3/15/10 Reconciliation Healthcare Bill (PDF) 2309 pages

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I've enjoyed reading the arguments and you giving the minority view, based on the numbers from recent polls.

One thing you will not be able to sweep under the rug, is the governments seemingly inexhaustible inability to oversee any program, of any kind, without the cost going up and the service and quality going down. History bears me out on this in all cases.

You can not ignore the fact we are talking one sixth of the nations budget here. This is of historical proportions. It is being done against the wishes of the majority of the citizens. It is so hard to swallow, even for the party in control of the entire government who can not be stopped, that they are having trouble passing it.

We are, if you have not noticed, in the midst of a major recession right now. Once again today the US was warned it is about to loose its credit rating and if this passes probably will. This is not partisan nonsense, it is a fact.

It is so expensive they are going to tax us for years before the first person receives the first dollar in benefit from this.

Those pushing this keep lying and saying the opposition is against health care reform. That is a bald faced lie. We want to approach it in a methodical manner, testing ideas along the way.

Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid could be dealt with right now and yet the Administration pretends it can not unless this bill passes as is. That is a bald faced lie.

Open competition between insurers could be done right now at no cost and would instantly lower health care insurance costs. Why was that not done months ago if the crafters of this monstrosity were being honest? The only possible reason is those who wrote this bill and the party that has complete control is in the hip pocket of the insurance companies no matter what lie they tell.

Senators were bribed, yes bribed as there is no other name for it, and some people will receive special treatment so they could get enough votes in the Senate. Unions are being bribed to the tune of many billions and those not in unions will pay more for care. At what point does simple honesty, ethics and decency enter into this!

The people who will be dealing with the Reconciliation package do not have the power to keep the promises they are making to the House, which means it is all another lie. Does that matter? At all?

If it takes years to pass a bill that spends one dollar in six in this country, it would be smart, not dumb. Dumb is rushing into a huge monstrosity in the hands of a government that has proven itself time and time again, to be incompetent to handle far smaller programs. It is doomed from the start and BOTH sides know this.

The farther our minds slip out of the reach of the devil's legislative claws, the tighter his grip becomes.

Word.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


There are two separate issues involved with this so called "health care reform" Bill. The first issue is actually health care reform which is demonstrably needed in the United States today. Health care is not nor should it ever be synonymous with insurance schemes. Health insurance is a perfectly serviceable product in the free market, but when attempting to create a social program that endeavors to expand medical coverage to more people, insurance schemes should not be the only topic of discussion...and yet, that is all that has been discussed in regards to this current legislative efforts on health care reform. It has been, from the get go, nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

The second issue, inextricably tied to the whole insurance scheme issue, is the Constitutionality of legislation that would, in effect, force people to buy health insurance whether they wanted to, needed to, or not, or at the very least, pay the cost of that insurance with or without its usage. Can The United States Congress force people to buy a private product as a matter of law? This is, as has been stated earlier in this thread, the primary question that needs to be asked. Does Congress have the legal authority to mandate health insurance policies to the public?

Before answering that last question, it might be prudent first to consider the nature of this legislation and whether or not health care is being reformed. The arguments from those who favor some version of this current demonstration of "health care reform" by Congress usually offer support for mandatory health insurance through justification. In typical Machiavellian fashion the means are justified by the end, which is the promise of expanded health care coverage for the populace, by forcing everyone to pay into the "fund" by either purchasing a policy or paying a fine.

The end never justifies the means and it is always the other way around where the means justify the end, and in the end, any attempts to achieve an end by any means necessary is an ill fated end bound to fail because of its own hubris. If the attempt in reforming health care is to reign in skyrocketing medical costs then it should be fairly evident that turning to a third party for profit company to reign in these costs is unnecessary. That the third party industry Congress is turning to in order to "reform" health care is the insurance industry is indeed telling. Insurance, no matter how you slice it, regardless of what one is insuring, regardless of the precautions taken, is still, in the end, speculation.

