Wait...Who, How, When, What....???...I feel left out of the loop...

[tsst]

Using a vague "commerce clause" to ignore amendment 10. Yep sounds just like our gov. :shrugs:

 

[Rich Z]

My impression is that most laws aren't granted by the constitution, just can't be forbidden within it. Where in the Constitution is the gov forbidden involvement in healthcare?

The US Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the federal government. Anything else is reserved to the states and to "the people". Basically in a nut shell, if the US Constitution doesn't specifically say that the federal government CAN do something, then they are not granted the authority to do so. The US Constitution was written to RESTRAIN and RESTRICT the powers of the new government that out forefathers created. Although they saw the necessity of centralized government, they feared it's creation, and tried their best to shackle the beast they were unleashing. I believe that had they had a crystal ball back then and could see what their creation has led to, the US Constitution would be a WHOLE LOT stronger instrument then it has proven to be.

 

[starsevol]

A few months back, there was an article in my local paper, the Providence Journal on the editorial page. I don't remember who wrote it, but the writer theorized that the reason this Healthcare bill was so important to the democrats was because it would force every healthcare worker to become unionized. Basically to pay the unions back for their support over the years...
I wonder how close this is to the truth.

 

[wade]

I am starting to feel a little cynical. I don't know what the motive may be but someone will become rich as a result. And it won't be you and I.

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

A few months back, there was an article in my local paper, the Providence Journal on the editorial page. I don't remember who wrote it, but the writer theorized that the reason this Healthcare bill was so important to the democrats was because it would force every healthcare worker to become unionized. Basically to pay the unions back for their support over the years...
I wonder how close this is to the truth.

That's a little conspiracy theory-ish. If we use that line of reasoning we could also say that the Republicans so desperately don't want it to pass so they can keep their corporate friends that profit off of health care rich.

Fact of the matter is that we pay more than every other industrialized nation per person, yet rank near the bottom in pretty much all measured categories for results of that care. The system is broken. However, this bill doesn't do much to fix things. And the problem is that no bill will get passed that will fix things. Things are too partisan such that the one side won't ever let the other side score such a big political victory.

 

[Pruddock]

To be honest, I used to get pissed off every time I turned the tv on and watched the dims try and take more and more power away from you and I so they can continue to work 3 days a week and accomplish nothing. Now, its gotten so absurd that it's fun to sit and watch them slit their own political throats. If they pass this bill the way they're trying to they can kiss their political careers goodbye along with the premium healthcare that roughly 80% of the country receives.

 

[wade]

It is the back door end run that really has me upset. Let our representatives vote on it and if it has no merit they can throw it out. This political BS of trying to get it through without a vote is embarrassing to the people who are supposedly not going to notice.

I’m not a constitutional scholar but I found this language really easy to follow and understand.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

 

[starsevol]

That's a little conspiracy theory-ish. If we use that line of reasoning we could also say that the Republicans so desperately don't want it to pass so they can keep their corporate friends that profit off of health care rich.

Fact of the matter is that we pay more than every other industrialized nation per person, yet rank near the bottom in pretty much all measured categories for results of that care. The system is broken. However, this bill doesn't do much to fix things. And the problem is that no bill will get passed that will fix things. Things are too partisan such that the one side won't ever let the other side score such a big political victory.

You know Matthew, nothing surprises me anymore. It truly wouldn't surprise me if the democrats want it to bolster the unions, and the republicans don't want it to keep corp america rich....maybe BOTH sides are true!!

I am no rocket scientist, but why not just look into what is broken in the system, and fix THAT?
Is that so difficult?

 

[vetusvates]

A few months back, there was an article in my local paper, the Providence Journal on the editorial page. I don't remember who wrote it, but the writer theorized that the reason this Healthcare bill was so important to the democrats was because it would force every healthcare worker to become unionized. Basically to pay the unions back for their support over the years...
I wonder how close this is to the truth.

Beth,...I, like Wade find myself feeling even more cynical than I ordinarily do when waxing political. I do not find this too far-fetched to believe. Nor conspiratorial. In fact, I suspect, with 6+ healthcare lobbyists per lawmaker in Washington (4+ climate lobbyists per lawmaker,...and God knows how many other subcategory lobbyists), there are likely deep behind closed doors, under the table, activities that would blow all of our minds.

That's a little conspiracy theory-ish. If we use that line of reasoning we could also say that the Republicans so desperately don't want it to pass so they can keep their corporate friends that profit off of health care rich.

