The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: lem0nhead on March 22, 2010, 05:41:06 AM
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100322/twl-obama-wins-historic-health-reforms-b-3fd0ae9.html
I read this today. Can an american (or someone who is in the know) explain what it means for the USA. Please leave aside opinions/rants etc I would just like to know what it affects.
As far as i know healthcare in the USA costs unless you buy health insurance as opposed to the UK where healthcare is free under the NHS funded by taxpayers.
What does Obamas legislation do???
As precise and summarised as possible if you can!
Thanks
-
I'm not an expert by any means, but from what I understand, it will make all Americans buy healthcare, whether government provided or private plan. Beyond that, I'm ignorant.
-
Indeed, the bill has been so mangled and has grown so long (over 2800 pages!) that not a single person really knows what it does. President Obama himself admitted in an interview with Bret Bair on Thursday (maybe Weds) that even he wasn't exactly sure what will happen.
The claim is that it will make a mandate effectivley forcing those who are uninsured to purchase insurance. I myself don't really know how that will pan out. There has been a lot of talk against insurance companies that leads many people to worry about the vitality of their existing coverage. The plan that was passed is NOT a single-payer government controlled health care system. Yet. Many critics argue that this plan is nothing more than an effort to move the government into the health care system and that as the govt. fails to solve the problem they will claim more power until there is a single payer system.
The plan will not provide any benefits until 2014 or so. However, I've heard taxes for the plan are scheduled to immediately start.
Well over 50% of the American public are against the bill. It was passed exclusively by Democrats who actually lost 34 of their own members who voted with the Republicans.
I tried to do that without opinion... Hope it helps. The fact is no one really knows what this legislation will do. And by the way NHS healthcare is not free and neither will this new US healthcare. Someone has to pay for it, taxpayers and probably their grand children.
-
I tried to do that without opinion... Hope it helps. The fact is no one really knows what this legislation will do.
Thanks very much.
And by the way NHS healthcare is not free and neither will this new US healthcare. Someone has to pay for it, taxpayers and probably their grand children.
Thats why i said above, "funded by the taxpayer", but you can still go for healthcare without needing insurance or cash in your pocket is my point, but thats irrelevant.
How do you make hundreds of millions of people buy insurance?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z_RVl-ph3s (Health Care Overhaul Summarized Via MASSIVE PIG)
-
I.T. Nazi's have YouTube banned at work so cant catch that right now but thanks Hawks.
-
Basically this bill is going to use taxpayer dollars to federally insure all uninsured people across America. That's the gist, interpret it as you will. ;)
I tried to do that without opinion... Hope it helps. The fact is no one really knows what this legislation will do.
Thanks very much.
And by the way NHS healthcare is not free and neither will this new US healthcare. Someone has to pay for it, taxpayers and probably their grand children.
Thats why i said above, "funded by the taxpayer", but you can still go for healthcare without needing insurance or cash in your pocket is my point, but thats irrelevant.
How do you make hundreds of millions of people buy insurance?
Easy. Fine them.
-
Its may get repealed before it can do anything.
America's on the edge of a political revolution such that we haven't seen since the Populist revolt of the late 1800s. The Tea Party movement has the impetus to affect both major parties to such a huge extreme that statists will be reeling decades to come. This could put the New Deal and the Great Society to shame.
The healthcare bill is an insanely stupid idea, but it might finally be enough to get enough American people involved in politics to actually make a difference, instead of the less-than-half-of-the-country-votes BS that we've got now.
-
Its may get repealed before it can do anything.
America's on the edge of a political revolution such that we haven't seen since the Populist revolt of the late 1800s. The Tea Party movement has the impetus to affect both major parties to such a huge extreme that statists will be reeling decades to come. This could put the New Deal and the Great Society to shame.
The healthcare bill is an insanely stupid idea, but it might finally be enough to get enough American people involved in politics to actually make a difference, instead of the less-than-half-of-the-country-votes BS that we've got now.
Amen.
-
Well there is already medicare to help people who are too poor to pay for healthcare or insurance. Almost everyone else can afford to pay for insurance or for healthcare. So basically a very small percentage of the population can't pay, and rather than working for a limited adjustment to the system to help that small percentage, they decided to mess around with the entire system.
Sort of like if you get a flat tire, and decide to replace the engine, transmition and brake system rather than just fixing the flat.
-
Its may get repealed before it can do anything.
America's on the edge of a political revolution such that we haven't seen since the Populist revolt of the late 1800s. The Tea Party movement has the impetus to affect both major parties to such a huge extreme that statists will be reeling decades to come. This could put the New Deal and the Great Society to shame.
The healthcare bill is an insanely stupid idea, but it might finally be enough to get enough American people involved in politics to actually make a difference, instead of the less-than-half-of-the-country-votes BS that we've got now.
About 90% of the "tea party" people are merely products of mob mentality inspired anger with no clue about how the country works. This is all a response to losing the elections last year--common fear mongering.
-
Its may get repealed before it can do anything.