Industries that deal in speculation are probably not the best model for health care costs. There are many reasons health care in Western industrial nations has risen greatly. Of those many reasons, cancer was mentioned in this thread as a viable and probable threat for many sometime in the future. This dire prediction was made in advocacy of the legislation mandating forced insurance policies. It is also a prediction that has been made by many medical researchers, scientists and doctors. Cancer is on the rise, not on the wane and is a greater threat to people today than it was 100 years ago.

Legislating a mandatory insurance scheme that forces people to buy private industry product is not going to even come close to addressing the very serious problem that cancer is a major problem in Western societies today, and the costs of dealing with cancer is not in prevention but in the aftermath handling the symptoms as well as the disease. Of the multitude of ways that Congress could and probably should endeavor to legislate in meaningful ways that serve to educate the populace about preventive health care and healthy living, instead they have chosen to craft a piece of legislation more than two thousand pages long, that creates a legal precedence never before set by The U.S. Congress, and greatly oversteps the bounds of their Constitutional authority.

We are all presumed to know the law here and as such ignorance of the law is inexcusable. When the Constitutional authority of Congress to pass such legislation is challenged this means that jurisdiction has been challenged and it is a long held common law principle that when jurisdiction is challenged it is incumbent upon the party asserting jurisdiction to prove on record that such jurisdiction exists. The principle behind this is rooted in the logic that a negative can't be proven. If it doesn't exist, it is not incumbent upon the skeptic to prove its non existence, it is incumbent upon the advocate to prove it does exist and this principle has been a long standing model in American jurisprudence.

If Congress has Constitutional authority to mandate private insurance policies to the public, then proving this authority should be no problem and as easy as pointing to the precise Clause of the Constitution in which that authority was granted. If that authority can't be shown then it is to be construed that Congress does not have that authority and it is an issue left to the states or the people respectively.

The whole issue of the federal government withholding funds from states in order to force them to comply with federal legislation still ignores the authority of the people. Just as the Constitution remains silent on health care, so do the vast majority of state constitutions, and any challenge of jurisdiction of federal level is just as valid on any state level, as it is doubtful any government holds the legal authority to mandate purchases of products and if the people reject such a form of tyranny as invalid government then there is far more those people can do than what has been suggested by those who advocate the current attempt at health care reform legislation.

It has been argued that the only way to properly challenge this legislation is to take it to the Supreme Court, but this argument is demonstrably false and while claiming that the narrow options available is the process, blatantly ignoring the actual process in order to promulgate this fanciful view of American jurisprudence. Long before any law reaches The Supreme Court, that law has all ready been challenged on several different levels all ready. The SCOTUS is, after all, the Final Court of Appeals.

This legislation, if passed, can and should be challenged by as many people opposing it as possible. This means simply ignoring the mandate and openly challenging the jurisdiction on the matter. The issue of proper jurisdiction will have to be handled in a court of law, and no doubt, much of that will be handled via "income tax" laws, and fines for not complying with the legislation. If the jurisdiction has been properly challenged then it is incumbent upon the court party asserting jurisdiction to prove on record that jurisdiction exists.

Once the issue is framed in terms of proper jurisdiction, all other arguments for and against the "health care reform" legislation become moot and it doesn't matter if the Bill serves a "greater good" or not, and all that matters is that jurisdiction be proved. This turns the prosecution against an individual for failure to comply with the legislation in on itself and suddenly it is the prosecution on the defensive and not the defendant. If the challenge of jurisdiction has been wisely made an issue of before the prosecution can bring it to trial, then it can not move to a trial until the prosecution can prove proper jurisdiction and if the law itself has been challenged then that legislation can't be used as evidence of jurisdiction.

Thus, failing proof of jurisdiction, the only authority the prosecution or judge in the matter has, is to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. There is never enough characters in these spaces to say it all. Out of space so I'll end here.

2309 pages of legalese babble.

Jesus Christ almighty.