Fact of the matter is that we pay more than every other industrialized nation per person, yet rank near the bottom in pretty much all measured categories for results of that care. The system is broken. However, this bill doesn't do much to fix things. And the problem is that no bill will get passed that will fix things. Things are too partisan such that the one side won't ever let the other side score such a big political victory.

And Matthew, I have no problem wrapping my mind around a hidden, less than altruistic, agenda as well, regarding the republicans.

IMHO, the very fact that "lobbyists" exist....makes me feel like there is much more that I do not know going on in Washington,...than the original founding fathers might have intended.
Some things perhaps in my interest, some not.

Google results for "number of lobbyists per congressman" :
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=number+of+lobbyists+per+congressman&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

NOTE : I had never heard of "Boutique Lobbyists". Interesting. And makes me want to go sterilize my hands and take a shower.

 

[Rich Z]

With all those paid lobbyists floating around Washington, D.C., obviously there is a LOT of money flowing. Have you ever wondered why someone would want to campaign to generate millions of dollars, and often pull large sums of money out of their own fortunes to take a job that pays $174K a year?

The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

Obviously altruism is NOT the motivator there........

 

[tom e]

I guess if it passes this way, the Supreme court will have to decide if that's legal or not? It's almost a win win either way. On the one hand I want the bill to pass. On the other, I don't like anything about this 'deem and pass' business.
Honestly though I think we have the votes anyway. Some representatives are just trying to get cover for their vote.

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

You know Matthew, nothing surprises me anymore. It truly wouldn't surprise me if the democrats want it to bolster the unions, and the republicans don't want it to keep corp america rich....maybe BOTH sides are true!!

At the end of the day, BOTH sides want to bolster their power. So it really is about making the fat cats happy, whether that be the unions or the corporations or whoever else. Honestly, I wish we had publicly financed campaigns. I'd pay an extra few bucks in taxes if it meant that the unions and corporations were out of elections and politics.

I am no rocket scientist, but why not just look into what is broken in the system, and fix THAT?
Is that so difficult?

It's difficult because things are so hyper partisan that neither side wants the other to be able to claim victory. Even if one side actually did come up with a "magic bullet" to instantly fix health care, it wouldn't pass, at least not as the cure all. Bi-partisanship and compromise are a thing of the past. Maybe when the Democrats lose their super majority in Congress, both sides will actually have to come together in a positive way.

When Obama won, I was really hoping that the Democrats wouldn't have a super majority. They're screwing up the country just as fast as the Republicans did when they had all of the government in control.

But I digress, as far as looking at our system and fixing that, I'm not sure what can be fixed. I have a problem with a profit driven system. Someone not receiving care shouldn't be motivation for profit. The thing is that so many other countries have fully socialized care, somewhat socialized care, subsidized private insurance and so many other models that we should take a hard and honest look at them and take the best of the different models and make something uniquely American.

Learn from their success and failures. You often hear "Health care will be rationed!!!" but the fact of the matter is that it already is rationed here in America. Those who can afford it get it, those who can't don't. And those that do have insurance and can afford it, still end up paying for those who don't have insurance. People start using the ER for their primary care because they have to be treated. So something like strep throat may cost $100 in a Dr. visit, ends up costing $1000 in an ER visit, but to cover the tab the hospital charges more to paying customers and their insurance.

Another big thing is that we, as a country, are grossly unhealthy. People eat terrible food and are lethargic and don't exercise. I wish there was more incentive for people to be healthy. I wish insurance companies would really jack up premiums for people who are obese or who smoke or who do other unhealthy behaviors and give discounts for those who maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle. Maybe give a one time tax credit for purchasing a bike or other incentives like that. And many would call me a fascist pig, but I wouldn't even mind seeing sodas and fast food taxed with subsidies for healthier foods like fruits and vegetables.

Honestly, I'd like to see a single payer system where everyone gets access to care. If you want more, you're free to buy it through additional private insurance. But I feel that in the richest and most powerful country in the world, we should, at the very least, be able to provide basic health care to all of our citizens.

Sorry, just realized I went on a 37 minute rant.

 

[jazzgeek]

Sorry, just realized I went on a 37 minute rant.

Oddly enough, that's where the USA ranks in quality of health care throughout the world.


Dale

 

[tsst]

Must be a different description of quality than I have. :shrugs:

 

[wstphal]

I am no rocket scientist, but why not just look into what is broken in the system, and fix THAT?
Is that so difficult?

