Congress Passes Health Care Bill

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100322/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

This Bill is blatantly against the Constitution. It forces everyone to either buy health insurance or pay a fine (it is also a form of communism). The Pharmaceutical Companies are the ones who will benefit from this, not the American people.

Here come the lawsuits...

I know that a bunch of states AGs are just foaming at the mouth to bite into this one, some states are even passing laws requiring them to do so. I'd be concerned about being forced to buy a product I honestly don't want, but I don't expect this bill to ever actually take effect, unless you count getting a whole bunch of Democrats unelected as it's effect.

Full-well knowing that this bill is not going to solve all, or even most, of the U.S. medical woes . . .

Those of you who hate this bill, and think that it's going to be the end of the world, I have to wonder . . . do you NOT have medical premiums going UP??? Do you NOT have to pay incredible amounts for your prescriptions??? Do you NOT have problems with yourself, or any member of your extended family, having pre-existing conditions? I'm sure that this bill will not solve all of these problems, but if they help with pre-existing conditions, I'm ok with it UNLESS THE BILL PROVES TO BE A NEGATIVE. Right now, I don't think ANYBODY knows whether or not, for sure, this bill will be good or bad.

Wait until November. Any Democrate who voted for the bill (and many did not, by the way) in a district which has a heavy Independent vote is deep kimchee. Even now, as we converse, the Knives of November are being sharpened.

ruveyn

Well, Congress does have the power "to regulate commerce...among the several States", according to the Constitution. Also, there have been states with mandated health-care for some time now. Furthermore, I'd say it's more socialist than communist. Not much more socialist than the oh-so-beloved Medicare, though.

As for the pharmaceutical companies... Well, you might just be right on that one.

This is just another in a line of long usurpation of the constitution. This act by congress is also a direct defiance of the wishes of the American majority. There will be lawsuits, but the courts will likely rule that this unconstitutional act is allowable in the name of "compelling interests" or some other legal mumbo jumbo that is not supported by the constitution. If that is not the case, then the courts will likely dismiss the cases due to "lack of standing" or other such legal mumbo jumbo. In other words, we cannot stop government usurpation of rights by using the government. By all means people should vote out all of those who voted for this power grab and file suit against the gang's power grab . However, these actions do not go far enough.

The gang that calls itself the government uses our resources to oppress us. It is time to deny them of these resources. It is time not to become givers but takers. Every person reading this should not only vote the b***ards out of office but should also apply for every government benefit possible. We should also use every tactic we can to avoid paying taxes. If we serve on a jury, we should vote to acquit any defendant accused of breaking unconstitutional "laws" despite any evidence presented and in direct defiance of judge's instructions. We have this power. We should also vote to acquit anyone who uses force to prevent seizure of person or property by "government" officials without just cause. If only 10% of the population adheres to these tactics, we will be able to cut the government down to size.

By the way, I hate the damned insurance monopolies as much as the next guy, but giving government the power to further regulate only makes the current monopolies more powerful. These companies will now have their excuse to jack up premiums on everyone to even more unaffordable rates.

I don´t follow the debate very closely so I don´t know if this bill will be good or not. But I think that the US health care system needs to be reformed. The United States spends more on health care than any other country, althought on most measures of health services use, the United States is below the OECD median. U.S. life expectancy rank 38th in the world, below Cuba. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). That despite the fact that the US spends more on health care per person than any other country. In a study by the British Medical Journal the United States ranked last across a range of measures of health care in a comparison of 19 industrialised countries, despite spending more than twice as much per person on health as any other of the countries.

Regarding years of potential life lost (YPLL) the United States comes third to last in the OECD for women and fifth to last for men according to OECD data. Also medical expenditure was a significant contributing factor in 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the United States during 2007.

Warren Buffett said health care costs are a major drain on U.S. businesses that put them at a competitive disadvantage. He said it's not practical to continue devoting roughly 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product to health care while the rest of the world is paying about 9 percent of their GDP on health care and have more doctors and nurses per person. "That kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body," Buffett said.