Bless you, if you understand any of it because I couldn't.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Brilliant post, star and flag for you. Outkast Researcher, you should read this post thoroughly. It may help you understand your own ignorance.

reply to post by kdial1


Diabolical Update, March 16: The House Dem Leadership may pass the Senate bill WITHOUT voting on it:

""It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

"The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.""

www.washingtonpost.com...
"House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it"
The Washington Post
March 16, 2010, page A1






[edit on 16-3-2010 by pumpkinorange]

reply to post by pumpkinorange


Ya it is called the "Slaughter Rule" named after Congresswoman Slaughter... How fitting

Slaughter Rule

-Kdial1

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

They won't be getting subsidized healthcare...they will be getting subsidies to PURCHASE health insurance. There is a big difference. So now each time they go to the doctor...either once or a million times...they will most likely have a co-pay and then the insurance will cover the rest. I don't see how an increased in health care use (more revenue for doctors/hospitals) would cause health care costs to rise. Healthcare isn't a limited supply commodity...so an increase demand won't neccesarily increase costs.

This is false. There is a limited number of doctors, nurse practitioners, and nurses. Many practicioners and clinics allready instate a 15 minute limit on doctor patient visit time. If you add 30 million more people to the load it will effect time. Time will become limited to the point that patients will have to pay more to get access.

Simply not true. And again...they won't have "subsidized healthcare"...they will have health insurance just like everyone else...they will just get assistance in purchasing this health insurance.

So how is a subsidy not a subsidy? How does this mean tax payer dollars will not be helping pay for the insurance? This is just a matter of semantics.





[edit on 16-3-2010 by MikeNice81]

2300 pages? Seriously? Try using a smaller font and leading for christ sakes!

People that agree with this bill are those that are still living "comfortably". The rest of us with our jobs on the line (or already lost), rising costs all around us, and savings accounts emptied most likely are the ones against it.

I cannot justify rising health care costs even IF it will benefit in the long run. I don't understand how anyone in this crappy market can justify it either, aside from those that don't see the failing economy first hand. But when your forced to dig in your change jar to pay the mortgage like most of us are already doing, perhaps you will understand.

Originally posted by dorkidori_s13


1) you obviously have no friends/family in canada or the UK where socialist medicine is practiced...the conditions of those healthcare systems are even worse than our own

[edit on 15-3-2010 by dorkidori_s13]

Two points:

1) Both U.K. and Canada are way above U.S.A. on the W.H.O. rating. (or are they part of your perceived conspiracy?)

2) Nobody in U.K. or Canada has to check their bank balance before they get Cancer. (or are cancer patients part of your conspiracy too?)

You can not be an American if you favor passage of this bill as it constitutes a continued assault on our liberty. Freedom is not free and the nanny state is not the answer. What's an American? You'll be hard pressed to find one around, but it's more than a matter of opinion and it's certainly more than your name on some piece of paper somewhere. Some adherence to the principals that founded the country could be construed as a possible characteristic.

Do you hate the flag?
Do you think the founding fathers were racists, sexist homophobes who probably would not favor unrestricted illegal immigration?
Do you think Americans are evil imperialists?

I supported, campaigned for and voted for Scott Brown because he would stop this bill, and his election should have, if we were not currently undergoing a hostile socialist takeover.

Come on people. Can we all be honest about what is really pushing this?

Insurance Money To Congress 2008

Pharma/Health Products Money To Congress

In 2008 Barack received more money from Pharma than any other Congressman. He received the second largest amount from insurance companies.

Seven of the top ten congressmen receiving money from Insurance companies are Democrats. Six out of the top ten congressmen getting money from Pharma companies are Democrats.

Now republicans aren't exempt from Insurance and Pharma Money. The Republicans get more money as a party from those companies than the Democrats do. That in my opinion is why they fought the public option. It wasn't about quality of care. It was about the insurance companies not being able to compete with the public option. Their gross and net income would have been slashed if not ravaged. So, Republicans stepped in to the gap and saved big Insurers income and profit streams.

There is a flip side to that equation as well. Insurers that specialize in health insurance and HMOs donate more to democrats. One Democrat in particular has cleaned up at the Big Health buffet. Mister Barack Obama received more than 5 times as much money as the nearest non presidential candidate congressman. They donated over 1.4 million dollars to his presidential campaign in 2008. That is why he didn't push the public option. He could not afford to alienate such generous donors. Six of the top ten congressman recieving money from HMO/Health services companies were Democrats.

