Health care reform bill H.R.
3962 passes the House of Representatives by a vote of 220 to 215.
Among Republicans, only Anh "Joseph" Cao votes for the bill.
As always, the actual shape of the bill remains shrouded in moment-to-moment mystery. The San Francisco Chronicle's Carolyn Lochhead notes that moderates have succeeded in "untethering [the so-called public option] from Medicare."
Well, now it's up to the bought-and-paid-for senate to decide whether we're going to be felons if we don't want to make mandatory payments to insurance companies. I'm not counting on the supreme court to enforce the constitution for me any more than they did for Korematsu or Dred Scott.
-jcr
Or Angel Raich...or Susan Kelo...or Mitch McConnell taking on the execrable Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or...
I don't know why everyone's upset; free healthcare sounds like a great idea. I'd like to retract my earlier suggestion that people ask politicians tough questions designed to discredit them as part of a plan to use leverage - get others with power to do your bidding - to block UHC. I'm now a fan of UHC, so, don't do what I earlier suggested.
Well, now it's up to the bought-and-paid-for senate to decide whether we're going to be felons if we don't want to make mandatory payments to insurance companies. I'm not counting on the supreme court to enforce the constitution for me any more than they did for Korematsu or Dred Scott.
-jcr
Fuck... YEAH! Affordable health care, man! And, like, as many trips to the doctor as u want. It's gonna be awesome! For everyone! And we all pay LESS! And we'll all get MORE! And it will be BETTER! Pelosi RULEZ!
With tonight’s vote, every single last member of this House of Representatives (They do not represent me!) should think about what freedom & hard earned labor that they have stolen from me today. We have lost today! This attack on personal freedom has occurred due to a simple, worthless, political vote (Quid Pro Quo). PLEASE THINK ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENEND!
The Senate could very well pass this attack on personal choice on freedom! They will be bribed like the members of The House were bribed.
Today is a terrible today for personal responsibility & liberty.
Just terrible news. Sadly, i have to root for "our" side to out-bribe some Senators.
As it is, I'm getting angry at the pundits who claim that this bill won't get past the senate. The Democrat leadership is ruthless and their opposition (along with too many voters) has been suckered by them repeatedly. The media is going to sugar-coat this vote by the house, and that may be all the cover the senate needs to pass it just like they passed the patriot act. This is not just another battle for turf between Republicrats. The rules have changed, and the rules are stacked in favor of politicians who are bent on destroying this country as we know it.
The trouble is, Democrats know that government health care is going to suck, and they will get the blame. The Democrats never wanted to pass a healthcare. They simply want to look like they are going to pass it.
If they do, somehow manage to pass it, it will be an accident.
They've managed expectations so low that at this point maybe the Dems can claim House passage as a Rocky-type moral victory (in, um, a version of Rocky where Apollo Creed doesn't show up for the fight?).
But I'd doubt it. At this point, something needs to get signed by the president.
Whether that thing contains the public health insurer and the buy-insurance-or-go-to-jail mandate is, I think, the only remaining question.
Oh, that Rocky. I thought the one where Meatloaf kills a car the first time I read that.
Fuck Nancy Pelosi. The only stunning part is watching the Kossacks melt down because Kucinich actually voted against the bill.
Kucinich actually voted against the bill.
One more thing to like about Mr. Kucinich.
-jcr
Exactly. Dennis voted against it because it wasn't single payer. But fuck -- at least he voted against it. I'll take that over bastrids like Alan Grayson claiming to be PROUD of fucking us up the ass in the middle of the night.
I might point out that the patriot act (which has since been renewed repeatly with very little fanfare) actually drew some criticism in the press when it was first introduced. Do you think that this so-called "reform" bill will get the same treatment? Think what you all want to think, but I've seen enough.
Please provide a link to a mainstream media outlet criticizing the Patriot Act in the weeks after 9/11. I'm extremely skeptical that such a thing actually happened.
The media were total and complete lapdogs for the Bush admin from 9/11 until the Iraqi insurgency began, contrary to the revisionist history we're seeing spout up on the right.
Cursory use of Nexis or even Google will uncover at least two MSM articles criticizing the USA PATRIOT Act. You can find plenty of criticism of aspects of HR 3962 today.
But I think you may be making a gestalt-type point, and it certainly felt in 2001 that USA PATRIOT passage was guaranteed. Health Care passage doesn't feel quite as guaranteed now as I recall USA PATRIOT feeling then. But nobody should feel safe with only the Senate standing in the way of its passage. This really is the time to put a million people around the Reflecting Pool and try to reawaken the Senate's innate love of doing nothing.
I might point out that the Patriot act (which has since been renewed repeatedly with very little fanfare) actually drew some criticism in the press when it was first introduced. Do you think that this so-called "reform" bill will get the same treatment?
Are you kidding? We can't even get anything beyond the most shallow and superficial analysis of this thing here at Reason. They're too busy talking about the other critical issues that America deeply cares about, like Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck.
So when and if this bill passes the senate, am I required to purchase healthcare the next day?
What about the 'public option'? Hell, I just graduated from grad school and I can barely afford car insurance. If If I'm poor enough to qualify for public option and NOT have to pay for insurace, I'll (regretfully) leech off taxpayers.
I think anyone can get the public plan. I think that's how they'll get a single-payer (aka taxpayer) system.
I'll take the fine, thanks. When I get sick, then I'll sign up for this bull crap.
I thought President Obama's healthcare plan required everyone to purchase healthcare (Massachusettes on a national level). If everyone qualifies for public option, who would actually buy healthcare?
I'm especially confounded that (apparently) the fine for not buying healthcare is 1,500 plus USD.
The public option isn't free. They plan to charge premiums just the same as private insurers.
I'm not buying healthcare or paying any fine. I'll go to jail if I have to. No asshole is going to force me to buy something that, as a minority, doesn't correctly cover the conditions I am susceptible to, and forces me to take drugs that haven't been tested on people who share my genetic background.
It'll take some time and even if the senate votes Yes there's still the reconciliation process and implementation will take a year or two. Hopefully a court challenge can force an injunction until it's ruled upon. That will be mostly for show but it will take some time before we're all forced to be thieves.
Actually, I'm leaning toward full speed ahead on this. I'm currently young enough to not need much care, so hopefully there will be time for the system to collapse completely and start rebuilding before I need to use it. The longer this draws out, the more likely we'll be hitting the crises right as I reach my seniorage.
Yeah, because young people *never* get very ill or hit by cars or anything. Indestructible, young sinewy races, oh pioneers, oh pioneers.
My point is that if doom is inevitable, you're better off having it happen while you're young then while you're old.
Seraph, why would you feel resigned to the idea of leeching off of others? I don't know you, but that sounds like the response of someone who has lived in a nanny state so long that resistance to it is now just ceremonial. It's awful to hear such a thing from someone whom I presume is young.
"If I'm poor enough" is the most defeatist statement I've read in a long time.
By "poor enough" I was wondering if I'd be part of the low income bracket in the eyes of the new healthcare system. I've heard the poorest will be exempt from the insurance mandate, or qualify for free public option (which apparently is for everyone).
Bottom line is, I can't afford health insurance at the moment. I'd have to give that public option a look if that's an acceptable alternative to spending chunks of my own money. The fiscal conservative inside of me won't talk to me for a month for enjoying medical treatmets heavily subsidized by someone else, but I see no other way.
Oh, the government will make sure you don't wonder for too long which protected class you belong to. In any case, there won't be an overnight toggle, as suggested by the legislation's numerous time-based phases. You've got a grad degree (please say it isn't in journalism), so conventional wisdom says you've got a head start on the "poor" person scraping by with no pedigree.
If you want to continue playing in the American sand box, you'd better be prepared to constantly anticipate the socialists' next move. Start saving money any and every way you can. Wish I could say you were saving it for your own welfare.
You're better off with a plumbing license than a PhD in most fields, at least as far as money-making potential goes.
Hey, if I could make what a plumber makes for flushing your john? I wouldn't complain.
" Start saving money any and every way you can". This will disappear as a tactic rapidly, as the inevitable inflation kicks-in to destroy any asset saved. Inflating the money supply will be the only means these idiots have to "eliminate" the enormous debt they have inflicted on us. No, expect that your savings will become near worthless. What strategy for the future we should adopt, I dunno. Prepare to be universally enmiserated, which is the only fair and equitable state of affairs anyway.
Actually, the best strategy is going to be to get a government job, which usually comes with automatic inflation adjustments. Barring that, you need to start buying junk silver.
Seraph doesn't directly benefit from resistance and faces significant cost. Why should he feel compelled to sacrifice himself for the good of a public that has demonstrated it doesn't deserve such a sacrifice?
I've become pretty resigned to it all at age 44. I've advocated and preached and fought for smaller government for decades, and have exactly boo to show for it. Starting at age 40 I began to knuckle down and started looking out exclusively for #1. I'm working hard and saving and investing and aiming for early retirement at age 50 (on track so far). Then I am *OUT* of this dippy sinking ship of a nation. Good effing riddance. Have fun debating ideological piffle around your Ayn Rand altars late into the dark nights. It's all BS and mental illness.
I'm the same age and have been planning to get out of here, too. Nothing wrong with voting with your feet. Nothing at all.
Don't forget that US law says that you still have to pay income tax to the US for ten years after you leave!
Get used to riding the bus citizen.Healthcare obligations come before luxuries like a personal automobile.
Or going out, or new clothes, or food, or computers...or anything for yourself. 'Cuz afterall, some fat bitch needs her lapband surgery and some other little pig likes to get knocked up every now and then. Or maybe some jerkwad likes to play without a raincoat and catches something. Or because some shit-for-brains kid wants to go "car-surfing" - hell, the possibilities are endless, as are the liabilities. Paying for the irresponsibility of others comes before your needs and desires. You do not count, slave.
The article says that a lot of the provisions of the new law wouldn't kick in until 2013.
If the Senate passes this steaming pile of shit, I predict that as day one in the upcoming American civil war.
Pelosi, the Democrats, and their goons really think they are going to force people at gunpoint to buy health insurance?
They. Have. Another. Thing. Coming.
No they don't. The only "threat" they face is being voted out of office and replaced with worthless cunts that or only slightly less worthless overall but more worthless in other ways. It's the two sides of the same coin. And that coin for the politicians and all of the "people" like them when flipped is always "Heads I win, Tails you lose." The sheep are far too domesticated to revolt.
