LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Easton]

I've not read through this entire thread, but I have read through quite a bit of the health care bill. I may not be a lawyer, but it seems this bill is an extreme attack on people's liberties. So much so that I have trouble believing that it's actually being considered. Government intrusion would reach its peak with this bill.

[Easton]

And another thing. Would it be possible (although I'm sure not supported by the govt) to have a scenario like this: When a huge, country-altering bill like this is introduced, and if it is passed by the govt, to also have it voted upon by the people?

[Bob McKenzie]

And another thing. Would it be possible (although I'm sure not supported by the govt) to have a scenario like this: When a huge, country-altering bill like this is introduced, and if it is passed by the govt, to also have it voted upon by the people?

I don't understand how when we go to the polling booths on election day we have an opportunity to vote whether we want tax dollars spent on a particular project and so forth and how something like this there cannot be a vote for.

[Easton]

And another thing. Would it be possible (although I'm sure not supported by the govt) to have a scenario like this: When a huge, country-altering bill like this is introduced, and if it is passed by the govt, to also have it voted upon by the people?

I don't understand how when we go to the polling booths on election day we have an opportunity to vote whether we want tax dollars spent on a particular project and so forth and how something like this there cannot be a vote for.

I don't understand it either. The men and women who assume office 'for the people' are not exactly for the people as much as they are for their and their party's agendas. The people should have some say in what gets or doesn't get passed, especially if it's something like this.

[Guinness]

Federal health care administration is unconstitutional. In order to pass this piece of legislation, they have to amend the constitution.

But that's too difficult...

[Ron`]

It's no different than what was done during the campaign, forcing sites to pull editorials and articles that damaged the cause...... Why are people shocked now that there is an organized activity to find out where the opposition exists and exterminate it.....

I honestly don't even think this is the president's idea, it's deeper than that, and more likely driven by someone on his staff and/or legislative leaders..... Lord knows we have several elected or appointed wack jobs in key positions with a complete political majority to wield now. I default back to the bachelor party out of control analogy. Someday it's going to be one huge hangover with a lot of fuzzy memories.

Maybe the american public will learn to pay more attention to all the elections, not just the presidential.....

But the worst thing that could possibly happen at a bachelor party gone wild is someone gives your fiancee pictures of you having sex with the prostitute you accidentily just killed.

Which just like the tax paying americans, you will pay for that the rest of your life.

[HomerPenguin]

And another thing. Would it be possible (although I'm sure not supported by the govt) to have a scenario like this: When a huge, country-altering bill like this is introduced, and if it is passed by the govt, to also have it voted upon by the people?

I don't understand how when we go to the polling booths on election day we have an opportunity to vote whether we want tax dollars spent on a particular project and so forth and how something like this there cannot be a vote for.

There's no provision for a federal referendum. The referenda you see on election day are generally local although occasionally state-wide.

[Easton]

Shouldn't there be, though? When the govt is trying to pass a bill that will affect the majority of the population in a dramatic way, the people should also have a vote.

[bh]

Shouldn't there be, though? When the govt is trying to pass a bill that will affect the majority of the population in a dramatic way, the people should also have a vote.

Well, people shouldn't vote those in office that pander to special interest groups and forget about the constituents. The public voted for the congress we have now. If the majority of the people don't want these types of programs, they shouldn't have voted the shills in office that support them.

[bh]

And another thing. Would it be possible (although I'm sure not supported by the govt) to have a scenario like this: When a huge, country-altering bill like this is introduced, and if it is passed by the govt, to also have it voted upon by the people?

well, here you are getting into the business of a true democracy. Why have representatives if you do not trust them to vote right?

[topshelf]

I will be the first to admit that I know little to nothing about this issue. Over the past few days I've been trying to read up on it and take in as much as I can. Below I put what I have learned and what I understand about the proposal. What I am looking for from this board is some intelligent thoughts and discussion about the pros and cons of this bill and some feedback on what I've learned (whether wrong or right). I am not looking for partisan arguments or anything like that, just for some honest discussion (no "this is socialism!" or "go and see 'Sicko'!" posts). Here is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong:


- The current health care system we have now is shot. Well, maybe 'shot' is too harsh, but it does need reforming. That I do understand. From my personal experiences as an asthmatic and someone who visits the doctor more often than a lot of people, I believe that I am getting robbed by my health care provider (Cigna).

----- Recently, the Rand Corporation (rand.org) stated that 60% of the health care provided in the United States is substandard.
----- Nearly 22,000 American's die each year because they don't have health care:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... because-t/
----- A major portion of money put into health care go towards "administrative costs", which include executive salaries and stockholder dividends.

So we have established the fact that health care needs to be reformed. We can't just leave it the way it is or we will continue to see our current "system" degrade. After all, this is the United States of America, right? Personally, I was always under the impression that, even though I knew the system wasn't perfect, we were still one of the top in the world. Not the case at all. According to this link:
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/2 ... tions.html, the U.S. ranks worse than the likes of Singapore, Malta, etc. in a HALE (health life expectancy) rating. If you read that entire article it paints a grim picture of our system as a whole.