HMO/Health Services Money To Congress

This isn't about people. This is about repaying donors. What better way to repay generous donors than to force the populace to buy their product. Then you make a special deal to ensure another donor (pharma) only sees a drop in prices of 8 billion dollars over the next decade instead of 16 billion.

This bill is a bastardized mutt that serves no one except the moneyed elite that fund these people's careers.

I'm all for health care reform. This bill isn't it though.

Just look at the section covering the "Health Care Exchange."

Page 136 line five states that the exchange must be run by the individual states. There isn't one exchange that helps to reduce insurance cost across the board. What it does is set up new state run exchanges that allow businesses and consumers to buy insurance. It doesn't really change anything. It doesn't say that the state has to allow new companies in or increase competition.

The state must however assume the cost of running a web portal and toll free hotline to help consumers and employers that have questions. There are pages and pages of requirements that will cost the states money. Then there is the little piece that says the exchange must pay for its self by 2015. So the states have to charge the insurance companies to be involved in the exchange. This is a covert tax. The insurance company has to pay for the ability to sell insurance in a state. So, what will happen then? The insurance company will pass that cost along in higher premiums.

For every decent idea I read in this bill there is a hand full of really bad ideas. The increase in bureaucracy alone is staggering. I can not and will not support this bill. If Pelosi and the house democrats decide to use "deem and pass" we need to call for their impeachment. Then we need to let it be known that the republicans will be held to the same standards.

That means investigating them for anything that meets the constitutional standard.

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The last I checked tax evasion is a misdemeanor and so is knowingly writing a bad check. We could easily find enough to boot a few people in both houses.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I have a question that I doubt I'm the only one pondering.

If someone is low income and has a community or state provided form of health coverage at low (or no) cost to them, does that count as having insurance? Or will these people suddenly find themselves paying a tax equal to the cost of something they couldn't afford to begin with just for not having it?

No the bill says they will get an exemption if they are allready covered under state provided insurance. Some people will be able to qualify for exemptions and others will qualify for subsidies to lower insurance costs.

Not to worry. Although I agree with the purpose of the bill, I totally disagree with the methodology of its implementation.

If this bill passes and Obama signs it, he will be in violation of his oath of office which is to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution clearly states what the mandates of the Federal government are, and that all other matters belong to the separate states or the people thereof.

Health care is NOT specifically allotted to the Federal government. Therefore, Obama is overstepping his rights and is in clear violation of the Constitution he swore to protect.

Impeachment is necessary!

reply to post by Blaine91555

One thing you will not be able to sweep under the rug, is the governments seemingly inexhaustible inability to oversee any program

This is more of government regulation than government run, and I am all for government regulation. What happened to the airline industry when it was deregulated? Trucking industry? Banking industry?

Having said that...I am still for the public option because that still isn't the government taking over...it is just the government being a low cost option for people who can't afford private insurance. Now...instead of that we have subsidies for those that would of been buying the public option instead.

You can not ignore the fact we are talking one sixth of the nations budget here. This is of historical proportions. It is being done against the wishes of the majority of the citizens.

I believe it is one sixth of our economy...not of the nations budget. Either way...yes I agree it is big...and I also believe that medical costs are spiraling out of control...so something needs to be done. I just happen to support this plan more than other plans I've heard. It still isn't perfect in my eyes...I wish the public option was still in there.

Let's not forget that Obama was elected by a large majority of the people...and he said throughout the campaign that he plans on overhauling health care. The poll numbers aren't accurate, there is another thread today saying Michael Moore is against this bill...and he is...but because he wants the public option or even more of a nationalized system. And I think there is a portion of maybe 10-15% of the poll numbers of people just like this...where they are against this not because they think it is too much...but because they think it is not enough. I would be included in that bunch...but I still see this as a step in the right direction.

Once again today the US was warned it is about to loose its credit rating and if this passes probably will. This is not partisan nonsense, it is a fact.

I haven't heard that if this bill passes that it is a fact that we will loose our credit rating. Could you provide a link to a source because I would be interested in reading that.

