Congrats USA! Health care for all!! ??

Ceila
I live in one of the states that is suing the Federal Government over this reform. I am not opposed to national health care. What I am opposed to is the Federal Government mandating us to purchase a service or be fined. Promoting welfare to me means to encourage or help. Forcing people to purchase a service is not promoting as far as I am concerned. I do think passing the bill is a step in the right direction and some of the changes will be good.

I liked the analogy that someone came up with which would relate to "promoting welfare". Wouldn't that include shelter? Can the Federal Government mandate everyone to buy a house or be fined. We do have a lot of homeless people in the United States.

Here is a link from our Attorney General concerning the suit:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/page.aspx?id=25410
It is simple and short and answers basic questions.

What I don't understand is this mandate to buy healthcare was first a Republican idea (via the health insurance lobby) and was enacted by Romney in MA. Now the Republicans are screaming the Democrats are forcing this down our throats. I think it's one of the things we are going to see changes with and that's why they delayed the mandate until 2014.

To be honest I don't follow whether someone is a Republican or Democrat. When I vote, I base my decision on what the person has accomplished and what they feel is important in our state as well as the country as a whole. I have voted for Republicans as well as Democrats.

Sorry TTH, I wasn't directing that only at you. It really is a question I have to Republicans in general. I would like to know why was this a great idea when Romney tossed it on MA, but now a bad idea that Obama copied it? Republicans praised the concept during Romney's run for the presidency, but now they are going to spend a lot of time and expense trying to kill it (which is not going to happen).

As an aside, this whole thing is bad for Romney's chances in 2012.

I don't think Romney ever had any chances on 2012 (he does have nice hair, though).

I agree. Anyone looking closely at MA would see it's not really working. Prices did not come down and the state is burdened with subsidies. We have friends that closed their small bakery because they made too much for subsidies but not enough to pay for insurance. They moved out of state and work for a larger baking company now.

Nothing is going to work except everyone putting their current insurance dollars into a national pool and people like me paying into it as well.

I've hated him ever since it was revealed he used to travel with his dog tied to the top of his car in an inhumane way. Dog torturers make for bad leaders.

Yeah, I agree with you realistically. But what other chances DO they have? He keeps floating back up since the rest of the pool ain't looking too good.

Green Witch, I actually meant in the other direction -- since the Republicans seem to be determined to campaign on how horrible health care reform is, Romney is the exact wrong guy for that.

35 Democrats voted against the bill, as well. Including Stephen Lynch...D-MA. He said it didn't do enough to reduce costs.

Romney would be a little scary if he could ever get past the Republican primary (which is a very very big if).

Personally, I am a big fan of Sarah Palin for the nomination.

I think it is mostly a political objection, GW. If we should have a national health care system (moot point at this time), it is perfectly obvious to me that it isn't going to work unless everyone is forced into it. Otherwise, most young, healthy people will choose not to pay. Old, sick people won't be able to afford premiums. I generalize, of course, but that's how adverse selection works.

What's your point, IrishK? 219 Democrats voted for the bill... which was enough to pass it.

((Or, are you suggesting it would be better if the Democrats walked in some kind strange politically-motivated lockstep where they do nothing but shout repetitive talking points in unison while they vote in one unwavering block. ))

true, but you cant (or should not) force people into business relationships. The collective needs to run the effort through the public sector, because the public sector is accountable to them, not to the stockholders and other select citizens and non citizens who run and profit from private Enterprise.

Obamacare should certainly be found to be unconstitutional.

Aren't old people covered under Medicare? Are their premiums high?

I agree with your post, plus I think some of the 'process' turned people off...the kickbacks and stuff.

I agree. Depending on details, though, if we had gone public sector there might be a need to require that public sector insurance be accepted, leading to the same objection. I believe Germany has a dual system in which people choose between public and private plans. I don't know if I ever heard if there is a problem of the public plans being accepted.

yes, and I might also be willing to consider strictly regulated monopolies, like we had with energy companies before we deregulated them. Still, even in those days a person could refuse to deal with the companies and survive (get propane for instance) and the government did not lay a several thousand dollar tax on them if they found out that a person was refusing service. Going to this model of national health care as others have done is a far stretch for me....it really should be government run.

Yes. If they are 65 or older. The hospitalization/preventive portion (Medicare A) has no premium. There is a hospital deductable and co-pay. Physician and similar services (Medicare Part B) have a relative low premium of about $96.40/month, except those who are judged to have high incomes. Again, there is both annual deductable and copays. I have been happy with it, so far.

The Medicare B is voluntary, by the way, though there is sort of a penalty for rejecting it. Part B premium has steep increases for every year for which it is rejected.

Without a Part D prescription, there is no help with prescription drugs. Part D is offered by private companies. Rates, deductables, formularies, and co-pays vary all over the place, except there is a Medicare maximum allowable on the annual deductable.

Government run or not, the devil would clearly be in the details.

the devil is improving the product while cutting the cost of offering it. The only way to save health care is to streamline efficiency and rationing care. America is not willing to consider either.....yet.

Kind of ironic that America will be brought to its knees in large part because we refused for so long to practice what we preach re economic organization and goal setting. We do a lot of chin wagging about the importance of efficiency, of the importance of being willing to change delivery systems to suit new conditions/need/desires, about how markets should work. Then there is health care, were we do none of it, where the financial incentives and controls are plainly completely broken and have been for 30 years because those who use and dispense health care have no stake in the cost of care. We avoided having a health care market, because we count on having a sugar daddy who will pay what ever bills are presented.