So what can be done? What has to be done? Obviously reform is needed and the only avenue right now is the proposed "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009". After reading through the act and various articles accompanying it, I've gathered the following ideas on it:

- There is no indication that this bill is ushering in socialized medicine or health care. None.

----- The proposal still allows an employer to keep their current provider.
----- The employee can still choose which plan is the right fit for himself/herself, much like we currently can.
----- If you decide to find an alternative to a private health care provider, there is a government ran program.

- It seems as if there is MORE of a choice for an individual than the current system.

- The fact that the proposal is requiring all health care providers to meet government standards in order to appear on the list of qualifying providers is an indication that there will be a lot more accountability on the providers end than there is now. Obviously if a provider isn't approved by the government standard than their practices aren't up to par.

Overall, I see the proposal as being a step in the right direction towards improving health care in America. Discuss.

[doublem]

I basically agree with everything you posted. I really don't think people understand that it is an option, and will not be forced on anyone.

[bhaw]

It seems you are getting a lot of this from a pro-sided argument.

Employers who keep their current provider will be taxed very heavily. Any company with a payroll over $400k (so basically any business over 5-10 employees) gets hammered with an 8% payroll tax if they keep their own providers. Choice? Yeah, but knowing that a majority of those companies will say "F THAT!"
I don't think the choice is cut and dry like picking from a list, but I haven't seen anything on those technicalities.
There is no recourse to government "price fixing," essentially giving them the green light to run the private insurers out of business.

I've seen in several places that the government will have full access to your bank account.
The biggest problem is that the people who CAN afford health care will be paying more for those that can't afford it. I also don't understand the thought process behind guaranteeing coverage to illegals. I understand that an illegal shouldn't be denied health care if they need it, but I don't see why anyone should be paying to cover people who contribute nothing to the system in terms of taxes.

The problem with the bill is that it's an attempted hybrid between socialized health care and private health care. I don't see any scenario in which that will help the typical citizen. If you're going to socialize it, do it right.

[bhaw]

This is obviously a slanted right view, but just something to look at. Not sure who is going to decode it without actually adding their own commentary:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2300451/posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Text for the actual bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The guy who created the first page claims that you can go to the pages he cites and see where it says what he claims. I haven't tested it yet.

[topshelf]

Thanks for the reply, bhaw, that's the type of discussion I'm looking for.

Employers who keep their current provider will be taxed very heavily.

I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the bill. I do remember seeing that if a company chooses to NOT offer health care to it's employees, it will be taxed heavier. Do you know where in the bill it says what you are stating? I am not doubting you, I just don't remember seeing that in there, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.

I've seen in several places that the government will have full access to your bank account.

I don't know what you mean by that.

The biggest problem is that the people who CAN afford health care will be paying more for those that can't afford it. I also don't understand the thought process behind guaranteeing coverage to illegals. I understand that an illegal shouldn't be denied health care if they need it, but I don't see why anyone should be paying to cover people who contribute nothing to the system in terms of taxes.

It's a 'Catch 22' situation, in my opinion. Would you rather have some of the money you are paying go to helping those who can't afford health care, or would you rather some of the money you are paying go towards a CEO's retirement? Either way, 100% of your money isn't being invested back into yourself, as many people think it currently is.

I do agree with you about the immigrants, though I don't know where to begin to fix that issue. Maybe penalize any company that is employing them in the first place?

[bhaw]

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time with the bill because I moved to Edmonton several months ago. I've experienced the social health care here and can say that it's done right here, and this new bill seems to be putting people in a bigger hole.

I'm most skeptical since Congress has demanded the bill be passed before anyone can read it. Clearly something is in there that they don't want people to know about; otherwise, they'd be saying "let's take our time and analyze this thing."

I'm just offering what I've heard from people who have said they've read up on the bill. I haven't done much. There is a lot of talk that the bill infringes on a lot of civil liberties. Not sure what that means exactly, but I've heard it from several different sources (not connected... although they could all be reading the same articles I guess).

[bhaw]

It's a 'Catch 22' situation, in my opinion. Would you rather have some of the money you are paying go to helping those who can't afford health care, or would you rather some of the money you are paying go towards a CEO's retirement? Either way, 100% of your money isn't being invested back into yourself, as many people think it currently is.

Wouldn't you be doing both? The first stimulus bill already made tax dollars pay for CEO retirements. In addition, you'd now be paying for other people's health care.

[topshelf]

This is obviously a slanted right view, but just something to look at. Not sure who is going to decode it without actually adding their own commentary:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2300451/posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Text for the actual bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The guy who created the first page claims that you can go to the pages he cites and see where it says what he claims. I haven't tested it yet.

Thanks for the links. Some good stuff in there. Some questions I have:

Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

Why is everyone upset over a National Healthcare ID Card? What is the difference between that and the Cigna card I carry now?