Freedom and Liberty are dead. We're now watching their corpse decay.
Personally if I have a choice between...
1. Fine
and
2. Jail
...I am creating option 3. And I can guarantee Pelosi and her ilk won't like it.
I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
:sobbing: We meant it for the best! We wanted to make people ... healthier. OH GOD! :fires shot: NOOOOOOOOO!
Honestly, the GOP really dropped the fucking ball. All they had to do was approach those Blue Dog Democrats wavering on the edge and promise that if they don't vote for the health care bill, they won't run a candidate against them in 2010. Because honestly, they should prefer a conservative Democrat keeping an extra House seat over this bill. They would have given Pelosi and Obama the biggest defeat possible. Threats are not enough in this case, so they should have proposed a bargain. I'm sure they could have talked at least 6 Democrats into this deal.
just just needed 3 more; 2 if it weren't for Cao. But maybe that's how they got the other 30 some odd Dems who voted Nay
All they had to do was approach those Blue Dog Democrats wavering on the edge and promise that if they don't vote for the health care bill, they won't run a candidate against them in 2010.
The Republicans would be fools to ever make such a ridiculous offer. That would be a free ticket for endless political blackmail by the Blue Dogs.
Great. This so-called "healthcare" legislation may just be one of the final nails in the coffin of the quaint notions of individual rights and freedom in America. The Founders are spinning in their graves like fucking tops right about now....
The tree of liberty is indeed watered from time to time -- with the urine of politicians and journalists. Perhaps we need to housebreak our elite.
I'm going to amend this and begin using it immediately. Something along the lines of "the tree of coercion ..."
Not pork. Political cover. They weren't worried about getting theirs with this bill, they were worried about getting reelected. Think about exactly how fucked up, arrogant, wrong, out of line, disingenuous, I could go on all day, that reasoning is.
I'd like to think that people will remember. But they won't and we all know it. It'll be just another thing to whine helplessly about for the dumbasses that populate this country. By the time the next election comes around it will either be a fact of life in this idiocracy that no one believes will change ("well, whaddaya gonna do?") or just as forgotten as the 9th century BC.
Susan, who cares what "people" and "they" remember or plan to do? What do you plan to do?
What can one person do? I plan to remember but so what? If millions are willing to give up than all one person can do is be swept aside.
For one thing, you can vote with your feet. I know that flies in the face of "I love my country" and "You can pry my American pride from my cold dead fingers," but it is an option. You may have a family that you (feel you) can't uproot. Tulpa reminded me in another recent thread that most Americans' are relatively comfortable, so why would they cause a fuss? That is socialism's sick prelude to greater and more central control. Perhaps I wouldn't feel so smug about this if I weren't in the (painful and tedious) process of emigrating. The act alone has cleared my head and made me realize that most Americans won't leave home, even if their principles have been utterly affronted. I wish you well. No need to be swept aside, you're more clever than that, I'm sure.
Not sure to where I would emigrate Andrew.
India, or one of the other countries where medical tourism is a burgeoning industry would be congruent.
But, yeah you're correct, America is a pretty comfy place and comfort does breed complacency.
I wish you well.
Been planing a move to Galt's Gulch for many years. Looks like the time is at hand.
Seriously, what is up with you, Mr Lynch? On the other thread, you were criticizing Reason (both magazine and foundation) for not stemming the tide of statism in America, and here you're telling people they should just up and move to another country if they don't like the behavior of our government. However much you fancy yourself some sort of libertarian Dear Abby, no one is asking you for advice, especially when that advice is littered with smug condescension.
Wait...I knew Andrew Lynch sounded familiar...
Here was his response to a Radley Balko story about an unarmed college student shot in the chest during a drug raid that found no drugs.
Andrew Lynch|3.13.09 @ 2:14AM|#
Radley Balko, making it easier to generate page views with his sensational and disproportionate obsession. Suckers.
Wait, where's the argument that any cop who transgresses is one cop who transgresses too many?
Still looking for that utopian memo on my fax machine. Still looking for that objective look at the overall (Radley, that means the BIG PICTURE) examination of isolated incidents vs. the necessary and relatively successful tension between law enforcement and law-enforcement abuse.
Your tedious and demonstrable reliance on the sucker punch proves that you don't have it in you to engage in discourse at a higher level.
**
And here's Mr. Guidance Counselor's response to another Balko post about wrong door SWAT raids:
Andrew Lynch|1.13.09 @ 4:46AM|#
Radley Balko's tireless and tiresome vigilance against the Almighty Cop is nothing more than provocation. He is incapable of balancing his COPS ARE EVIL stance with anything approaching proportional objectivity, which ultimately makes his ridiculous little SWAT attacks on BAD COP BEHAVIOR as laughable as Christians railing against the evil of gays. His posts are parodies of themselves, but boy do they generate clicks!
***
By all means, dude, keep up the good fight against nativity scenes in town squares. Don't let innocent people being terrorized by thugs with badges distract you from your noble crusade for liberty.
As a wise man once said, "Your tedious and demonstrable reliance on the sucker punch proves that you don't have it in you to engage in discourse at a higher level."
Say, why don't you vote with your feet and not hang out at H&R since you consider it such a useless place?
Shorter Lynch:
Health Insurance == evil statism, flee the country
Police brutality == cops were provoked, sit down and shut up
muahaha you orange kiddies couldn't help me and Nanny Pelosi *sucks on fetus brains*
Welcome to the 11th province of Canada, the United Socialist States of America...not that its really anything new.
I wonder how many physicians are now going to seriously consider either moving out of the US to practice or just leave the profession entirely.
This is a truly dark hour.
I'm just numb to it all now.
Just the way they like us. We can remember it for you wholesale.
I had some hope that we might be able to return to the republic without a Soviet-style collapse, but it's pretty clear that it can't be avoided now.
-jcr
The good news is that it isn't going to take 80 years for a collapse... the U.S. is almost there already, even without this health care development.
"I wonder how many physicians are now going to seriously consider either moving out of the US to practice or just leave the profession entirely."
According to the poll done by Investor's Business Daily, about 40%.
So much for expanding access to health care.
I am seriously considering leaving the profession. My financial obligations are about the only thing keeping me in the profession right now. I do like taking care of my patients, but on the flip side I want the autonomy to largely practice on my terms and how I deem most appropriate and beneficial for my patients.
Or, I enter an area of practice that doesn't require direct patient care, such as pathology, comparative or anatomical. Malpractice is much lower as well.
I'm not quite to the point of "fuck people", but I'm damn close.
What do you know of (or suspect, the contents still not being divulged) in this bill that would affect your ability to largely practice on your own terms?
1) Lack of TORT reform.
2) Mandated quotas for having a certain percentage of Medicare/Caid patients, thereby raising the patient to doctor ratio resulting in less time and less intimate, thorough care.
3) Fines/reprisal for refusing to see such patients, even in private practice.
4)Lower and lower reimbursement rates artificially killing insurance companies and growing a public option leading to rationing.
5) More mandated defensive medicine, i.e., unecessary and
superfluous testing, thereby raising costs
unless rationing is mandated.
6) More intrusive government into patients private medical info, effectively circumventing HIPAA.
7) Effectively being an agent of the State, having to report directly the government aspects and care of your private health concerns and decided by someone else, not your doctor (remember HMO's?)
Well, #1 is simply no change, so I don't see how that would cause the rxn you gave. As to the rest, wow, do you have inside info or what? I mean, I could see your suspecting one or two fo those things, but this list suggests there's a pipeline to your ear that the rest of us don't have.
As to tort reform though, I despair of the problem's tractability by legislative means without anti-freedom side effects. What reforms could be legislated without impairing due process (including the jury system) and the common law of torts?
You asked what I suspected, and I am allowing for a worst case scenario.
Remember, this is not about health care reform or accessibility.
As for your tort reform question, I propose a loser pays, cap on punitive damages and awards up to actual damages. Essentially, weeding out the frivolous and insane jury awards.
You are free to sue if there is a case with merit; you should be recompensed for actual damages, particularly if disability occurs resultant from Treatment.
Caps were passed in TX, and already malpractice rates have dropped and a more practice friendly state.
It's exactly like tax cuts for businesses: lessen the cost and regulation of conducting business and a market can flourish thus meeting the largest amount of need possible.
Of course what's costly is discouraged. But how can you say there won't be any cases where a jury would be right to impose punitive damages that are greater than actual ones? It's like saying no penalty should exceed the amount of damage done for an action; would you say that someone who drove recklessly and caused a certain amount of damage should never have to pay out more than double the damages (100% for the actual damage, another 100% punitive, as I read your proposal)? That's what punitive damages are supposed to be for, discouraging unwarranted behavior, and why would you preclude a jury's judgement in that regard, just because some juries judge incorrectly? Especially when the judge is already empowered to reduce the award?
"My financial obligations are about the only thing keeping me in the profession right now."
If that is why you are in medicine I agree you should leave the profession.
Medical care should be a hobby, not a profession. That is the only way we can purge the system of profit and greed.
Then do something about the amazingly high cost of becoming a doctor.
I said "about" Nebby. Financial is not the only reason, but the climate right now is rather discouraging at times. I gotta eat and keep my practice afloat too.
Case in point, about three weeks ago on ER call, a pt. presented with an eviscerated small intestine resultant from an MVA, with incarceration and strangulation.
About four feet of small intestine excised and re-anastomosed later, along with abdominal exploration to R/O any other visceral hemorrhaging, in addition to addressing pneumothorax resultant from costal fractures, the pt was saved. (Was in OR for over five hours.)
Lot of work there, and very intensive and high risk. Keep in mind, regardless of ability to pay, if negligence or malpractice has occurred, he would find some ambulance chaser to take his case. Thankfully, none occurred.
It was later told to me he was/is indigent; the hospital won't see a dime from this patient, never mind my bill. I essentially performed a service for free without the benefit of making that decision myself.
EMTALA requires anyone who presents to the ER to be treated regardless of ability to pay. That's the law, fine. But to force hospitals and doctors to treat an increasing amount of people in this fashion drains the system, kills morale, increases wait times (especially people with complaints that could be treated by urgent care, be treated at home or wait for an office visit) and drives up costs.
I assure you, I am not the only one who feels this way.
Wouldn't you be paid by the insurer of the party at fault in the motor vehicle accident? If the indigent patient was at fault, wouldn't Medicaid pay? Or does the pt. have to already have been enrolled in Medicaid before presenting?
