You're a cynical man, Jim. :-)
I wouldn't deny that there's a possibility that everything you're predicting will come to pass, but I do have some faith in my fellow man that they understand that government health care is being paid for out of their own pockets, so covering anything and everything just isn't viable.
---Joel
l:
...
Nice article--it's a good example of what people will say--but it's misinformed.
a) Forcing people to buy something is not commerce. The commerce clause is intended to _promote_ commerce between the states, not enforce a tyrannical monopoly across all of them.
In fact, such a monopoly utterly prevents commerce in health insurance between the states.
b) Factcheck says "After all, lawmakers have the power 'to levy taxes and spend funds' for the 'general welfare of the United States.'"
No they don't. Congress has the power to levy taxes for specific purposes listed in the Constitution.
Otherwise when the next George Bush gets elected, he could require every citizen to buy firearms, for /both/ the general welfare AND the common defense--a twofer, so that'd be /extra/ double plus good, right? He could make you buy any other gosh-darn thing he thought would be nice too.
That's Constitutional? No, it isn't.
c) Under Kitchen Sink they declare that the bill rations care is "false," that it doesn't actually say that. That's quibbling. HR
3962 just limits the amount of funding, which obviously limits the amount of care available to be spread around. That's rationing, AFAICT.I read several of their linked articles & found them similarly flawed.
Thanks for an interesting read.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
This ("After all, lawmakers have the power...") is apparently one the most-frequently-believed-but-not-actually-true interpretations of the "general welfare" clause. :-) No wonder lawmakers like it!
I agree, they're in error. What bothers me is that the people claiming, "health care will be rationed!" (which is correct) seldom seem to feel the need to point out, "...just like it is now by your insurance providers." It seems that people want "rationing" to mean different things at different times...
---Joel
, e
That's not rationing--benefits for a given policy are limited, but you can get as large a policy as you're willing to pay for.
Under Pelosicare, you can't; you can't pay the IRS twice as much and get double coverage, they won't allow it.
True.
For the majority of employed people, their insurance is provided by their employers, and as an individual you generally have very few options in choosing costs vs. benefits. (I've never been offered more than 2 or 3 plans, and many plans only had one.)
So perhaps not *quite* as restrictive as Pelosicare, but still pretty rationed IMHO.
---Joel
plans,
ioned
Limited, to be sure, but not rationing per se. For example, you could pay more of your own money and get more coverage if you wanted, you have that choice.
Rationing is when you go to the gas station, the gas is there, and you've got the money, but they won't sell you more than 5 gallons because it's _illegal_ for them to do so.
I've experienced it. It kinda sucks.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
plans,
ioned
Oh, on the point of employees only being offered a few choices by their employer--
We should fix that. Why should your _employer_ buy you health insurance anyhow? They don't buy you homeowner's insurance, do they?
They ought to give you the money and let you buy a health policy that _you_ like. And, when you go someplace else, you could take your policy with you.
We don't do that now because, basically, it's illegal. It shouldn't be.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
.
ir
3 plans,ationed
To put a finer point on this, I'm sympathetic to your perception that Pelsoicare is little different from the situation of an employer offering an employee just a few choices.
The difference is this: right now you at least get a few choices. If you really hated them, you could even take another job.
But when Pelosicare drives private insurance out of business [1], the government will be the only, the sole source of health care insurance, and possibly of health care itself. So, any limit imposed by the only game in town starts to feel a lot like actual rationing--you've got no other choices. You're boxed in.
[1] I read today that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (a department of Health and Human Services) released a memo 11/13/2009 estimating that Pelosicare doesn't reduce the deficit by $100-odd billion as claimed, but actually increases net federal healthcare costs by $406B, a $500B discrepancy.In defending their package, the administration responded that reckoning didn't take into account that they expect the government option to undercut private insurance premiums by 15-20%.
Okay, that'll kill private insurance.
And any which way I tally the math, they're selling at a loss. 10 years' revenue only pays for 6 years' care, still losing hundreds of billions. They're dumping, selling below their cost to drive their competition out of business. Railroad baron-style. Anti- competitive. A felony, if you're a company.
-- Cheers, James Arthur
Wow! Just frickin' wow!