America's on the edge of a political revolution such that we haven't seen since the Populist revolt of the late 1800s. The Tea Party movement has the impetus to affect both major parties to such a huge extreme that statists will be reeling decades to come. This could put the New Deal and the Great Society to shame.
The healthcare bill is an insanely stupid idea, but it might finally be enough to get enough American people involved in politics to actually make a difference, instead of the less-than-half-of-the-country-votes BS that we've got now.
About 90% of the "tea party" people are merely products of mob mentality inspired anger with no clue about how the country works. This is all a response to losing the elections last year--common fear mongering.
Though many people are not extremely knowledgable about how everything works I'm sure you'd actually be surprised at what they do know. The fact is that tea partiers, or anyone else, don't need to know how everything works. No one knows how it all works but we do know when our interests are being threatened. Its fair to say that this legislation is indeed directly threatening their interests. And the fact is they don't feel like anyone is listening to them, so of course they get nervous. Some are indeed nutjobs (9/11 Truthers, anyone?), but most are normal folks who would rather be doing something else. I think you'd also be surprised that the fact that most of these people are just as mad as the Republicans as they are at the Democrats. I mean the Republicans started on the deficit road a long time ago too. They are upset not about the 'change' but about business as usual.
-
one of the major concerns people have about the whole issue is the legality of forcing someone to buy anything. This bill forces, and i mean that in every sense of the word, to buy insurance. Not only insurance but a certain amount of insurance, costing an individual around 7500 u.s. dollars a year. (personally, that is 1/2 my yearly income. i'm a college student.) Secondly, the amount of insurance the individual shall buy covers things such as ambulance rides, maternity, prescriptions, rehabilitation, substance abuse, and a few other things i can't recall at the moment. This all sounds good, but what if I don't need substance abuse insurance because i don't drink? What if i was a woman who couldn't nor didn't want to have children? it wouldn't matter. the language of the bill is such that the individual has no choice and shall buy a minimum amount of insurance. It raises the question, is it morally right to obligate an individual to purchase something even if they don't need/want it.
-
I'm not sure how this applies but I live in Massachusetts where buying health insurance is already mandated. The way that this is enforced is that when you submit your state taxes you have to provide proof that you had insurance throughout the year. If you did not, you get penalized in your taxes (i. e. have an additional tax to pay).
I haven't figured out how this really helps at this point as it seems that all who are truly needy are covered by medicaid and the elderly/disabled by medicare. What it seems to do is force everyone to purchase insurance if you can afford it at all which can be difficult for small companies and the lower end of the middle class spectrum.
I have to admit that I haven't been following the debate too closely but am scared to death of the government taking on a monstrosity like health care.
-
I do not know the system that well, since I live in the Netherlands where we all have to be insured, risking a fine when we are not. The whole debate is somewhat strange to me, both sides of the debate calling upon the constitution and the Decleration of Independence. I can not value this, but I do know this: that insurance companies can exclude someone from insurance because a known healthrisk is criminal behaviour. If you are born with a heartfailure and they reject insurance, well that is beyond me. That is what I absolutely like about the proposed plan. Of course it is arguable, that when people eat chocolate covered bacon (thanks for the link Hawk) that they maybe face a higher own risk.
-
btw Lem0n, maybe this is helpful?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032301714.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
-
good for the people or not, the frightening thing is that the government will be mandating we must purchase something. In the USA, that is a foreign concept. Another article in the bill which some people find... shall we say odd, is that amish and christian scientists (the religion) are exempt from purchasing insurance on religious grounds. Though I have no quarrel with this, my distaste comes with the fact that this is in violation of the first amendemt of the bill of rights which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." By allowing the afore mentioned religions to be exempt from the new healthcare law, they have enacted a law which respects the amish and CS over every other religion in the USA. That's dangerous territory.
-
good for the people or not, the frightening thing is that the government will be mandating we must purchase something. In the USA, that is a foreign concept.
That's because the mandate is unconstitutional.
-
good for the people or not, the frightening thing is that the government will be mandating we must purchase something. In the USA, that is a foreign concept.
That's because the mandate is unconstitutional.
But the Constitution is a "living document", right? :D #-o
-
Regardless, this is a moot point. There will always be people like Mr. Lurtzy, NBarden, jerba and me, who don't like the idea of the government controlling anything this important, regardless of what it does, and there will always be people like HawkeyeSPF, putridbreath and gil-estel who believe that it will help. I believe this thread is solely about what is in this bill, not whether or not this bill should have been passed. As I said previously, moot point.
-
Regardless, this is a moot point. There will always be people like Mr. Lurtzy, NBarden, jerba and me, who don't like the idea of the government controlling anything this important, regardless of what it does, and there will always be people like HawkeyeSPF, putridbreath and gil-estel who believe that it will help. I believe this thread is solely about what is in this bill, not whether or not this bill should have been passed. As I said previously, moot point.
Thanks Door Orc, the thread got lost a bit in a debate which, knowing these forums, I was desperately trying to avoid but knew would inevitably happen (especially as NB seems to have come back JUST to get involved in a debate lol), but I got the gist cheers.