Hey, genius, maybe the indigent was the victim of a hit and run. Or maybe he was the driver and crashed all by himself?
Seriously, you couldn't think of any situation that would lead to Groovus' experience?
One has to be enrolled in Medicaid first; it is not retroactive.
EMT/Paras reported his MVA was solitary and his fault.
Yeah, I read that poll and also participated in it, but there is a difference between a poll, which is a measure of inclination. Big difference between inclination and actually walking away from something that requires so much personal, emotional, physical and spiritual development.
So much for expanding access to health care.
Medical Schools will no doubt implement more lax admission criteria to make up for the decrease in supply. Provided the AMA will permit more medical licenses being issued in an academic year (quite possible, especially if they have quota say so in what areas of medicine should be filled first, e.g. Primary Care/Family practice). Also, advanced practice nurses such as ARNP's and CRNA's are and will be in higher demand to pick up the slack as well, since they are cheaper that physicians and take less time to educate for practice.
Dr. Maximus, you'll be interested to know that New Zealand -- a nationalized-health system -- lists among its skilled-migrant shortages "healthcare professionals." I've spent quite a lot of time in NZ and have chatted with lots of nurses. They say that uncompetitive wages drove the medical brain trust to Australia and the U.S., where one presumably makes more money. For immigration purposes, they score medical professionals very highly and roll out the red carpet if they will agree to work in remote areas/small towns, where highly skilled medical pros are as common as Hope diamonds.
There's a lot of backstory to this. Happy to share more if you want to exchange emails (how does one do that around here without being spammed by curs?).
I don't think we've even begun to understand the economic fallout from Washington's "reform."
Click on the handle.
This abomination to the economy hasn't passed the Senate,yet.
I'm familiar with rural medicine as the city I practice is largely rural and some areas are remote.
I would be most interested to know malpractice insurance rates and I can investigate any int'l testing/licensure requirements for NZ or AU.
Any info would be appreciated.
Click on the handle Andrew.
I would be interested to know malpractice insurance rates in NZ and AU, plus any other anecdotal info you might have.
Testing and licensing requirements for NZ and AU I can investigate myself. It would not surprise me if they have loan reimbursement for a contracted amount of service.
This abomination hasn't passed the Senate, yet.
I would be interested to know malpractice insurance rates in NZ and AU.
Testing and licensing requirements for NZ and AU I can investigate myself. It would not surprise me if they have loan reimbursement for a contracted amount of service.
This abomination hasn't passed the Senate, yet.
Check my handle as well, Andrew.
They roll out the red carpet for migration, but are the wages more competitive now?
You are making an excellent argument that the US pays its doctors too much. Yes, we have been draining doctors from other countries, because we pay (far) more. Then we wonder why we spend 50% more on health care than everyone else.
Huh...made sense to me to pay doctors, engineers and other highly trained/skilled professionals alot.
Doctors get paid FAR more than engineers. Actually, as I have mentioned several times, scientists are a better comparison because they have the same number of years of education. The only substantial difference is that scientists graduate with a smaller loan burden, but this can easily be adjusted for. Scientists, unlike doctors, work in a competitive market and therefore provide proper baseline data for what doctors should earn (before adding to cover the loans).
Not so fast, my friend! Large Hadron Collider aside, "scientists" are unlikely to cause me to die due to action/inaction. Kind of a broad field if you ask me.
And how is it that doctors don't work in a competitive market?
Chad, who are you to say how much I am to paid for services rendered?
I get so tired of "this person makes too much, that CEO is evil, this actor is paid too much, why are athletes paid so much, musicians get paid too much" meme.
It's none of anyone's damn business how much people make in their given vocation.
Perhaps Chad if Medicare/Caid wasn;t so slow paying, red tape ridden, and generally a nightmare as a entity to deal with, more doctors might accept patients with it.
If all I served were Medicare/Caid patients, with my overhead (malpractice insurance in particular), I'd go broke very quickly unless I worked myself to death.
And then care suffers.
And SPAM? My big toe, servers!
As long as you are protected by a cartel (the AMA) and not competing a free market, you shouldn't expect the luxury of the government not interfering with how much you charge.
Doctors should be salaried, anyway. Fee-for-service creates too many conflicts of interest.
I am not a member of the AMA. I rescinded my membership as soon as I got out of residency.
AMA membership is often required by medical schools and many residencies require membership.
Chad: bitch-slapped right into next Tuesday.
Hey Chad, shake it off and throw us another "information asymmetry" - not that it would be any more appropriate in this context, but it would be just as funny.
It doesn't matter. They still are keeping out the majority of people who want to be doctors, in order to keep supply low and incomes high.
Only about 40% of the people who apply to medical school ever get in to one. There is no reason that this couldn't be raised to say, 50%, increasing supply by 25%. This would have a strong downward push on wages.
Not quite Brainy Smurf. Larger class sizes will lead to higher rates of tuition and increased cost to individual students thus inflating the already high cost of the schooling and training required to become a doctor.
Seems like a perfect storm for the education to subsidized by Dear Government, and almost certainly allowing dictation of which areas of medicine will be filled first, i.e., "You wanna be a doc on our dime, we get to dictate what kind you are gonna be!" And G-d knows how terrible government is at managing supply and demand re: wage and price controls.
Remember the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
I think what Chad is referring to is that the Govt. allows the
AMA to be the one to license medical schools. They keep the
number of schools limited and therefore the supply of doctors
limited which keeps salaries up. The fact that many of the govt.
healthcare programs pay by procedure contributes to high costs as
well. Even the fact that most people have HMO's with healthcare
paid for by the employer has its origins in govt. laws and the
tax code. I've seen some good articles on how the healthcare
consumer not being the actual customer that pays the insurance
companies is a big reason costs go up so much. The FDA has done
its share to raise drug costs as well. The "free" market has
little to do with healthcare problems. At some point, it gets
really difficult to start figuring out what is the cause because
we have 50-plus years of interference by congress.
One reason athletes in NFL etc. get paid so much is because most
of the sports leagues are also govt. created and licensed
entities given monopoly status just as the AMA is. I remember in
the 80's when osteopaths were becoming much more popular and
respected and they had these little cheesy medical schools (some
of them) that looked like it was someone's house that had been
turned into a school. Yet they had a good reputation. When they
merged with the AMA I thought "good for them" THey have been
recognized. Now I realize it was probably the AMA's way of
preventing the proliferation of a competitor's medical schools.
It always comes back to basic economics and most people don't
have the patience, exposure to, or in some cases the intellect to
understand it.
I am a DO and remember well some of my profs' anecdotes about how difficult it was for DO's to get "respect and legitimacy" from MDs. Heck, I remember my own PCP saying "Yep, those backcrackers finally got on board and are practicing real medicine," when I was in med school. Pissed me off, the old coot.
We can thank Teddy Kennedy for spearheading HMO's and Great
Society legislation for the bulk of government intrusion into
health care
Also, in the late 70's and 80's was when Medicare fraud was
rampant due to the adoption of DRGs (Diagnosis Related Groups)
which essentially set a price for a specific DX and treatment
thereof with a set reimbursement. The kicker there was if the
cost of a given TX/procedure and stay was more than the
reimbursement, the hospital paid the difference. If the stay was
shorter and a good outcome arrived faster, then the hospital kept
the difference, which encouraged the trend of short hospital
stays (which I don;t see a problem with).
Where the big problem came was
corrupt greedy physicians filing false claims or inflating the DX
to get a higher reimbursement for a lesser condition, all the
while billing for unnecessary tests which physicians' saw a part
of the profit. A severe lack of oversight when dealing with a
government entity.
HMO's are fairly efficient cost cutters, but patients tend not to like the draconian approach to cost containment. Best way to avoid this, as you implied is get patients to realize the true cost of care, which insurance insulates patients from.
I do agree that increasing supply of physicians would lower costs some, due to competition and S&D, but due to the cost of becoming one in general, in an area with exceptionally high malpractice insurance (major surgery, OBGYN, anesthesia) in particular, salaries will still remain commensurate to overhead.
No doctor wants to be in debt for life.
Doctors should be salaried, anyway. Fee-for-service creates too many conflicts of interest.
Oh yes, like the doctors in the military or at the VA where they don't have any incentive to do more than just what is necessary to draw their salary every month. Be sure to ask some veterans about the care at VA hospitals and clinics, hotshot.
Yep, just like the 75% of people who work for corporations. Somehow, corporations manage to reward performance and encourage hard work without paying for each individual piece of paper we push or "t" we cross.
Indeed, people paid this way usually spend most of their time how to cross lots of "t"'s really fast at the expense of actually serving our customers.
You're referring to the prospects of promotion, I assume. I'm not sure how that works in medicine outside an administrative track.
Yep, a doctor is just like a web programmer or accountant or production line worker.
That's funny...weren't you one of the ones complaining about how bonuses in the financial industry were horrible and made people too focused on short term profits?
The only case I made Brainy Smurf was for reasons for decreased quality of care.
One gets what one pays for.
I straddle the line of Agnostic and Atheist. Right now, I hope God is very real and that all the shit about "End Times" is real. These fucking people need to suffer for their stupidity.
Oh, they will. Don't count on the End Times to get you out of this, though: none know the the day or the hour of that.
Don't expect to escape their fate yourself, either, unless you repent and believe. No one gets to sit on the sidelines for eternity.
No one gets to sit on the sidelines for eternity.
With the possible exception of Jim Sorgi.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....alth-care/
"Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the
basis of
pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers
would no
longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender
or
medical history."
The best analogy I've heard for this would be the following: You crash your car, so the next day you show up at your insurance company and ask them to pay to fix it which, by law, they have to do. What's better is that they're not allowed to charge you more than a person who has never had an accident.
THAT IS FUCKING INSANE. Does anyone actually think that this ends well....?
Some days I'm pretty optimistic in general, but when shit like this happens I've convinced that we've become a country of idiots that is getting the government that we deserve.
One problem is conflating health care with insurance. Health maintenance isn't analogous to owning an auto. If it were we'd call it health car.
Maybe this is the worst way to go about reforming health care delivery, but it looks like it's going to happen, so it'll be fun to watch. Death will not be instantaneous.
I assume there's nothing in this bill that requires insurance companies to stay in the health care business? So if it's the disaster many think it will be, one or more will drop out. If that happens there'll be an awakening. If it doesn't then maybe it isn't as awful as some portray it.