I take that as pointed at Joel, as i use Agent. I occasionally bobble by responding ambiguously as well.
plan=20
new=20
that=20
lot=20
Partially, there are some nuances there that i do not reasonably understand yet, notably including some of the anti gouging and similar provisions in the early 120 pages, let alone some of the later stuff.
believe=20
changed,=20
works=20
wiring=20
you want=20
wiring=20
Not entirely the case. It depends a lot on the scope of the modification and the scope of a total upgrade. The triggers for an entire building rewire are really rather high. It seems somewhere between 10 X and 20 X the cost for the complete rewire (versus a "localized modification) allows you to "localize" the modifications in electrical wiring. Other grandfathering must necessarily work similarly (a sitting in equity issue).
predicting=20
own=20
No, he is quite realistic, with one caveat, he trusts Repugnicants more that he trusts Demoncrats. I don't trust either group (nor their members) any farther then i can throw this planet unaided by any device.
you
their
or 3 plans,
rationed
Not actually the real situation, it is not actually illegal but normal and legal for trade union provided health plans. Check what is available to electricians for a nearly on topic case. Same with their pension plans as well. Same for most trade unions as well.
"Joel Koltner" wrote in news:I3HMm.204208$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-03.dc.easynews.com:
Yeah,I don't have that faith. After all,Obama got elected.....
they believed his promises then,they're still believing them now,DESPITE all the evidence to the contrary.
-- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
"Joel Koltner" wrote in news:sCHMm.214050$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-04.dc.easynews.com:
gov't being LESS efficient than private businesses,more of the funds will go to gov't management(overhead)and LESS to the actual healthcare.
Plus,gov't will require private businesses to provide them with MORE DATA so they can TAX the private businesses HC plans,and that will require more gov't bureaucrats to do the paperwork,further expanding gov't. It's like a snowball rolling downhill.
BTW,just reading the bills,you can see how many times they mention TAX,as in "tax this,tax that".So all that BS about no new taxes is,well,BS. a LIE.
-- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
Uh, taking a moment to wipe the egg off my face, the instant I sent that I knew I screwed up, and I've been hiding, waiting for someone to ream me over it.
The argument is sound, but in my zeal, I picked a horrible example: unlike in other examples, Congress does have _exactly_ the power to raise and conscript an army of citizen-soldiers, just like the Swiss do, and required exactly that shortly after the nation was formed (The First and 2nd Militia Acts of 1792).[1]
This specific power appears with the other "enumerated powers" permitted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: [2]
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
So, I really put my foot in it.
But you can substitute any other horrid thing you want, and get the drift. An Arhnold could make us all buy Hummers, or Hillary a particular brand of toilet paper, and so forth, just by deeming those products or those companies' survivals to be good for the nation.
And they can't do that. That establishes a Government without limits, a tyranny. The Constitution particularly does /not/ give Congress the right to spend money anyway they see fit, in furtherance of whatever they deem to be the general welfare. That's why there's a list of powers: to limit Congress--I already quoted the explanations from the guys who /wrote/ the Constitution--in their own words--on that point. [3]
Cheers, James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~
[1]"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." --Madison, Feb. 7, 1792
"...It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would he the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson, 1791
Do you really believe that post-Obama/Pelosi-care that you won't be able to just walk into a hospital or clinic and simply pay cash for whatever procedure you'd like? -- I'd be rather shocked if that were the case.
---Joel
Well, it's a historical thing, right? -- Employers were limited at one time in how much they could directly pay people, so they started adding on fringe benefits instead to attract workers.
Fine by me; it makes sense. The problem today is that as an individual buying healthcare insurance is often markedly more expensive for a given level of benefits than if you're part of a group.
---Joel
I'd be willing to wager that, as with almost anything like this, the truth is somewhere in the middle: There isn't going to be a $100+B deficit reduction, but the increase won't be any $406B either.
Only if the quality/level of care is the same... which I doubt it will be.
Hey, many under constitutional challenge the administration can argue that, like the interstate system, public health care is a part of the national defense. :-)
---Joel
Who knows? The women's groups, concerned about what's written in the bill... no mammograms before age 40... if you pay for your own earlier... the government plan won't pay for the treatment of the cancer!
How's that for fascist health care?
Hollywood actors/actresses, _formerly_ supporters of Obama, are coming unglued this morning ;-) ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | If you wanted a President with balls why didn\'t you elect Hillary?
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.