Controversy meets Progress? The great divide on Health Care in America

Its just unbelievable that we have so many in this country that sees nothing wrong with socialism ,After thousands of our brave men and women of this country has fought and died for Fighting to free people from such regimes

 

I know someone that is in that exact situation.

 

No it wasn't, the public option was still held up by tax payer money.

I said, you pay for it if you want coverage from it, you pay NOTHING if you don't want coverage.

Don't bring the people who want nothing to do with it into it by force.

 

It is mainly the fact that we are forced into buying something we may not want, if we don't, we pay a fine and if we don't pay the fine we go to jail, In America's Anthem it states "....Land of the free...." well if I have to pay for something I may not want that is a "Commerce" Item or get put in jail, that's not freedom.

 

To my fellow Americans who oppose this law, it is not the end of democracy or the great republic. No need to cite Jefferson, Franklin or any of the founding fathers to explain how this country has changed. The Constitution and laws of the land are living documents that reflect the views and ideologies of the people from specific time frames. Laws are meant to be changed and not everything stands the test of time. This law helps many while hurting some, from a utilitarian standpoint it is good but not perfect. Eventually it will be fixed or removed, but it is not the end of the world. Stay calm, respectful and committed to your views, but realize and respect the opinions of others. I am in favor of this bill because it benefits my financial, social, and ethical viewpoints. At the same time this goes against the values of others, and i respect that opposing view. We will never agree on everything, especially something this controversial. But we should always be civilized, open minded, and respectful.

 

The Constitution is NOT a Living Document, the living document argument is what the progressives have deemed it to be. Are they still teaching the BS living document agenda in schools and colleges?

Would you play a game in which the rules were constantly changing, turn by turn? Of course not, the Constitution is a limitation on govt and does not change its meaning, because of the changes of society from year to year. It is a set in stone set of laws, the only way to change it, is through an Amendment process or by a Constitutional Convention.

I suggest you read some Federalist and Anti Federalist papers, a few letters written by Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison, to fully understand that the Constitution WAS NEVER meant to be interpreted other than its original intent.

 

This abomination of a bill may help 10-15% of the population while hurting and punishing the other 85 to 90% , If the American people realy wanted this bill . This Admin would not of had to resort to bribery distortion threats and dirty political parliamentary tactics just to get it passed

The Only thing Bipartisan about this bill is the votes against it . democrats and republicans voted no for this bill , Was all the left wing democrats that voted for it and they had to be like i said bribed threaten to even do that ,So no this is not what the american people want and i have faith that it well be thrown out once republicans get back in control

 

based on what the Democrats did and how the Republicans acted, I think we should, as rational Americans, voted both parties out of office in November and just vote Independents.

 

This was posted by a Doctor on another forum i Visit

20 ways Health Care Reform takes your freedoms

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

 

Amen.Too bad decent men and women can't make it as independents.I believe in my lifetime there will be a strong 3rd party( Glenn Beck has really popularized the Libertarians ) but that day is a long way off.Too many fundamental likenesses between the two main parties these days.decent people get swallowed up by the "party lines". Anyone outside the lines gets painted as a crack pot extremist.

 

If you want to change a law there's a process and if you want to change the constitution there is a process for that. A simple majority in the house or arbitrarily re-interpreting it is not the way. To change the constitution you first need 2/3 of both the house and senate to ratify the amendment. Then you may ratify this amendment by 38 of the 50 states.

If our constitution were written as a living document, then why is it so hard to change it?

eta: Also, if the USA were to undergo a true economic collapse, it very well could end the world. Civil unrest + NBC State = Bad times.

 

The Constitutions existence would make to sense if it was ever intended to be a living document open to interpretation of the times.

The main theme of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit the powers of the Government to the enumerated to protect the People from future abuses and usurpations.

 

Two choices are better than one. I'd probably be complaining if I ran a Health Insurance company, or maybe sack a few people and blame someone else.

 

Ignorance is a bliss huh?

edit: typo^2

 

I'm not sure how accurate this is: http://liberalismi.net/wiki/USA:n_terveydenhuolto

But it says that the probelm is covernment who is limiting amount of doctors to be trained which causes prices to go up, etc...

And this what Obama is doing doesnt fix the problems in their system.

 

Socialism I gather, has something to do with the government governing some of the ways public services are run. Libraries, Police and other stuff? Why don't you try both like we do in Australia? If we don't like the government service in Oz then we can pay for private health insurance. But we are pretty crazy Pinko-Redneck-Conservative-Hippies and also kind of lame but far out Crikey mate dingo!

 

I was just commenting on his fight against the socialist regimes

 

I got Hax0red by communists I think when I clicked one of those links!

 

There is no limit on doctors here, which is probably why you linked a Finnish wiki page that no English speaker can understand. The AMA has, in the past, made some union-like maneuvers to tinker with membership numbers and protect their trade, but the AMA isn't a governmental entity and has no real authority.

On the contrary, there is a natural shortage of general physicians right now and it just got about 10% worse overnight. Doesn't sound like much but it's going to cause shortages on things like preventative care visits and routine physicals, at the very least.

 

I'm not gonna lie, I lol'd.

Anyway, Australia has what I'd deem to be the most appropriate model for nationalized singlepayer in the U.S., which doesn't come as any surprise, given your generally laissez fare management of the Aussie economy. The primary problem we're dealing with in the states over the issue is whether or not the Constitution allows for such a bill as this. Nationalized health insurance is not a clearly enumerated right of federal government in our Constitution.