In a word, yes. There are lots of broken things. People don't take responsibility for taking care of themselves. They smoke, do drugs, drink excessively, eat too much and all the wrong foods, don't exercise, don't get enough sleep, don't get preventative care that might prevent a disease or detect it early enough to cure it. They expect that they can have all the tests and expensive medicines they want if they have insurance. They ask for MRIs the day after moving from one house to another and carrying dozens of heavy boxes, because they have back pain!

If something does go wrong, they sue. TWENTY FIVE percent of health care spending, according to a 2008 survey of physicians, is done because if the patient ends up suing, the doctor wants to be sure s/he can show s/he did EVERYTHING possible.

People ask doctors to keep their elderly loved one alive even if their loved one has such bad dementia they can no longer even remember how to swallow and have to have a feeding tube. Medicare spends a huge proportion of all its spending on the last year of the recipient's life.

People don't want to save money in case they get sick AND they don't want to pay for insurance in case they get sick AND they don't want to pay more in taxes to pay for their care if they get sick.

There is NO WAY to control health care costs until we have a conversation, as a society, about how much is enough. Should we put a 90 year old who is GOING TO DIE ANYWAY REAL SOON NOW in the ICU, at a cost of 10-30,000 a day, to keep them alive for 1 more week? Should we do MRIs on everyone who has back pain for more than 24 hours? Should we prescribe specialized cancer drugs that cost $10,000 per dose that will only extend the patient's life for a few months, less than a year?

I don't have all the answers, and I do think looking at other countries' systems is a great idea. Switzerland seems to have something working pretty well, so do the Dutch, and the Germans. Maybe we could take some ideas from them. But those ideas will NOT control the relentless increase in cost unless we talk about the issue of "How much is enough?" I am not advocating for "death panels". And I fully realize that the US system rations health care -- if you have private insurance you can get ALMOST anything. If you have Medicare, likewise. If you don't have insurance, you don't get much of anything, not even the most basic stuff.

The other thing we need to realize is that most preventative care, other than pediatric preventative care, actually RAISES costs by keeping people alive longer. A group of Dutch medical statisticians calculated that the most economical way to manage things is to provide well-child care and prenatal care, and NOTHING ELSE, so that people would die sooner. The reason their analysis came out that way is that IF a person lives long enough (they might have to live to over 100 years) they WILL develop dementia & need very expensive custodial care. So from the cost point of view, it's better not to have them live that long, but die of a heart attack, or a stroke, or a cancer, before then.

Wow, I just went on a 30 minute rant too!

 

[jazzgeek]

Here a link to the rankings by country.

Dale

 

[wade]

Betsy raises a good point. Many of the people in our prisons today come from lower economic status, they are people who probably have no insurance. If we made the capital punishment laws stricter, and change some of the mandatory sentencing for things like burglary and embezzlement to capital crimes, we could avoid health care costs for many many people that are otherwise going to be a burden on the system.

 

[wstphal]

Betsy raises a good point. Many of the people in our prisons today come from lower economic status, they are people who probably have no insurance. If we made the capital punishment laws stricter, and change some of the mandatory sentencing for things like burglary and embezzlement to capital crimes, we could avoid health care costs for many many people that are otherwise going to be a burden on the system.

Wadiepoo, it's a good thing I love you, because that wasn't what I was getting at at all! It's just that the media make it sound like better preventative care would LOWER costs and it won't. It just means people will feel better & be healthier. Admittedly, chronically sick people tend to end up of lower economic status, regardless of where they started, because it's hard to be an energetic successful employee OR a successful entrepeneur if you feel lousy and tired all the time, so keeping people healthy would probably cause the economy to grow, but once those people got to be very elderly, they would be very expensive anyway.

None of which means that I am advocating AGAINST good preventative care! I figure I want this country to contain more taxpayers and less tax dollar recipients, and healthy people are more likely to be able to work, earn and end up filing a 1040, rather than collecting benefits, so from a strictly greed & politics point of view I firmly believe in preventative care!

 

[danielle]

I wouldn't believe all the statistics about the US's health care rank honestly we may not be #1 on any scale, but definitely not number 37. You have to take into account how this rank is measured in the first place, quality of life vs. longevity, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle differences which make it nearly impossible to rank any country vs. another in the first place.

I am however pretty peeved their pulling the whole pass now why vote tactic- digusting in my opinion. Health care needs reform, but not like this. Government control over health care options is scary enough and now they want to rush it through with as few eyes scrutinizing it as possible- hold on America and stay healthy this is going to be one hell of a ride

 

[wade]

I wouldn't believe all the statistics about the US's health care rank honestly we may not be #1 on any scale, but definitely not number 37. (

You have to remember that Dale thinks that Fox is a farce and MSN is gospel.