If the insurance companies actually like it, and thrive, then what? Is it a success?
No, corporatism and rent-seeking since their customers will be "encouraged" to seek them at the point of a gun.
I also do not believe it is the intention of this bill for insurance cos. to "thrive and succeed."
You are correct: health insurance is a means to pay for care (a service) rendered.
And yes, this is the worst way to "reform" the system.
Anyone know if the $1500 is per person or per family? $125/mo beats what I'm currently paying.
Since the bill wasn't posted for 72 hrs. before the vote, I certainly don't know for sure.
For what they are wanting cover, $1500 per family member (and that is individuals, not fingers, nose, penis, appendicular limbs) it might cover costs for the first year.
Highly unlikely.
Not for the public option, no way. I mean if it's $1500 per family for the fine, it'll be cheaper for me to just not have insurance until something catastrophic happens, then get insurance the next day.
I am uninsured and probably qualify for state health care assistance but refuse it. I will refuse to get insurance should this abomination pass the senate and get signed into law. It is not fair that the conscientious objection to health care of the Amish is respected but not ordinary Americans. I will fight this and I hope I'm not alone.
what if people started their own Anabaptist (Amish) churches, would that be a loop hole? how do they determine who is "really" Amish? of course they don't pay taxes either so I'm sure the system is set up so you have to be a member of a preexisting Amish church because their members also don't pay taxes or SS.
yeah but in PA I'm pretty sure they don't pay all (or at least most) state taxes.
Those scissors are reaching for America's balls. Snip,
snip.
Congratulations! We're halfway to the U.K.
Congratulations! We're halfway to the U.K.
Yep, 233 years after passing a different "bill" -- by far more than five votes -- that said we definitely did not want to be that.
Well, technically, I guess we said we didn't want to be Great Britain. Or maybe it was just England. Whatever. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of them have no interest in America, either way.
See what happens when you let a bunch of Papist immigrants into your country? This shit started way back in the early 1800's and now you have a commie Catholic whop bitch as Speaker of the House and one of your masters. Enjoy your servitude, dumbfucks.
"Know nothing" is the right handle for you.
I know a LOT of Catholics and NONE f them support this bill you bigoted jacksas.
The "jackasses" are the Democrats - I'm not a Democrat. As for biggotted - I'm not anymore biggotted than the Italian-Americans, the Mexican-Americans, the Irish-Americans, the Asian-Americans, the African-Americans or any of the other hyphenated-motherfuckers in this country. What's the D at the end of your handle stand for - Dumbfuck?
The media will be giving you a call shortly. They are looking for a cartoonish buffoon of the right to help them with their propaganda efforts.
Ha! They already have Beck and Limbaugh for cartoonish buffoons of the right - what more do they want?
The impact on businesses is going to be interesting, to say the least. 10% plus unemployment and imposing huge negative externalities on one of the largest variable costs.
I also look forward to who ever in the market figures out how to game the system and make a fortune of it. Someone will, the business world is infinitely smarter and more motivated than any Congress in the future.
Cao knows what it takes to maintain his seat in Jefferson's district. He also voted for cap and tax. It didn't take him long to grow accustomed to power, motherfucker.
As with everything, it looks like it was a promise of a little pork for his district that won the vote:
"Cao, a devout Catholic, said Sunday that an amendment to strengthen anti-abortion language in the House bill cleared the way for his support.
"When that was worked out … I called the White House and said I could possibly support the bill," said Cao, adding he discussed getting continued help for his district as it seeks to fully recover from the impact of Hurricane Katrina."
I agree. It is people like you anonymity bot who got us into this problem! People (and bots) like you are the kind of Tunturisopuli_Lemmus_Lemmus the politicians know they can push around. Thanks a lot anonymity bot. Thanks for being a Tunturisopuli_Lemmus_Lemmus!
Most examples for the uninsured are about those with low income. I am high income, but cannot get private insurance.
Private insurance, Anthem in Ohio, has denied coverage of me due to a pre-existing condition. (They were willing to insure my spouse and kids.)
History: Received mental health care from private doctors, under Employer coverage, approx 2002-2005. Labeled as post-partum depression, but could have been labeled as PTSD; symptoms are same for depression/PTSD/personality disorders/anxiety/etc. Initial events include a Sep-9-01 car accident while 8-months pregnant and when enroute home from Reserve duty, then later anxiety stuff from working GWOT intel (creating the culture and behavior techniques of social networks used to discover/decide who are the leaders, et al). So far, I've not sought an official finding for a service-connected condition. I've seen a doctor only once in the past 2+ years; labeled as situational "Anxiety Attack" (due to a stressful overseas trip for a UAV SPO meeting).
Spouse and I are currently self-employed, with our own consulting business. I sponsor our family insurance with Tricare Reserve Select.
Catch-22: If I quit Reserve duty, I'm no longer eligible to stay on Tricare, and I can't get private health insurance. I can get insurance for my very healthy kids. (Will pay for dentists out of pocket.)
I'm trying to stay in Reserve to retirement in three years, ~2013. So, right when I'd lose Tricase, the mandatory purchasing requirement would be kicking in. Yet, as a Reserve retiree, I've been told, once retired, I'm not eligible to stay on Tricare. (Become eligible for Tricare or Medicare when reach age 65.)
The private insurance, Anthem, said that if I go another calendar year without seeing a mental health doctor, then I'll probably be eligible for insurance. So, for three more years, I get to keep being a sounding board for other Reservists and co-workers problems. (I'm in leadership, we've had a Base-wide down day this spring for suicides, so listening and being available is stressed in the support training. Yet, my circumstances discourage me from getting help myself. Ironic, huh.)
For now, I'm staying a Reservist, and hope to get through to 20 years. Have started some research on Ohio policies for “guaranteed issuance”. (My skimming of Ohio policy seems to indicate the state has a hybrid approach: We are not a state with 100% guaranteed issue. There is some expectation that insurers take on their share of the high-risk individuals. Looking like, applying for insurance in Jan of any given year is the thing to do. Every Jan, guaranteed issuance is the policy, until each insurer in its pool for that year meets its quota of the number of high risk folks in the pool. I've NOT seen a doctor except for once in mulitiple years for mental health, yet I'm considered expensive.)
By the way, from my last annual Reserve exam, if I seek any mental health counseling, I would likely be submitted to a Review Board for potential disenrollment, thus I'd lose my coverage yet also not get military disability or retirement. (There's a potential to gather LOTS of paperwork and argue for a service-connection finding, but most of this would be an atypical submission based on IG-complaint and harassment reprisal submissions leading to Anxiety; it would not be from the normal paperwork of doctor visits. There's a potential to not be immediately disenrolled, allowed to stay ONLY to minimum-20 retirement yet continuous monitoring that my duties are not "aggravating my condition". Paperwork, paperwork, headache.)
P.S. This week's excitement: For the first time in his entire life (except to be born), my husband is in the hospital. Stomach pains; hopefully, fixed with remove gallbladder. So, he may now also have a pre-existing condition also. Sigh. (He's a Reservist too.)
Summary: In 2013, I will be quitting Reserve and thus lose my current family coverage, Tricare. The mandatory purchasing requirement would kick in, but I may not be eligible for private coverage due to mental health treatment. If our consulting success continues, we'll be way WAY above the income level for government-subsidized insurance. I won't be able to buy private insurance. Yet, there'll be a purchase mandate.
Would I be a good case for a lawyer against the mandate?
Our significant savings could show self-insured. (Ohio car insurance requires only Liability coverage, or post a bond to prove self-insurance.)
Unbelieveable. I'm a reader/lurker and not a goddamned one of you reasonites responded to this person? You've got a half-mile long thread below and not a one-o-ya can give this person an answer. Fucking libertarians.. no wonder I don't trust em.
Scrat, Chris asked for the advice of an atty. and I am not one.
However, Chris, your case is one of why personal insurance should be able to be purchased across state lines.
Is Anthem the only private insurance provider in OH? You indicated that you are currently searching alternatives.
Is your primary DX depression or generalized anxiety? Are you currently taking med therapy for it/them? Generally Post-Part Depression is exogenous, temporary and not considered a pre-exist.
Husband, yeah if he is having a cholecystectomy (DX would be helpful. Gall stones? Infection present and extent? Family HX of gall bladder complaints?) that is going to be pre-exist since the likelihood of later complications, especially if low-fat diet and appropriate meds are prescribed and not followed, is more likely.
The information most lacking is what is in the bill itself and whether the Senate will pass it. Since you assuming a worst case scenario (which is wise), I would follow that mindset and basically keep looking for policies that may cover you and your husband (his HX may actually be easier to cover and then enroll as spouse). An HSA might be wise to look into for now and continue to pay OOP for routine care.
Your Catch-22 with Tricare seems to be just that, and the logic of the Reserves escapes me. If you pursue a service connection finding, you jeopardize your coverage. If you don't, you forgo your treatment for at least one year and potentially exacerbate your condition. Yet, to make it to 2013, you are subjected to a plethora of paperwork. It appears either way on that one your options are limited. Since I also don't know the extent your MH-TX, I cannot answer that one as well.
I would suggest requesting a copy of your medical records to see what your DX's are exactly as the CPT/ICD-9 code can determine insurability.
It may be wise to consult now an atty. specializing in insurance law or contacting OH insurance regulatory commission for more clarification as well.
I apologize for not being able to help more and I wish you well Chris.
Thanks much for the suggestions!
"Is Anthem the only private insurance provider in OH?" No. After getting the Tricare setup, I've since explored the State of Ohio websites. There's a LONG list of other insurers. So, next time I attempt to get insurance, I'll be ready to speed an entire day on the phone to call a dozen insurers, provide the family history, and get quotes. Anthem had initially said yes, and for a good price, from the phone conversation. Receiving the written letter with their decision change -- denying me -- was such a let down that I forgo further attempts; chose the path of least resistance and got the Tricare.
Now, with the info I've learned on Ohio 'guaranteed issuance' policies and the list of state-licensed insurers, I'm confident that I could find coverage. It was a bit of an emotional ride to recount the history to a complete stranger on the phone. But, having done it once, next time will be easier. I know what to expect for their questions, and will be ready to recite the facts to multiple strangers and get a basket of quotes.