-
btw Lem0n, maybe this is helpful?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032301714.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
Hence my neutral contribution :clown:, and I totally agree with you Door Orc. It stays interesting though to debate what should be the main role of the government. I want to be a geography teacher as well, so now I take a class Political Geography, which is massively interesting.....
-
There will always be people like Mr. Lurtzy, NBarden, jerba and me, who don't like the idea of the government controlling anything
The above has now been corrected. ;)
-
And to cheer us all up, no matter where you are on the issue:
As the ink dries on their plan to denude America, late-night TV hosts are already laughing at the bill:
The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree, and think 25 to life would be appropriate.
(Leno)
America needs ObamaCare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
(Leno)
Q: Have you heard about McDonald's' new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
(O'Brien)
Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners.
(Letterman)
Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America !
(Fallon)
Q: What was the most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road.
(Letterman)
-
I wrote a research paper on the issue and the only conclusion I came to is that the health care bill is a democratic bill that was passed in order to see how far they could break the tenth amendment. The constitution does not mandate a national health care plan therefore that right is reserved for the states. In effect, the health care bill is the first step to socialistic America since the government is controlling an (important) area of our lives.
-
While I agree with you Legolas, there are plenty of unfortunate precedents in place that could support most aspects of the bill. They couch this in the commerce clause which allows congress to regulate commerce between the states. Health care is 1/6th of the economy so yeah, I'd say thats commerce. The personal mandate is the most questionable feature but even Wicker v Filburn allowed the govt to interfere in one mans attempt to grow wheat for personal use on the grounds that his consumption of his own wheat would affect the pprice of wheat since it removed his personal demand. I personally believe it to be outrageous, but I wouldn't count on the unconstitutional angle being held up. Unfortunately.
The 10th Amendment has long since lost its power since the states are now subservient to the Federal Government and always beg for their next handout. Blame national income tax, direct election of Senators, and social programs from the New Deal & Great Society to the Health Care Bill.
-
In effect, the health care bill is the first step to socialistic America since the government is controlling an (important) area of our lives.
I don't want in on the debates, as I've found through personal experience that debating with north-americans can be really tiresome and leads nowhere most of the time, but we have a very similar healthcare system in Brasil as the one Obama intends to install, and we're nowhere NEAR being socialistic. We just acknowledge that SOME things in socialism might actually be good, the same way some things in capitalism are. I won't also discuss WHY I think this is "good" while you think it's not, just suffice it to say I'm all for saving the lives of others, even if that means personal sacrifice, and I don't think paying taxes is THAT much of a sacrifice in order to provide health for those who can't afford it.
-
And I think that the input of all, that is, from all sites, mine, NB's, at least from all that obviously have thought about this matters, is showing us one thing: it is ignorant to claim to know the truth and arrogant to think that one's opinion is false.
Our views, our believes, our traditions have sources. We are heavily influenced by the world we live in. It is not bad to have an opinion, to strongly believe in what you think, but try to raise some perspective.
-
Since people want to still argue: http://lotrtcgdb.com/forums/index.php/topic,4322.new.html#new
-
In effect, the health care bill is the first step to socialistic America since the government is controlling an (important) area of our lives.
I don't want in on the debates, as I've found through personal experience that debating with north-americans can be really tiresome and leads nowhere most of the time, but we have a very similar healthcare system in Brasil as the one Obama intends to install, and we're nowhere NEAR being socialistic. We just acknowledge that SOME things in socialism might actually be good, the same way some things in capitalism are. I won't also discuss WHY I think this is "good" while you think it's not, just suffice it to say I'm all for saving the lives of others, even if that means personal sacrifice, and I don't think paying taxes is THAT much of a sacrifice in order to provide health for those who can't afford it.
I agree with you that some things in socialism are good and I think socialistic health care does work in certain countries; however, the problem I see with Obama's plan is that it does not tax equally, it would tax the young professionals and those who don't have "sufficient insurance" with the government deciding who has sufficient insurance. And I think that the way the American government is set up. Obama's health care plan does set a precedent for the government's power by giving it more than is allowed by the constitution. I wouldn't know if this is true in other countries.
-
http://biggovernment.com/ngillespie/2010/03/24/three-reasons-health-care-reform-wont-cut-the-deficit-by-one-thin-dime-but-will-add-massively-to-it/
Good video on the false claim of money saved by healthcare reform.
-
This bill is bad. I don't mean the bit about health care, but what about the pres getting his own personal army? Read up (bold done by me):
This is a copy of the Senate bill that was approved Sunday night. Pg 1312 is the forces.
IT LOOKS LIKE B.O. JUST GOT HIS OWN PRIVATE ARMY.
SEC. 430. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.
(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.
(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.—
(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.
(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
You Can Read the bill here: http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf
That is far scarier than any bit of health care legislation they could pass.
-
Thats another thing that bothers me, there are so many hidden laws in the bill, the original house bill had a mandate that allowed federal officials to access privatefinancial accounts.