts of private entities that enrich themselves off tax dollars. That's nothing new. The difference here is that many people do benefit from this. There are lots of winners in this bill who aren't insurance companies. The biggest losers will be the uber rich who are hit with surcharges to help pay for those in need.

[No Elephants]

173. Sorry, but you would have to read a lot of cases before you come to that

conclusion because it is not any single case or handful of cases. There's never been a bill like this, so, of course, the existence of direct SCOTUS precedents is impossible. However, both conservative courts and liberal courts have been picky about taking private property for a private purpose. A notable exception is a case involving eminent domain being a relatively recent exception.

In that case, Connecticut used its eminent domain power to take private property, supposedly at an unfairly low price, and a private developer was to develop that property and others to improve a blighted area. The case caused a huge outcry. The land remains undeveloped today, and the original property owner remains screwn. With this bill, we don't even have the due process that goes with an exercise of the power of eminent domain.

And, please don't mischaracterize what I posted. I never said I did not think this bill would not pass Supreme Court review. I said the constitutionality of this bill is uncertain, but this court might uphold it. Two different issues.

Remember, the Supreme Court has made some shameful decisions, like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, among others. So, just bc a Supreme Court upholds something, doesn't mean something is Constitutional in the abstract. Yes, we (as a nation) had to live with those bad decisions, but the Constitution existed separate and apart from them and so did the issue of the constitutionality of both the laws AND of the SCOTUS decisions.


"There's all sorts of private entities that enrich themselves off (sic) tax dollars."


Yes, but this is different. You are conflating a number of issues. This is requiring one group of private individuals to transfer their money to private companies--amd on an ongoing basis. No use of eminent domain. No use of general tax funds, etc. Could the government tax everyone who doesn't own shoes and give the mooney to my friends and me to build a shoe factory (and allow us to deny a Constitutional right of women while we were at it)? Even if we sell these folks reasonably priced shoes?

That example is a lot closer to this bill than, say, offering developers across the country tax incentives to build affordable affordable housing for anyone who qualifies. We are forcing people to buy something they chose not to buy and doing that, not for the benefit of the Treasury, but for a handful of rapacious companies.

Without at least a strong public option, I don't know where in the Constitution you find that power--and despite the Commerce clause cases, the federal government is still a government of granted powers. So, let's turn this around the way the Constitution was always supposed to work: Where in the Constitution do you see Congress being empowered to do anything like my shoe factory example, or, more to the point, what is being done via this bill?

And, even if the bill is Constitutional, which I sincerely doubt, it is not a good one and forcing people to buy something from private corporations that have proven themselves rapacious and ruthless is not a good direction in which to expand the law. Certainly not a direction that I ever expection the Democratic Party to take.

[MajorChode]

187. I can't follow your argument

conclusion because it is not any single case or handful of cases. Both conservative courts and liberal courts have been picky about taking private property for a private purpose. A notable exception is a case involving eminent domain being a relatively recent exception.

In that case, Connecticut used its eminent domain power to take private property, supposedly at an unfairly low price, and a private developer was to develop that property and others to improve a blighted area. The case caused a huge outcry. The land remains undeveloped today, and the original property owner remains screwn(sic).

You mention the taking of private property for a private purpose, but this doesn't even come close to reflecting the proposal. I'm well aware of the eminent domain case you cited, but in this case the government is not confiscating private capital for direct transfer to someone else. In this bill they are simply imposing an additional tax if you choose not to buy insurance, and the courts have long upheld that congress can impose taxes based on income. So the person most certainly can opt out of buying private insurance. This may not be much of a choice, but neither is not buying auto insurance in just about every state.

And, please don't misquote me or change what I postedd(sic). I never said I did not think this bill would not pass Supreme Court review. I said the constitutionality of this bill is uncertain, but this court might uphold it. Two different issues(sic).