For your other questions, here is the rest of the basic history:
- Hubby's DX: pancreatitis. He's recovering fine. Home from hospital in a few days, then gallbladder to be removed later this month. It'll be a permanent condition. Optimistic for a full recovery, and some good life-style changes for his dietary habits.
- Me:
History: DX was changed from PPD to OCD. Time on medications was
relatively brief; I think 12 months, maybe a few more. No current
medications, and I expect to NEVER need them again. Only the one
doctor visit since the PEB. In lieu of formal therapy, I use
self-help books to practice my own behavior therapy, and it works
well.
Paperwork: I have a very complete copy of all medical records, since it was needed for a Physical Evalualtion Board (PEB). Military doctor provided a detailed write-up to remove the non-deployable code, return to fully fit for duty. :-)
Most of my events preceded the big PTSD awareness. I find it a bit bothersome that I got the PPD label as the default for a female, rather than a PTSD (for the initial car accident, grandfather died unexpectedly, ...too much drama).
OCD is considered permanent, and PTSD probably would be as well. So, not worth the effort to get them changed unless I'd want a disability on my record. And, probably best to not have the disability should I change from self-employed to an employer. An obsessive-compulsive style is a benefit for error-free software development; but not an argument usable in a job interview.
Thank you for the info on "CPT/ICD-9 code can determine insurability". Details like this are very helpful. I'm sure that our insurance situation will work out one way or another. (Sorry to all for such a long post. The OCD kicking in when under stress, and trying to find solutions and ways forward.)
Most important, outlook is good for our family's health. Hubby is on the mend, and will be back home soon.
Very much appreciate the response! Thanks, and best wishes to you as well.
We have called. We have emailed. We have had peaceful demonstrations in large number. We have played nice and obeyed all the rules. They still have not listened. It is now time for mass civil disobedience. Who is with me?
That's just what the Left is hoping: that the Right will become violent.
The response will make the Patriot Act look like a jaywalking law.
I don't think most Americans understand just how easily this system could be collapsed almost overnight without firing a shot or even breaking a law, if only we had enough courage and will.
It would take all the true working taxpayers (including the employers) becoming self-sufficient enough to be able to grow just enough food to survive on, withdrawing all our assets from the financial systems, going on strike and not paying any more income taxes. Basically just stop working and shut it all down.
This is obviously just a pipe dream, as most people today are too terrified to even contemplate such a thing.
Given the state of the economy everything may collapse anyway - everything except government power, of course.
Did I say violent? No. I meant nonviolent CIVIL Disobediance like Dr. King, Ghandi and Henry David Thoreau.
B.S.
They are terrified of the idea of people rejecting the authority and legitimacy of the system that has allowed them to roll over the opposition virtually at will over the past century. There's been no consequences for anything they've done besides long-term electoral success for them.
The problem is that many of the people who recognize the implications of what they are doing and have done are the same people who rightfully realize and fear the potential consequences of armed disorder. These people are, in effect, held hostage by their own reasonableness, in the face of an opposition that has for decades courted and put into power radicals and taken over institutions such as the universities by force, bribery, and blackmail.
if your idea of civil disobedience in this case is refusing to get health insurance, I'm in.
I should say, I already have private insurance, but I will refuse to use the public option.
I am in. If I am forced to pay, and I can't do the jail time to not pay. I will make sure I cost in a week what I pay for the year.
Or I will try at least, it might take more than a week.
While you folks may not exactly be enthusiastic about the topic, here's a way in which the abortion issue can be *highly* relevant to your concerns.
Specifically, the abortion issue is turning into an apple of discord with the potential to split the supporters of nationalized health care.
this article in the NY times explains how the House passed a pro-life amendment to the bill - the leadership hadn't wanted a vote on the amendment, but pressure from prolife Democrats ultimately forced the vote - by threatening to kill the bill. The pro-aborts are furious and hope to kill the prolife amendment (known as Stupak-Pitts) either in the Senate or in the conference committee.
You can see the relevance for opponents of the bill: If the prolife language is left out, the prolifers might oppose the bill as a whole, but if it's left in, the pro-aborts might oppose it.
So why did the anti-healthcare GOP congressmen vote to remove the free abortions when that just made the bill passable by the democrats? Seems like they could have killed the bill just by abstaining on the abortion amendment.
Because now they can say they tried to stop it, but couldn't. But they did get an important thing changed. Win/Win
Reelected.
Because they're scared of the pro-life lobby, who ordered them to vote for the amendment.
I heard on CPAN that they are going to score the one Republican who voted "present" as having voted "no" -- meaning his lifetime pro-life score will drop.
Technically, the bill funds abortions, in the case of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is at stake. I don't see how the pro-life lobby finds that palatable, but I guess that's politics for you.
Mad Max,
Your leaders in the funny hats are full-throated in their support of national health care. Watch your mouth, kneel down and obey!
In the context of the health care debate, claims of rights must be balanced by a sense of duty. For example, those whose employment provides them with good insurance which in turn gives them access to premium health care are understandably concerned that their access to it may be curtailed under the proposed legislation. They may justifiably argue for the right to retain their insurance and the consequent access to superior care. But they should also acknowledge their duty to contribute to better care for all those who presently lack the means to afford such insurance and such care. In other words, if the affluent have the right to claim good medical treatment, then they also have a corresponding duty to contribute to better treatment for others for the sake of the common good. In the end, it is a matter of good stewardship, the best use of our God-given resources for all.
Hallelujah... Finally, the USA acknowledges the Value of ALL citizens, not just the Rich and Powerful or Well Connected! "It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell.
Yes, there were too many cooks in the kitchen, our Health Care Menu is an overdone, complicated mess... but at least we have one. Now, the competent and qualified can fine tune the recipes and make it an American Success!
Proud to be an American
I'm wondering, should I try to get to #1 in a search for "Michael Ejercito"? Something like, "Why is RE Agent Michael Ejercito telling me to STFU?"
Maybe you should do a Google search for "shut the fuck up, Lonewacko".
Indeed.
I am surprised Dicky Hoste has not posted his comments yet.
Finally, the USA acknowledges the Value of ALL citizens, not just the Rich and Powerful or Well Connected!
Which is of course why Congress exempted itself.
The one thing I have never understood is this: How does putting everything into the political realm, by having the govt. involved in more and more, reduce the effects of being rich, powerful, and well connected. Seems to me it means that the rich, powerful, well-connected politicians run things and can give favors to friends and family without worrying about that nasty "profit" motive. I would think that it makes having "connections" even more important and that you "might" see the appearance of a class of businessman that seek favors and special treatment from government in the name of the little people. And that you then might see the govt. helping those businesses when they fail. But that could never happen. The people in the government only care about the little people and our elections and our brilliant media act as a guarantee that only the best and the brightest make it in politics and that's why there is absolutely no corruption or waste or fraud when the govt. is involved and that is why we need more.
Either way, I'm safe.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/4.....2014NB.pdf
Come to Arizona; it's looking more and more like Galt's Gulch to me...
AS long as you have that America hating traitor Sherrif Joe running around, you can count me out.
As bad as New England is, it's not a banana republic with little thugs who thought the Russians won the cold war stopping me in the street to demand my papers.
He's loosing support quickly and that's only in Maricopa county.
I resent the "banana republic" comment... It's more like a really dry, hot republic...
Last I checked, AZ is still covered by our (as opposed to your) national defense. You can't go Galt inside the U.S. because you're always going to be mooching off things like our national defense.
The only way to go Galt for real is to go somewhere like Somalia. Start your journey by mooching off the information here.
jp, by competent and qualified you are referring to Henry Waxman. Either that was a bad troll or you are a sick fuck.
If the prolife language is left out, the prolifers might oppose the bill as a whole, but if it's left in, the pro-aborts might oppose it.
The Republicans' amendment provided cover for the Dems' anti-aborters to vote yes, and their pro-aborters know that the non-funding of (some) abortion will be reversed, eventually, or worked around via increased Fed "partnering" with Planned Parenthood, etc.
A few more fanatically pro-abort types in the Senate may make enough noise to get some pork sent their way before they vote yes, but by voting yes, they know they'll get what they want, eventually, via conference, further legislation, or the courts.
This abortion shit is a show. The deal is done, and it's been done for a long time.
"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell
So Dingell and his co-conspirators are planning to force doctors to continue to practice? Is that going to be in the "doctor fix" bill coming down the road?
Max
Let's say you were OK for health care reform to pass. Would you
be opposed to coverage of birth control pills? If not, would you
be on this site urging libertarians to oppose that one provision
of the bill?
If you could pass the health care bill by acknowleding that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was in favor of eugenics, would you do it? Or would you continue to insist that Holmes was simply adopting a neutral, judicially-restrained position on the subject?
'Let's say you were OK for health care reform to pass.'
Ludwig is always apropo when discussing the forceful stupidity of our leaders.
Mises gets some love from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj
The other day, I cut myself and didn't go to a doctor. Last week, I drove a big sliver into my hand while unloading some plywood, and I just pulled it out myself, and kept working!
Does this make me un-American?
I respect those who think the government shouldn't cover any legal, accepted medical procedures and treatments, and those who say it should cover all legal, accepted medical procedures, but this idea that abortion alone should be excluded is goofy as all get out. If you don't want abortion to be a legal and accepted medical procedure as it is now, then work to get that changed, and then of course any government program should not support it. But while it is a legal and accepted medical procedure it's goofy to exclude it from any coverage offered.
In 99% of the cases it's performed, abortion is an elective medical procedure. Do you support using taxpayer money to cover breast implants and Botox treatment?
Elective in 99% of the cases, obviously. I would except women who have a medical condition that causes pregnancy to be life-threatening, but those cases are rare.
Look, one of the myriad of reasons why this is a terrible idea.
I'm for choice in abortions, but I'm sure as hell not tax dollars paying for them. At this point in our government, after wars and drug wars and all sorts of evil shit, it might seem like a moot point, but you really can't force people to pay for something they think consider baby killing.
Face it, you and MNG are the Professor X and Magneto of the abortion debate, :p
If someone wants to kill their baby, have at it. But I don't want any of the blood on my hands.
There are lots of people out there that are dealing with aches and pains that nothing can be done about. I wonder how many of those will actually go to the doctor once they have free, unlimited health care? The initial flood of patients will (IMO) be the very first of the unintended consequences of Obamacare.
Then work to get the law changed. But as your side has lost on that right now and the procedure is a legal and accepted medical one, pray tell why a program which pays for legal and medical procedures should not cover it?