I trust the CBO numbers...and those numbers estimate that this plan will actually save the US money over 10-20 years. I don't see how you think that would be a bad thing.

Those pushing this keep lying and saying the opposition is against health care reform. That is a bald faced lie. We want to approach it in a methodical manner, testing ideas along the way.

Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid could be dealt with right now and yet the Administration pretends it can not unless this bill passes as is. That is a bald faced lie.

Open competition between insurers could be done right now at no cost and would instantly lower health care insurance costs. Why was that not done months ago if the crafters of this monstrosity were being honest? The only possible reason is those who wrote this bill and the party that has complete control is in the hip pocket of the insurance companies no matter what lie they tell.

I am one of those people who say you can't do this incrementally. Trying to get fraud out of medicare...that may be able to be done without a full bill...but it won't amount to much for the average American. It will save the federal government some money...but will do nothing for medical costs for the American public not on medicare. Even those on medicare won't see a benefit.

Any other proposal will be able to work on it's own. You can't eliminate pre-existing conditions without putting some sort of mandate in place. You can't allow insurance companies to sell across state lines without putting some sort of minimum standard of coverage in place...that minimum will include elimination of pre-existing conditions, which will again need a mandate in place. Tort reform? That saves a very small amount of money...and there is proof that medical malpractice claims, settlement payouts and malpractice insurance rates are all on the decline and have been for the past 5-10 years. The only people this would benefit would be doctors...and it would punish people who are actual victims of malpractice. It is not a driving force in rising medical costs.

Senators were bribed, yes bribed as there is no other name for it, and some people will receive special treatment so they could get enough votes in the Senate. Unions are being bribed to the tune of many billions and those not in unions will pay more for care. At what point does simple honesty, ethics and decency enter into this!

I agree...I wish no special deals were cut. But I also am not naive enough to believe that this doesn't happen in every bill. Is it right? No. But it happens all the time...why are people all of a sudden so outraged by it? Some see it as reps and senators working hard for their constituients. They go out and they get what their people need...everyone else might be mad at that rep...but the people that vote for him will LOVE him for it.

The people who will be dealing with the Reconciliation package do not have the power to keep the promises they are making to the House, which means it is all another lie. Does that matter? At all

I'm not sure what promises you are speaking of? Again if you have a source I would be interested in reading up on this.

If it takes years to pass a bill that spends one dollar in six in this country, it would be smart, not dumb. Dumb is rushing into a huge monstrosity

This has been going on for over a year...we are hardly rushing into it. I don't know the end outcome...right now I think this is the best solution. Could I be wrong...absolutely. Could you be wrong about this being a bad solution...absolutely. A lot of research has gone into this...the CBO has done so many estimates it is ridiculous. The opposition has come down from death panels and this turning us socialists to an argument of maybe this is unconstitutional and that it is being "forced" through.

It is time to do something about health care...we have worked on it and discussed it for over a year now...there is nothing left to hash out. I believe this is going to be passed soon. We'll see.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Health insurance is a perfectly serviceable product in the free market

I 100% disagree...we probably can't be more opposite on this issue. We are currently in the situation we are in because health insurance has been free to work in the free market. Some industries need to be regulated...I believe health insurance is one of those.

but when attempting to create a social program that endeavors to expand medical coverage to more people, insurance schemes should not be the only topic of discussion...and yet, that is all that has been discussed in regards to this current legislative efforts on health care reform. It has been, from the get go, nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

There have been many more options discussed, like a public option, but they have been demonized and are now a dirty word that can't be discussed without someone accusing of death panels and rationing.

The second issue, inextricably tied to the whole insurance scheme issue, is the Constitutionality of legislation that would, in effect, force people to buy health insurance whether they wanted to, needed to, or not, or at the very least, pay the cost of that insurance with or without its usage. Can The United States Congress force people to buy a private product as a matter of law? This is, as has been stated earlier in this thread, the primary question that needs to be asked. Does Congress have the legal authority to mandate health insurance policies to the public?