Page 72: All private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

This would be a good thing, as it would mean the health care provider is following the regulations that the government is imposing. If a provider isn't meeting the government regulations, wouldn't that mean the company is doing something shady?

I agree 100% that Congress needs to be less hasty with the passing of the bill, though. Unfortunately, this is how our government works. Remember when Bush put a ton of emphasis on getting the first bailout bill passed A.S.A.P. in order to prevent total economic collapse? Same theory here. I'd like to see a new law that states any proposed bill must remain on the table for a certain analysis period.

[topshelf]

It's a 'Catch 22' situation, in my opinion. Would you rather have some of the money you are paying go to helping those who can't afford health care, or would you rather some of the money you are paying go towards a CEO's retirement? Either way, 100% of your money isn't being invested back into yourself, as many people think it currently is.

Wouldn't you be doing both? The first stimulus bill already made tax dollars pay for CEO retirements. In addition, you'd now be paying for other people's health care.

Technically we've already been paying for other people's health care (Medicare). One of the biggest issues with the current health care system is that the majority of the money we put into our health care provider is going towards the CEO's retirements and stockholder dividends, and the remainder is going towards those who are putting money into the system. If the money has to go anywhere, I'd rather it go to someone who is less fortunate than a CEO making more that you or I will ever see. Obviously, though, 100% of our money coming back to us would be the ideal goal.

[DelPen]

A majority of money going in is not paying for CEO salries, etc. To say that is ludicrous and shows that you are incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic if you actually think that.

[MWB]

I've seen in several places that the government will have full access to your bank account.

This is what the bill says, according to the section links you provided earlier:

enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;

Doesn't that just mean that you'd be able to pay bill electronically, like you currently can with many health car providers?

[DelPen]

I've seen in several places that the government will have full access to your bank account.

This is what the bill says, according to the section links you provided earlier:

enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;

Doesn't that just mean that you'd be able to pay bill electronically, like you currently can with many health car providers?

Automated reconciliation doesn't sound good. This means they can go in and take what they want and if they say you owe more, well too bad. A bit different than just online bill payment. If you've ever had autopay for a cell phone and they screw the bill up then they take your money and you can wait weeks to get that back, I'd hate to see them charge you for services not rendered for thousands and then you are out of that money until your appeal is heard with an administrator.

[MWB]

Automated reconciliation doesn't sound good. This means they can go in and take what they want and if they say you owe more, well too bad. A bit different than just online bill payment. If you've ever had autopay for a cell phone and they screw the bill up then they take your money and you can wait weeks to get that back, I'd hate to see them charge you for services not rendered for thousands and then you are out of that money until your appeal is heard with an administrator.

Your statement that they are going to take as much as they want is more ludicrous that topshelf saying that a majority of money is going to CEO salaries, etc. And again, it would appear that this is an option, not something that people would have to use. But lets assume that absolute worst about every piece of the bill no matter what.

[bhaw]

I've seen in several places that the government will have full access to your bank account.

This is what the bill says, according to the section links you provided earlier:

enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;

Doesn't that just mean that you'd be able to pay bill electronically, like you currently can with many health car providers?

Basically what DP said. It sounds like more than bill payment. It sounds like, per the wording, it's automatic. Meaning they withdraw what they think you owe. Optional electronic bill pay would be fine, IMO, but this seems to take it that extra unnecessary step. Technically most people give out their bank info to the IRS anyways to get their refund direct deposit.

I think the issue will be that knowing the way the government likes to word things, there will probably be a 10 page document to sign in regards to the ETFs, and buried in there will be a clause about how they take the money and disputes are handled after the fact.

As mentioned above, I don't see the big issue with the government issued ID cards unless you are an "off the grid" person who thinks they will use it to track you with satellites. I'd imagine it ends up like your SS card... buried in a drawer somewhere (or in a safety deposit box for those more responsible) since you have the number memorized and rarely need anything more than a copy of it.

[bhaw]

Page 72: All private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

This would be a good thing, as it would mean the health care provider is following the regulations that the government is imposing. If a provider isn't meeting the government regulations, wouldn't that mean the company is doing something shady?

I agree 100% that Congress needs to be less hasty with the passing of the bill, though. Unfortunately, this is how our government works. Remember when Bush put a ton of emphasis on getting the first bailout bill passed A.S.A.P. in order to prevent total economic collapse? Same theory here. I'd like to see a new law that states any proposed bill must remain on the table for a certain analysis period.

I think the issue with this thing on page 72 would be the vagueness of it. What limit is placed on the governments regulations? Can the make the rules so prohibitive it forces "competitors" to leave the market?

All the nit picky stuff is open to interpretation. The overall issue is that this is a hybrid social/private health care solution that has no precedent of working anywhere else. I'm not sure I trust a government that just threw hundreds of billions at the economy in an attempt to quick fix (that didn't do anything really) to implement something totally new. Especially considering no one has read the damn thing.