I mean a Jehovah's Witness could just as easily say "If someone want's to drink blood [how they see blood transfusions], have at it. But I don't want any of the blood on my hands."
MNG,
would you be supportive of Jehovah's Witnesses opting out of the program and the taxes that accompany it?
Because if you're not, you should just shut the fuck up. You've provided an insane non-sequitur.
What you mean is that as long as we're forcing people to pay for something, well, we should just fuck them all the way. No 'just the tip' here!
Should people be able to "opt out" of paying taxes on other government services and programs, because I'd like a rebate for a few defense projects, roads projects, etc.
Basically, yes.
But even without that radical position, that is in no way equivalent.
Do you believe in the draft? Because that's exactly what this is. A healthcare draft--no conscientious objectors are allowed here. You will join or pay!
And, last I checked, the government doesn't get to say which private roads you can't drive on. This healthcare bill eventually determines which healthcare programs are even allowed. It's equivalent to the government controlling what roads private companies are even allowed to build, which is bullshit.
I mean, are you advocating as a general principle that people should be able to opt out of supporting any part of a government program they don't like? Or are you providing a nonsequiter?
First of all, spell it correctly.
Secondly, I presume you would be supportive of this bill but not this one.
Which, unless I am wrong on my assumption, makes you a fucking hypocrite.
I have some good friends who are JW's I would support their right to not pay for any surgeries except bloodless surgeries. I would also respect the right of Christian Scientists to not pay for this program at all. Likewise, I would respect the right of principled libertarians to not to pay for ANY part of government they do not choose to support.
Here is info on bloodless surgery
http://www.noblood.org/
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. . . . Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken, . . .
The Faith-Healer-in-Chief's touch will cure and redeem you, Brother!
Get thee hence!
Let's see blood on my hands for the death of a baby vs. blood on my hands for helping pay for a blood transfusion. Ok.
Cuz the last time I checked both were legal and accepted medical procedures...
I'll explain, MNG.
He finds them morally reprehensible and refuses to provide funding for it.
Look at it this way. Imagine you wake up one morning, and find yourself living in the Third Reich. You don't agree with the extermination of jews, but your neighbors are all hunky dory with it, since untermenchen don't really deserve full rights anyway.
Would you be wrong to not want to support the death camps?
A less extreme example. Let's say that as a blatant bit of corporate welfare, the U.S. Senate proposes to provide all of America with steak dinners. Would the Vegan who supports government provisioning of food be wrong to oppose it?
This is one of the reasons why big government is so damaging to civil society. Rather than being able to get along, people are forced to either support immoral acts or to fight each other.
I have sent an email to my congressman!
Greetings, Congressman M*******.
I was sitting here having a fine cigarette and scotch. Never mind the time. It's always 5 o'clock somewhere, am I right?
I've been maintaining a flaccid interest in this healthcare debate since it's inception, and upon perusing my favorite news sites, I have discovered that the bill in the house did pass. I also found that your name was on the list of 'Ayes.'
I have been uninsured for about a year now. Somebody told me that healthcare for a 21 year old like myself would cost around 60-100 dollars a month. That seems like a stretch at the time. But over the course of the month, I tallied my costs of living, and it seemed that I spent almost that much in various superfluous items. Cigarettes and alcohol being the two major expenses, (most of the expense comes from the government)--but who's to bring that up?.
That's when I made a choice, a hard choice for me. Give up my beloved cigarettes and alcohol, or buckle down and buy health insurance in the free-market. Getting healthier to finance my future is harrrrrrd for us children to understand. I can't even imagine what the video-gamers do. They're games costs almost 50 bucks a pop.
Anyway, I was dreading the decision I made to keep my booze and smokes. Now, I see that congress has helped come to our aid. No longer will we have to make difficult decisions regarding buying unnecessary items to stimulate and economy based on debt and consumption or saving for the future and getting healthier.
Thank you for helping cover me, because I'm sure after a while it would've been hard to find a company in the free market that would've taken on such a case, or I would've had to get healthy.
If you can't beat 'em, benefit from 'em. I always say.
The folks at National Review Online are a bit more sanguine. For example:
It was always clear that the real health-care battle would be in the Senate. But what would have been shocking eight months ago is to hear that it would take until November for the Democrats to pass a bill even in the House. It would have been even more shocking to have heard that, even after a full-court-press by the White House, the bill would pass by only five votes — meaning that if just three of the 435 members had changed their minds, it would have changed the bill's fate. And it would have been shocking to have heard that 39 Democrats would jump ship.
The House bill has passed — barely and belatedly — and it is now dead. Nothing like it will ever pass the Senate. The question now is whether anything will, now that the voters have spoken in New Jersey and Virginia — and now that the exceedingly narrow margin in the House will likely invite even greater scrutiny of that which is being proposed.
Yes, it is - but don't get your hopes up. Even if the health care slavery is eventually defeated, there is still Cap and Trade slavery to worry about.
The narrow margin is only due to Pelosi authorizing Dems in vulnerable districts to vote against. It was going to pass no matter what; the only question was how damaging that passage would be for the Dems' chances to hold on to their majority in 2010.
I would like to see the Senate pass this bill very quickly. But only because I want a revolution.
Serious question.
Is this whole thing being explicitly justified under the Interstate Commerce Clause?
Is there any other clause in the Constitution? That clause has been stretched to cover just about everything.
A Supreme Court suit over the constitutionality would be interesting.
Actually, I believe the Interstate Commerce Clause is a very close real-life analogue to Catch-22.
Is this whole thing being explicitly justified under the
Interstate Commerce Clause?
---------------------------
That clause has been stretched to cover just about
everything.
Has it ever struck anyone here how odd it is that the authors of the Constitution would so carefully enumerate the powers given to Congress and then add a clause that has been interpreted to just about cancel out all the previous one? Unless, of course, that was never their intended interpretation of that clause to begin with.
that clause does not mean what you think it means. read it again, especially the part that comes after the words "general welfare".
Dems don't buy that argument. They take it as gospel: "General Welfare = welfare in general. It means what WE want it to mean."
And the next thing usually out of their mouths is "...but we're not elitist whores for socialism".
Yes, just like Medicare. Now, if you would like to argue that Medicare should be abolished for Constitutional reasons, please go ahead and do it. Political suicide is funny.
HEy Chad,
Take a look around. See that big Federal Government you like so much? In two decades it will be gone, just like the Soviets. It will die when no one is willing to lend it money anymore, and it can't even afford to fuel its tanks.
Too bad the collapse will cause so much suffering. But, hey... You guys had to stab the goose to get at those golden eggs didn't you?
If I thought Schadenfreude was cool, I would enjoy the fact that you'll probably be an old man before you see prosperity again.
I don't need to argue that Medicare should be abolished. All I need to do is sit and wait for the system to collapse in on itself.
I guess i could get more pissed at Democrats but Republicans had a good 6 years if not more to introduce free market reforms to health care which could have taken the rug away from dem arguments about rising costs and the uninsured.
Despite the vote count the Republicans are responsible for this tragedy nearly as much as the Dems are.
The republicans and democrats are in it together. The GOP had their fun implementing their agenda, and when the voters became disgusted with them, they looked at the democrats and said "your turn." This is a tag team gang rape of the American taxpayer. And the dems are about to tag the GOP back in. Bend over.
Remember what happened with Social Security reform? The Democrats managed to convince people that allowing young people to put a portion of their social security money into private accounts would somehow cause old people to die in the streets. The same tactics could and would have been used against any common-sense health reforms. There was never any hope of market-oriented reform.
Yeah, and medical savings accounts got shot down as well. Because they don't fit the liberal template.
My company switched to a high deductible plan with HSA. They don't contribute to the HSA, but I also don't pay the $150 per month that I was paying before (I now put that in the HSA). This year, I will save some money. The more important thing is that the few times I headed to a doctor, I actually paid attention the the bill and asked questions. The billing department was shocked.
You are absolutely right ... people in control of their own money, taking responsibility for the their own health, and weighing costs of using health services doesn't fit in the liberal template, the one where we are all dependent on our reptilian overlords to make all of our decisions for us.
And luckily for the young folks, the plan wasn't implemented. You do realize that anyone under 35 has probably LOST money investing.
But don't worry...the good times will be back someday, right?
Btw, why the hell are we paying CEO's so much? In over twelve years, I would have done better by buying various rocks and hiding them under my bed then lending money to these titans who claim that their big fat bonuses are for oh-so-wisely allocating capital. Upper management shouldn't get paid anything over minimum wage unless they beat a basket of precious metals.
You realize that government programs are funded by tax revenue, right?
You realize that tax revenue is necessary to pay for government programs, right?
When the market takes a dive, tax revenues take a dive, which means funding for government programs takes a dive.
Shitty returns on private investment = shitty returns on social security. There is no escaping economic reality.
Actually Social Security generally has shitty returns in all investment climates. Past performance, in this case, is probably a reliable indicator of future trends.
That would be a lot more true of we taxed capital gains like we tax real income. Indeed, I think we should almost reverse them. W2's represent sweat and tears. Capital gains usually mean wildly speculating other peoples' money and then crying to the government when you blow it.
You're halfway there... howzabout we don't tax capital gains OR income at some ungodly rate that won't fix the deficit or debt anyway?
Face it, Chad... the only reason you want to punish the wealthy
(unless they're Democrats) is because you want to punish them.
There's no way to cover the shortfall with higher taxes, and you
damned well know it.
It's all about revenge on the wealthy, not repairing any problems
caused mostly by politicians of either major party.
Now, I realize you'll have to take some time out of your busy wanking-to-Mao schedule to respond with your typical wealth-envy tripe, but then again you could just go to DU or some other comrade-friendly site and quibble amongst yourselves over how much to soak the evil rich and how to get 100% of people on the dole.
Wow, 2 cents on the dollar out of the money taken from our paychecks. Just wow.
Yes, by all means let's blame the people who unanimously voted against this piece of crap.
Neighbor watching a wife getting beaten by her husband: "It's her fault. She could have bought him a better brand of beer, and she didn't. They're both equally responsible here."
WTF?
Prolefeed,
HAd Bronner ordered the Republicans to vote against the Drucker ammendment (or whatever it was that banned abortion funding), this bill wouldn't have passed.
Unfortuantely, the Republicans don't have a problem with socialism. Just the type that converts fetuses to bio-waste.