As I stated before...I have no issue with this law being challenged in the courts...once it is passed. You simply can't deem something unconstitutional by the voice of the people...we have a process in place for that and if you respect the constitution you would allow that process to take place instead of just assuming the general public can deem something constitutional or not. If the Supreme Court finds this legislation unconstitutional by the current interpretation of the constitution...then so be it...I am fine with that.

Congress has the legal authority to pass anything they want...and then it is up to the checks and balances to deem it constitutional or not.

If Congress has Constitutional authority to mandate private insurance policies to the public, then proving this authority should be no problem and as easy as pointing to the precise Clause of the Constitution in which that authority was granted. If that authority can't be shown then it is to be construed that Congress does not have that authority and it is an issue left to the states or the people respectively.

They have pointed to many clauses to justify this legislation...are they right? I don't know...I'll let the Supreme Court do their job and decide that if and when that time comes. The reference the commerce clause mostly...but a little bit of other clauses as well to justify the passage...and that is all they need to do. If they are wrong on the interpretation...it will be struck down by the Supreme court and that will be the end of it. That is how the system works.

The whole issue of the federal government withholding funds from states in order to force them to comply with federal legislation still ignores the authority of the people.

What authority of the people? I know I will get a lot of attacks for this...but the only authority the people have is to vote in their representatives and senators. Once that is done they have handed all their authority over to them. This They can vote them out if they don't do the job they want them too...but they don't have the authority to overturn the job they end up doing or the overturn the votes they end up casting. is the system that the constitution has put into place...so if you have a problem with it...don't attack me...attack the constitution.

This legislation, if passed, can and should be challenged by as many people opposing it as possible. This means simply ignoring the mandate and openly challenging the jurisdiction on the matter.

I'm not a lawyer...I don't know a thing about jurisdiction and how that can be used as an argument against health care legislation. But I am happy to let the courts decide that...I honestly don't have one single problem with the courts determining if this is legislation is constitutional or not...but of course to do that...it needs to be passed first.

The battle in here is fierce and interesting and forced me to become a member to make a comment!! I've been an avid reader for the pass few months.

I think most people agree that the health care system is broken, but i don't believe the government taking over it would fix it either. Look at the USPS social security medicare and medicaid there all bankrupt and/or bleeding money so why in the world do some people think it would work?

My thought is why don't they make health insurance like car insurance. Even though it is mandated in most states it doesn't have to be.

For example

Car insurance is relatively cheap depending on the amount of accidents and speeding tickets a person has and there age. it doesn't pay for "oil changes" Tire rotations etc and thats how insurance should be checkups and what not should be out of pocket and prices will come down 19.99 oil change anyone? It would cover catastrophic illness and emergency care but everything else is out of pocket and you could combined it with a HSA or something to that effect. also they could have tort reform so billy bob can't sue a doctor for 34mil dollars its just not neccesary

I"m sure people will tear this idea apart but i'm sure there are lawmakers out there that it could make this a common sense bill

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


So you're in favor of the legislative branch putting together and passing 2000 page documents without even looking at the Constitution? Why even take an Oath of Office then? Since it isn't there job to preserve, and protect it. You have an awfully skewed view of the process and of Constitutional law.

You said so yourself, you don't know anything about jurisdiction.

reply to post by projectvxn


That's not what I said...or at least not what I meant.

I think it is the job of every representative and senator to look at the legislation and decide for themselves if they think it is constitutional or not. And I believe most have done this and have used the commerce clause as their justification for it being constitutional. Now, if that is true or not is the job of the Supreme Court to decide...would you not agree?

If it turns out that the Supreme Court says that it is not constiutional...then it is settled. But I don't think it should reflect badly on any congressman who voted for it because right now it is up for interpretation...there is no precedant set in the courts. So for right now...with the congressman having giving their justification for what they think makes it constitutional...it is their job to pass the bill and let the Supreme Court decide if their justifications were correct or not.

Would you agree with that process...or do you see a different way?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


No it is not up to the SCOTUS. They are only the LAST place an appeal can take place. We have long standing precedent and case law related to the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause that says the Feds cannot do this.

I've already spelled this out. And so have others.