Actually what you said was that you didn't think it would pass SCOTUS muster on any previous court. Whether it would or wouldn't pass in this particular one is largely irrelevant because they happen to be the final arbiter of the US Constitution right now. Any speculation about what they would or wouldn't do is pretty much academic, but one thing I'm reasonably certain is they won't simply author a decision based on words they pulled out of their ass. I would expect some relevant case law in there somewhere. If I were to speculate on what they would or would not do, and I did assume they were heavily biased politically, I can't see that bias working in favor of the Democrats.

Yes, but this is different. You are conflating a number of issues. This is requiring one group of private individuals to transfer their money to private companies--amd on an ongoing basis. No use of eminent domain. No use of general tax funds, etc. Could the government tax everyone who doesn't own shoes and give the mooney(sic) to my friends and me to build a shoe factory (and allow us to deny a Constitutional right of women while we were at it)? Even if we sell these folks reasonably priced shoes?

Actually, yes I think it can, at least as far as tax that is based on income. Congress is free to tax your income at will. Those taxes usually go into the general fund and congress is more or less free to draw money out of the general fund and spend on expenses they deem necessary, including the funding of private enterprises, but that's not even a good analogy because there's no guarantee any money generated out of additional taxes will be specifically earmarked for health care spending whether it be public or private. So the bottom line is that Congress has the ability to levy taxes based on income, and they are free to spend money out of the general fund for expenses they deem necessary. I don't see the conflict with the Constitution.

[No Elephants]

209. A point by point response to your post would be too much work because we seem to be talking

at cross purposes.

However, let me point out again that requiring individuals to buy something from a private company does not involve Congress's taxing power OR its power to spend from the Treasury. This is private individuals being required to take their own money and spend it with private companies when they do not want to do that. That is unprecedented in this country, in every possible meaning of the word.

And eminent domain is a very different "process" from simply enacting a law that requires one group of Americans--not the general population--to spend money with private companies in ways they do not choose to.

Nor is Congress's power to spend from the Treasury unlimited by Constitutional constraints. A statement like that is antithetical to the very concept of our federalist system.

But again, Constitutionality/court was never my main point. It was an aside in my original post, and all I said about it orignally was that I was not sure. Nonetheless, it was the only point from my original post that you chose to try to address.


So, again, I'll end my participation on this subthread with:

"Forcing people to buy something from private corporations that have proven themselves rapacious and ruthless is not a good direction in which to expand the law. Certainly not a direction that I ever expection (sic) the Democratic Party to take."

[MajorChode]

274. I'll end this discussion with this thought

I recognize that you no longer wish to discuss this subject and I'm not going to claim victory just because I happened to get the last word. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't agree. You keep assuming (incorrectly IMO) that citizens will be 'required' to buy health insurance, and this just plays into the already over abundant rhetoric that's being thrown out there like shit against a wall. You've built the rest of your argument around that premise and if that fails, so does the rest of it. This bill doesn't require anyone to buy anything. They may suffer on their taxes come April 15th if they don't, but that's not the same thing. You can make all sorts of decisions throughout the year that affect your taxes. Almost every state in the union requires its members to buy auto insurance if they want to put their cars on public roads and this has been universally upheld. You may say that people aren't technically required to buy auto insurance because they can just leave their car parked in their driveway, but I would argue that neither will they be required to buy health insurance under this bill.

[No Elephants]

291. Please see Reply 63. The obligation is not a matter of your opinion or mine.

I didn't want to discuss constitutional law with you anymmore. However, I cannot let a misstatement about the very contents of the bill itself go with no comment.


The bill contains mandates for both individuals and employers. If you do not obey the mandates, you pay a penalty. See, among many, many others, http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1556149.html It's nothing like a garden variety tax planning decision. And if you don't pay the penalty, you could get your property seized or go to jail.

You can dress it up in any language you want, but, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck, not tax planning.

[MajorChode]

302. I'm not going to let that one go either

I'm not going to argue based on someone's opinion of the bill which doesn't even answer the question. The bill itself is crystal clear and needs no interpretation by anyone.

TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986(emphasis added)
Part VIII:
Sec. 59B. Tax(emphasis added) on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962 :

It walks like a duck (amends the tax code), it talks like a duck (they specifically call it a tax), so yes it is a duck. So you may offer rhetoric about it being a penalty and in defense I suppose you could technically call all taxes the penalty for living in a society ruled by laws. Taxes and deductions are often used as carrots and sticks by congress. Nothing new there or even remotely unconstitutional. The property seizure you cite can happen to anyone who doesn't pay their taxes. Nothing new there or even remotely unconstitutional. And the question is not whether such is morally or ethically consistent, but rather constitutionally consistent and from where I sit it obviously is. YMMV.

Don't forget that private businesses have been similarly compelled to buy private health insurance for their employees for decades. Had this been a valid Constitutional question, it would have been asked and answered many years ago.

[No Elephants]

313. Reply 63 cites chapter and verse from the bill, not opinion. You need to look at it.

I understand the tax code and its utility in social policy, and maybe better than you do. Cut the condescension.


Contents of the bill, tax code fine. As far as the constitutional issue, though I said two posts ago that I would not be discussing that one with you any further and I didn't and I won't. You can keep going solo on that one as long as you like.

[MajorChode]

328. Bull butter

There's no section 7203 or 7201 in the bill(dooh!). That's the peril you face when you let others do your thinking for you. When you can actually cite the bill itself, and not what someone else thinks is in the bill, then we'll talk. Fair enough? As you say, you need to look at it. There may have been such language in an earlier version which never made it to a vote, but it would have been redundant anyway. Willfully refusing to pay your taxes has been punishable by jail time for at least the last 60 years or so.

Nothing I posted previously was condescending. I was supporting my assertions with facts and cites from the bill itself, unlike you. You however, most certainly are condescending and if you want to go down that road, that's fine too. I can give a lot better than I get. Most people learned at an early age not to dish it out if you can't take it.

Cheers!

[No Elephants]

334. I did not let anyone do my thinking for me. That's is nothing but more

mischaracterization cum condescion from you.

I did rely on another poster's having looked up the accurate section numbers. The existence of penalties is the substantive point, not the section numbers. Besides, finding a section number is looking something up, not "thinking." And, oh, look, here are two more authors who disagree with you about penalties. They give section numbers, too. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/66879-... .

"Nothing I posted previously was condescending."

Perhaps you are clueless about that, even though I am not the only poster on this thread to point that out to you. Old saying: "When one person calls you a jackass, get offended. When two people call you a jackass, get a saddle."

In other words, when two people reaching the same conclusion about you independently of each other, you should at least consider the possiblity that they are right. But, of course, one who condescends habitually is not likely to do that, either.


Here's a clue. Purporting to "educate" me on tax code, with as though your knowledge of the tax code is vastly superior to mine, is indeed condescending--especially when the information you were purporting to convey to me is about as fundamental and basic as "the sky appears to be above us." And I gave other examples elsewhere on this thread. Direct quotes, with post numbers.

"Most people learned at an early age not to dish it out if you can't take it."

Back atcha. I let several remarks from you to me go by before I said anything at all about it. And I did so only after another poster and that poster called you on the same kind of thing.


"I can give a lot better than I get"

LOL. That would seem to be an accurate statement of your opinion of yourself. So far, though, I have not seen a lot of evidence that your opinion of yourself relative to others is accurate.

BTW, I'd love to know why you think I can't take "it," especially when "it" requires you to mischaracterize or spin something before you can even begin to criticize it.

[Techn0Girl]

319. They may suffer on their taxes ....

"This bill doesn't require anyone to buy anything. They may suffer on their taxes come April 15th if they don't, but that's not the same thing"

Isn't that like saying "We don't REQUIRE that you adhere to the speed limit but if you don't then you may suffer a $500 penalty"

[MajorChode]

338. I don't think so

It's two different things, and remember I'm not judging this bill based on the merit of whether this is right or wrong, just on the constitutionality. I think it's a cold shot in the ass to expect someone to pay higher taxes when they can't afford insurance to begin with. It's kinda like your bank charging you an inflated overdraft fee. I might be able to see it if they could get health care costs down to the level of other countries and it weren't such an inflated burden to the have nots.