Well, no, only 1 Republican voted for the final bill, so killing it wasn't up to them, it was up to the moderate Democrats.
And while Republicans have demonstrated that they're OK with certain types of socialism, this particular iteration wasn't it.
The 220-215 vote should tell you that promises of pork got this passed. And that with or without the Drucker amendment, enough people would have been bribed to get to the 218 votes needed to pass it.
Sorta like the stimulus bill that got killed the first time around, then a whopping serving of pork got it passed.
I find it interesting that the liberals acquiesced on their sacred cow of abortion in this bill.
And to be fair and balanced, republican does equal shit sandwich.
Yeah it equals, "cravenly willing to hand Republicans some power as long as they also amass it for themselves."
The definition also works for Republicans by substituting the word "Democrat" in there.
They did so knowing it can easily be stripped out when the bill moves to committee.
We know we can get abortion in later, with court rulings and administrative decisions. Just you watch!
Tim,
"Houses Passes Health Care Bill"
I think it is only one House that passed it last night. Still one too many.
How many houses does it take to lower the quality of health care in this country?
It's a trick question. One house, but two chambers. Go Senate moderates!
(I just threw up a little in my mouth.)
Upper House and Lower House equals two, if you count them that way.
Meh. Since the House of Representatives is routinely shortened to just "the House", I personally prefer the use of chamber instead of house to denote either "the more deliberative body" of the Senate, or "the more batshit insane body" of the House.
But I suppose a rose by any other name will still prick you until you bleed.
I use "chamber" for my guns and other things that have explosian areas.
TIM! Thanks for the thanks on correcting Houses! bah
Don't know what depresses me more: the passage of this tax for the benefit of a price-fixing insurance cartel, the coming reduction in my Medicare Advantage coverage, or my credit card/bank card being stolen yesterday.
If they get this piece of shit passed, it will be electoral armageddon for Dems in 2010. They will lose control of both houses of Congress. When that happens and the Republicans go to undue some of the damage, watch the same pieces of shit in the media who are screaming about how horrible fillabusters are, screaming about the need for the minority to stop a rampaging minority. It is getting to the point that the only way to save the country is to start shooting the right people. Or at the very least mass civil disobedience. Fuck them. If they pass this, everyone in America who cares about freedom needs to drop their insurance and refuse to carry it. If people refuse to pay for health insurance, how do they plan to get this to work?
It's virtually impossible, even in a landslide, for the Democrats to lose the Senate next year.
The House, sure, since all the members are up for reelection.
Specifically, the Republicans would have to win all but 6 of these seats:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LudJ.....s+2010.jpg
We're talking Republicans winning Deep Blue states like New York, Vermont, Connecticut, Illinois, California, and Hawaii, which right there gets you to 7.
They sure as hell aren't going to elect a Republican in Hawaii unless one of the two incumbents dies.
Illinois and New York have weak appointee incumbents running on the D side, so it's not as far fetched as it would seem at first.
The idea of Republicans winning in Vermont is not as crazy as it sounds.
Right, if Pat Leahey gets caught screwing a sheep in the Senate bathroom he could lose the election. Otherwise - no.
Right, if Pat Leahey gets caught screwing a sheep in the Senate bathroom he could lose the election. Otherwise - no.
They won in New Jersey this year. Who would have thought that? This is going to be so bad and things are getting so bad in the blue states that you will see Republicans win in places you never thought they would.
Exactly. Who in 2007 would have thought Alaska would have a Democratic senator unseat Ted Stevens but a year later?
Yes, but we're talking about needing to win at least 30 out of 36 races, in places that haven't had a Republican senator in a LOOOOONG time, and in states where lots of people think this bill is a good thing.
Republicans regaining the Senate is mathematically possible, but wildly improbable.
The craptastic part of the while thing is who wants the Republicans back in power. Fucked if you do fucked if you don't fucked fucked and fucked.
Fuck.
Well, no, I want Republicans controlling the House, and Democrats controlling the White House and/or Senate, thus getting us back to divided government.
Like what happened in 1994 when Clinton pulled the same stunt with health care. Politically, 1994 to 2000 didn't suck as much as usual, as I recall.
Speaking for myself - and I'm not alone here - very few true libertarians would actually have wanted McCain to win.
Then again, why anyone would've voted for the other lesser of two evils - Obama - is just as disturbing.
2008 was like a rerun of Bush vs. Dukakis. Wimp or shrimp. Some "choice" then, and now.
You're right prolefeed, partisan control of only one branch does slow down the erosion of civil liberties.
Tulpa, Stevens pretty much tied the race despite the bogus conviction. Not that he isn't corrupt pork barreling slime.
John, Shooting them wouldn't be as fun as disgracing them out of office. We should beg G. Gordon Liddy to dust off some of his whacky schemes. We would need a corps of terminal patients to carry out the set-ups though because retaliation would be a given.
The craptastic part of the while thing is who wants the Republicans back in power.
They've learned their lesson.
Seriously, dude; this time it will be different.
"It is getting to the point that the only way to save the country is to start shooting the right people."
If I recall correctly, the writer of this bit of hyperbole is employed by the Federal Government and was a military lawyer.
Or am I thinking of another John?
It is the correct one. And I am not saying we should shoot them. I am saying that we are faced with a choice of either shooting them and becoming thugs and losing are country that way or not shooting them and losing are country that way. I am increasingly pessimistic about the futute. I don't think we should shoot them. But, I also don't think there is any way to stop them from destroying the country. There are too many of them and they control too many institutions to be stopped.
Wherever liberty appears, it's an endangered species, friends.
An extremely unlikely chain of events led to the development of liberty in Britain and later in America. And over the past two centuries it's been constantly eroded away. Obama and his predecessors from both parties are just the bulls in the china shop.
I'm thinking that the 40% of Americans who don't vote are somehow just more efficient than the rest of us.
Hey John,
Where were you when 'THEY' were spending $11B a MONTH on WaR?
!!!StOp bEiNg sOo MeAn spIRiteD!!!
It will anger ur soul.
It might lead u to go out and start shooting the 'Right
Person'...i can only guess who u r talk'n bout.
Blah, blah, blah. Let the hysterics begin. This will destroy the nation just like Medicare and Social Security did. What's that? The supposed ruinous affects of those "socialist" programs never materialized?
In any event you guys should wait to see what and if something can make it through the Senate before you go into full meltdown mode.
What's that? The supposed ruinous affects of those "socialist" programs never materialized?
We are discussing a bill to "reform" a health care system that's been totally and completely fucked up by Medicare, along with some other government interventions. A comparison of U.S. health care in 1960 vs. the halfway socialized version of 2009 is all the evidence that anyone should need to understand this.
Is there some definition of socialism that Medicare and SS don't meet?
Ahh, the ultimate libertarian argument rears it is head!
When all else fails in the market, blame the nearest government program!
Chad, your interminable whoring for the government and contempt for the private sector is second only to how long you can hold a load of liberal spoo in your mouth.
Chad,
You know those fresh apricots you bought from me last week? I have a confession, I bought them from Sam's Club and sold them to you at mark up. Same with those oranges and tangerines from three weeks back. You know we can't really grow those around here right?
Why is that not a valid argument? Medicare has fucked up some serious shit. Are you really going to deny that?
Ummm, Medicare is the least bleeped up part of our system. Costs are lower, and results are pretty good. It is amazing how we have terrible life expectancy, but world-class life expectancy after age 65.
Your point is debatable. Medicare is fee-for-service (thus driving the rest of the insurance market), rather than per-patient or some other such scheme. How do you think the system would work under an alternate payment scheme, one that will not cost up to $100 trillion over the next 75 years? Or are you ready to pony up the dough?
Medicare has distorted and in some cases destroyed the market for some of the most important geriatric treatments. If they had never passed Medicare there would not be a health "crisis" now.
Try listening to the other side for once. You spend so much time here anyway.
Who's melting down? We're all talking in code. Now move along, you're not in on this....
take a look at an actuarial table sometime for SS and medicare..... you can google that if you're a little unclear on what the word actuarial means. If you don't see a problem with an unfunded liabilities for these two programs that approaches $100 TRillion, than you obviously don't have a true appreciation for the power of any zeros other than the ones that "represent" us in congress
take a look at an actuarial table sometime for SS and medicare..... you can google that if you're a little unclear on what the word actuarial means. If you don't see a problem with an unfunded liabilities for these two programs that approaches $100 TRillion, than you obviously don't have a true appreciation for the power of any zeros other than the ones that "represent" us in congress
Are you on crack ... the ruinous effects of medicaid and medicare are all around us - they are part of what is choking the medical system. Also, ask yourself why people in other countries save a much larger percentage of their income for retirement and we don't - social security; the implications of that are that we have a huge deficit of savings in this country that must be financed from overseas. This is a result that will be the end of us as we keep on running the presses when one day the Chinese don't show up to the T-Note auction.
Oh, and if you think that in 15 years there will be any money left for soc sec, your a moron.
U r Wrong Hellp.
In Germany, for example, the government pays a pretty good retirement benefit to their retirees...and the taxpayers' expense.
There were more than two in the video at the link. Only one shooter, that Palestinian-American terrorist Major, per the latest Fort Hood investigation update. The oither two suspected soldiers were cleared.
Thanks for the clip, John. This way I don't actually have to watch cable news.
Thank Suki. One of her Facebook friends posted it and she sent it to me so I would not have to watch cable news either.
Just "responding" to JB so I'm not responding to myself.
These fuckheads need a good fucking up. On lots of other issues, Reason rocks, but I am not looking forward to their terrorist coddling on this issue.
oops, CNN blew those guys' cover...they're CLEARLY agent provocateurs working for the FBI. CNN even said as much, saying "The FBI has assigned agents to watch them"...yeah, they're called "handlers".
Compulsion is applied from above as self-discipline relaxes below, and the last liberties expire under the weight of a unitary state. Once a society has slipped so far, almost no barrier remains to withstand absolutism. "Since religion has lost its empire over the souls of men, the most prominent boundary that divided good from evil is overthrown; kings and nations are guided by chance and none can say where are the natural limits of despotism and the bounds of license." The state assumes the right to invade every detail of private life; this usurpation is endorsed by the dislike which undiscriminating democracies manifest toward individual differences; and at length the commercial and industrial impulse which commenced this chain of causation is broken by the importunate interference and insufferable burden of the super-state.
