well, that was a nice source of information, thx.Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Curious as to how the House voted? The Washington Posts The House Passes Health-care Bill A look at how members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted: page details the vote.
most interesting i found the column, which tells how much campaign-support the regarding representative has received from health industry!
by scrolling through the list and looking for the most prominent bars, i saw many republicans who got lotsa dollars from industry (between 1 and 3 mio), and they all voted 'no' (well, says so on top already).
then there were as well some (but less) democrats, who got lotsa money from the industry - similar to their republican mates... just they all voted 'yes'!
it seems, that those democrats who voted 'no' haven't enjoyed much support by industry.
oh...Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Bipartisan my rear end.
and what is your rear end's opinion on corruption and lobbying?
well, that was a nice source of information, thx.Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Curious as to how the House voted? The Washington Posts The House Passes Health-care Bill A look at how members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted: page details the vote.
most interesting i found the column, which tells how much campaign-support the regarding representative has received from health industry!
by scrolling through the list and looking for the most prominent bars, i saw many republicans who got lotsa dollars from industry (between 1 and 3 mio), and they all voted 'no' (well, says so on top already).
then there were as well some (but less) democrats, who got lotsa money from the industry - similar to their republican mates... just they all voted 'yes'!
it seems, that those democrats who voted 'no' haven't enjoyed much support by industry.
oh...Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Bipartisan my rear end.
and what is your rear end's opinion on corruption and lobbying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think all lobbying should be outlawed. All corrupt politicians should be put to doing some real work doing hard labor in at least a medium security prison. Make them use their hands to create something or worse, clean up.
More fun from the Pelosi bill:
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.
Originally posted by Cajun76:
It's fine, the provision for forced coverage *should* get tossed out in the Supreme Court, and anyone who voted for it *should* be impeached and/or tossed/voted out of office.How is it unconstitutional?Originally posted by HayateAce:
It is flatly unconstitutional.
Any politician connected with attempting to pass it will be voted out and/or impeached.
Day of reckoning will come for these scumbags.
What the hell is the matter with you people? Out of all the things in this bill you're complaining about people being forced to have healthcare? They should be forced to, esp when it will be provided if they cannot afford it! You're forced by law to have car insurance right? How about homeowners insurance? Is that unconstitutional too? You guys crack me up.
Ok, I know the OP said he wanted the opinion of Americans on this bill, but seeing that this topic has been running in other threads for months, can a Brit ask a question?
HayateAce wrote:
But the United States Constitution says:It is flatly unconstitutional.
I'm curious how healthcare doesn't come under 'general Welfare'? Have the limits to this ever been debated in the Supreme Court for instance? Enlighten this unedicated foreigner please...Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
....
Question for the non-Americans here: what penalties do you face if you don't get a health plan? Like if you're self-employed and you don't pay into the NHS or Canadian health care or whatever, is it treated like tax evasion of any other kind? Or as a criminal offense?
There needs to be incentives of some kind to dissuade people who don't participate in the health care risk pool, but I don't see the point of making it criminal. It should be a public OPTION in general though.......
Oh good lord. No. Not the insurance industry person who created the whole "death panels" crap. No.More fun from the Pelosi bill:
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Go watch her dreadful appearance on the Daily Show, man.
In the UK, the NHS is funded via taxes, and by National Insurance (effectively an income tax in all but name), so there is no need for a 'health plan'. If you want to get private health cover in addition, you can, but that doesn't alter your tax liability. You wouldn't to be able to separate out the portion of tax that was funding the NHS to 'evade' it seperately, so you would be treated the same way as any other tax evader - I'm fairly sure this comes under criminal law.Question for the non-Americans here: what penalties do you face if you don't get a health plan? Like if you're self-employed and you don't pay into the NHS or Canadian health care or whatever, is it treated like tax evasion of any other kind? Or as a criminal offense?
Note that private cover is not an alternative to NHS cover, but an additional option: If you had an accident for example, you would be treated like any other NHS emergency patient if you had private cover, and wouldn't be expected to pay anything, any more than someone with no private cover would.