I hope that you you guys that support this system are happy with these results.

hmmmm, buy this or pay a fine.

ever heard of car insurance?


here's what the bill does, with a year by year breakdown http://goo.gl/feHB


no, it doesn't solve all our problems (tho it would have come closer had it not been watered down to get passed at all). even so, just reading it shows how much of an improvement it is.

hell, even bill o'reilly on fox noted (now that the fight's over) that things will be better for people.

will those who made this happen get voted out in november? i guess we'll just have to see.

By the 10th Amendment, States are permitted to have such laws. By Article I.8 Congress is not permitted to pass such laws.

Why not learn to read the Constitution. It is written in fairly plain English.

ruveyn

"until 1944, insurance was not considered "commerce" and not subject to federal regulation. But in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, the Supreme Court held that Congress could regulate insurance transactions that were truly interstate. Congress then enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act (15 U.S.C. § 1011) which provided that the laws of the several states should control the insurance business, but that the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act were applicable to the insurance business to the extent that it was unregulated by state law.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act, broadly speaking, gives states the power to regulate the insurance industry. While state insurance statutes override most federal laws, some portions of federal law (like federal tax laws) are always commanding. Therefore, when researching whether a particular law governs, a good rule of thumb is to ask whether the inquiry is related to the "business of insurance"

i'd say it's a mix of both.

it's had to see why people would want to pay money and get nothing back. some may know this, but it bears repeating: just 3% of the GDP goes for all -- all -- social programs. apparently some won't rest till that's zero.

You should well know that the Constitution does not stand alone, but is subject to interpretation by the Courts. Strict construction may be fashionable, but it's not necessarily a viable approach when attempting to provide for the good government of a pluralistic, federal nation-state that must function in the 21st century. While certainly not universally agreed to, the "Living Constitution" approach has served the United States well.

With that in mind, a broader understanding of what is and what is not within the authority of Congress might better align with an eventual ruling on the subject from the Supreme Court.

As for the instant case, I see a vast number of Cassandras, prophesying doom and misery. But while Cassandra was gifted and cursed with oracular predictions of disaster that were always correct, the current crop appears to me to be merely, "right" (in only one of the connotations of that word.)

Mostly misinterpretation. The supreme courted usurped the power of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison. The Constitution granted so such power. No subsequent court has seen fit to set things right.

ruveyn

i've read some of it, but you know, i have other things that require my attention (tho ultimately, constitution is pretty damn important).

mostly i choose to use my time and energy on things i can directly affect. my degree is communications/journalism, i'm a former nonfiction editor, and so of course i had to know to some degree law, consititution, copyright, and so on.

editing a book once on how the supreme court arrives at its decision (how as people, complete with trading votes so to speak), i researched and learned some about law. i had a friend for years who's a lawyer, he was even a DA for awhile, but of course that doesn't make me one.

i do follow certain things, but not in a systematic way, again because it rarely serves a direct, practical purpose. if i think it does, i then get more thorough and then, follow up with whatever action i think is the one to take.

i find that on the internet, the best one can do is link to informative things. i'm not especially persuasive and don't waste a lot on trying to be. people's views are shaped by many, complex things -- personal experience, upbringing, temperament, and so on. pure information is just one factor, and sometimes doesn't figure in at all.

knowing this, i sometimes try to add some info, but i have no influence (or even knowledge, unless i actually know the person) re the rest.

anyway, i'm glad this passed, because i've personally seen much misery from the current state of affairs, and i've lived in hawaii 8 years and seen that particular misery avoided. i see single payer working well enough in all first world countries except ours, in various political systems. i see many liberties taken with the constitution (look at the AT&t wiretapp thing, for just one example). and as mentioned, to be useful, any document is a living thing.

basically, i like to see tangible improvements that directly better people's lives. government will always seek to do this and that against improvement, and that's any government. it's nice when they do something that helps.

I PRAY that the states fighting against this monster will win, and we won't be forced to do something the so-called COMMIE/SOCIALIST government tells us to do.

At the same time Student Loans were taken out of the hands of banks, and made a direct government program.

Now that it is regulated, it could become a single payer system. Private insurers like private bankers just add another layer of costs.

I think we should be as Socialist as the other twenty top economies that do have Universal Health Care.

We are paying twice as much for half the care, fix it.

In Louisiana we had three Insurance Commissioners in Federal Prison at the same time. State Regulation does not work.

Under, "Equal Protection," we need it.

Under Health, Education, and Welfare, we deserve it.