- from the discussion of de Tocqueville in The Conservative Mind
So we made it through through the Civil War, two World Wars, and a Cold War and we survived great political crises and popular resistance to expanding "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to blacks, browns and women but National Health is going to destroy us? Somehow, I doubt it.
Hysteria might destroy us, though.
Its a matter of costs. Quite simply, this will be the straw that breaks that camel's back because there's a million other straws underneath it.
And where were you (with your cost argument) when bush was spending $11B per month for 5 years on Iraq?
Evening nautical twilight. Consult the Naval Observitory for details.
Evening nautical twilight. Maybe the end of ENT. Consult
the Naval Observitory for details. I am getting a little fuzzy on
that one.
I don't know...weak economy w/ high unemployment, 2 wars, this crap...I hope you're right, though.
It's not socialized medicine that will destroy the US, it's the economic ruin and smothering federal control of every nook and cranny of life that will. Socialized medicine is just a significant step in that direction.
BTW, neither World War was fought anywhere near the US, so there was really no threat to our existence.
Other than the German infiltrators that we know of today, both in the USA and the rest of the landmass, plus what the Axis WOULD have done if they had consolidated the places they were taking over, you are correct. And they would have stopped there, not bothering us a bit.
Lemme guess. You have never been a parent have you? It is just fine when the child beats the cat toy before you own a cat, right?
I thought we were talking about our liberties?
Perhaps you've never heard of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer, the American Protective League, Manzanar or Tailgunner Joe.
would this be a bad time to remind Hit and Run you're enthusiastic support for Obama last year?
Why so serious? This was all discussed during the campaign. I thought libertarians had decided that the government could solve everything.
A few of the Reason staffers voted for Obama, but the commenters were almost entirely against him. Some favored McCain, some favored Barr, while others just didn't vote.
Well there's those ex-commenters who occasionally reappear Jennifer, Thoreau, much of the Grylliade bunch....
This place used to be Obama Central
I cancelled my subscription back when Virginia Postrel (Hot!) left.
No, that's simply not correct. Look at the archives, dude.
There was a lot of anti-Bush and anti-McCain sentiment, but don't confuse that with pro-Obama sentiment. I confess that I myself felt it didn't really matter who won since McCain was going to be terrible in many of his own ways.
Of course, if I'd known then what I know now, I would have gone door to door for the McCain campaign until my toes bled. Obama has been terrible in all the expected ways, and in several ways that weren't expected.
I had a discussion back then with Art-P.O.G. back then (not an argument, it was too civil to be an argument) and my point was that forced between an ant-Sophie's choice between McCain and Obama, I was having trouble seeing the Obama argument from a libertarian perspective.
Art-P.O.G.felt that Obama's stance on the war and the Patriot Act trumped what you could probably say were more numerous instances of libertarianish policies on McCain's part. I argued that without knowing the future, a broader based evaluation might be more appropriate.
Now unfortunately, Obama the candidate and Obama the POTUS have strong disagreements on the Patriot Act and we're still in Afghanistan and Iraq and will be for the foreseeable future.
I'm not sure whether that means I was closer to being right or whether it just means that whoever won was bound to really piss libertarians off.
It took all of my being to stay on the sidlines and lurk during that horrible era of Reason.
It must have taken all your willpower not to cancel your subscription. ;)
I am beginning to wonder just how much more abuse we're going to have to take before Reason will finally admit that those of us who vetted Obama before the election were right about him all along, and they decide to get back on the job once again of standing up for our freedom.
I think they are doing that now without admitting to their shameful support of him. I AM LOOKING AT YOU BAILEY!
The New Health Care plan is going to be like the swine flu availability issue; Uncle Sam call the shots, sets the priority of who gets the shot and who waits. When doctor avaialability becomes an issue, the GOV will set the priorities with seniors at the short end of the stick
Nah. Just look at how well the vaccine is being distributed in Canada (the model we really ought to emulate, amirite?). There's no elites there, no sir. No preferential treatment. I mean, everyone's equal there!
Imagine if you are working somewhere where they supply health insurance. If you leave that job you will be hit with a bill from the government, meaning that you are tied to that employer - but the employer is not tied to you. I think even Chad can see the implications here.
I've always said of someone like that, he couldn't find his ass with both hands and a flash-light.
Did anybody say the Gaza thing yet? I don't think I have that trick down.
Ummm, I wouldn't leave for any employer that didn't offer me insurance, unless I was retiring (and soon going on Medicare). If for some reason I DID leave my old employer and move to a new one with no insurance, I would buy insurance from the private market. I am tied to my old employer in no way, either in the current system nor any system that I see anyone proposing.
It seems I do. Okay, here it is then. The employer can dick you around because he knows you'll get whomped with a penalty for not having insurance:"Dont like it? Well let's see if you'd like to pay $900 for insurance or go on welfare instead?"
Or maybe you don't want to get tied down to a job for too long. You really don't have the option of leaving unless you can find another one that provides insurance straight away - and that does not happen. Result? You get punished for it. Call it what ever you like but you have to lose money.
The Unions don't give a shit about their rank-and-file members either (don't believe it? work in a union shop and see) and they'll gladly sell their workers down the Swanee once the company threatens the insurance options.
I am certain there are many more unintended consequences that our Glorious Leaders just didn't think about waiting to bite us all in the ass. Feeling lucky?
A friend of mine was a Teamster, working for UPS. After being injured on the job he had to repeatedly call them to get information about the injury for his WC claim. UPS Human "Resources" and his Teamster overlords were equally unhelpful.
Ummm....my employer can't "dick me around" because I would leave for someone else. If he WAS in a position to "dick me around", he wouldn't have to wait until some law passed in order to do so, as he could find ways to do it now. Hell, I am surprised to hear this garbage argument from a libertarian...it is usually made by Michael Moore and the like.
I'm surprised you have a private-sector job, Chad. I figured you for a government drone.
First of all, I'm not a libertarian. Maybe a fellow traveler in some ways but not one of the hardcore. I am a very cynical realist and as such see the downsides to this situation.
If you feel safe in your job than that's all well and good, but for young people starting out under this system it can lead to the type of extortion I mentioned above. I won't try to change your mind on this but if you seriously believe no one is so unscrupulous not to consider using this as leverage in a negotiation you really don't understand people.
Ah, isn't the precious. I can almost see the tears streaming down your computer screens.
Once again, inaction leaves Libertarians pissing in the wind. This is what laziness gets you folks.
And you know what, it's just the beginning. If the bill passes, then over time, it will become more inclusive. Even if it doesn't make it past the Senate, a bill of its type will eventually get passed, because Conservatives have no interest in fixing the health-care problem. Under their leadership, the problem will increase until they have to compromise, and begin the long procession toward universal health-care.
It's mostly the scummy Vietnam generation that fuels the rhetoric. The generation of cruelty, and stupidity.
What this does single is that the geeky Goldwater clowns are becoming as antiquated as the horse and buggy.
I love it.
STFY asshole.
And quit trying to embed HTML into your dumbass screen name , you brainless cocksucker
Dave,
Go easy on Violence is Magical. The god he worships just won yet another Pyhrric victory.
Yes, becasue nothing says progress like setting a country up for hyperinflation or the government defaulting on its debts.
Keep fighting the power, folks. If you manage to defeat this bill, the insurance industry is only going to jack your rates 79% this decade!
http://www.wibw.com/toyourheal.....24962.html
Have fun trying to pay $30,000 for a family plan out of pocket after your boss drops insurance coverage for everyone at your company!
No problem here...nothing to see...move along.....
Yes, moron, and when nobody can afford what they're selling, and the income of those insurance companies drops nearly to 0, the evil insurance executives will have their slaves slap the expensive wax they save for special occasions on their mustaches and jet off to Hawaii to celebrate grinding the peons into the dirt.
Dude, think before you post, K?
So...when the government uses our money to pay those EXACT SAME PRICE REQUIREMENTS in a less efficient way...wait, what's your fucking point again?
Nothing in the byzantine mess of our health care system is being "fixed". This is just a carrot in front of a mule. Cost are being shifted from a private accountable company, to a faceless unaccountable inefficient bureaucracy.
As awesome as it would be to see the Democrats get some epic comeuppance, I fear we would need an entirely new electorate to pull that off.
They'll lose the House, and they're prepared for that.
Being a Republican, I would prefer them to lose just enough seats to maintain a bare majority of the House in 2011, so they can get the blame for 2012.
Hi,
My name is Laura and I am an outreach coordinator for the health videos website icyou.com.
I wanted to add to the discussion by posting a couple of links to videos all about health care reform. For those of you looking for more nonpartisan, unbiased information about health care reform, politics and general policy we have topic pages for each of these areas of interest.
http://www.icyou.com/topics/po.....are-policy
http://www.icyou.com/topics/po.....are-reform
Check out icyou for information on more health-related topics...we update daily!
Thanks,
Laura
Ad hominem attacks, and juvenile fist waving. Typical.
Libertarianism has always been the home for mental midgets, and other damaged individuals, but I haven't seen this level of vacant snarkiness for quite a while.
You guys really are washing out any sane element, and replacing it with the Teabagger mentality.
Please, by all means, keep talking. It only works against you.
I really fear for my children's future....I was a swing voter
before, but I am now a Republican for LIFE!!! Thank you Democrats
for showing me the light! Are these horrible Democratic
Congressman TRYING to ruin this country?? How much are they
getting promised or paid to vote for this bill that they can't
possibly even read or begin to fully understand? How do they
sleep at night? Oh, I forgot. Their families as well as
themselves are exempt from this very probable "new healthcare
reform bill." Wonder why? Why should any of them care what
happens to little ol' me or my loved ones? Not to mention they'll
be dead or too old to care long before the shit really hits the
fan. The REAL solutions are out there, but this isn't about
protecting or helping this nation's health, it's ALL ABOUT
GOVERNMENT CONTROL!!
I am a lower middle class woman who is a productive member of
society. I go to work everyday and pay my icome and SS taxes like
a good girl and I already know I'll never see a dime of that
money when I reach 67. I guess I should be grateful that I'm
helping a bunch of deadbeat slackers and illegal aliens get
health insurance, food stamps, and ADC.
God Help America!!
P.S. With the way things are going, is anyone else afraid that when Obama's up for reelection next term it's going to be a fixed race?
Being a Republican, I would prefer them to lose just enough seats to maintain a bare majority of the House in 2011, so they can get the blame for 2012.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245