×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Health Care Reform

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the it-comes-to-this dept.

The Almighty Buck 2044

It appears that today might be the end of a very long road to health care reform. There's been a lot of debate on the subject really leading back before the election. The mainstream sounds like an echo chamber, so I'm hoping you guys have better insight. Will this bill do what the administration claims to do, or is it as bad for the future of America as Fox says?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

2044 comments

A false choice, of course... (5, Insightful)

dtmos (447842) | about 4 years ago | (#31535010)

Nothing is as bad for the future of America as Fox says.

BTW, I've seen thousands of comment trolls, but I think this is the first story submission troll I've seen.

Re:A false choice, of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535050)

Read the bill before you jump to conclusions.....

Re:A false choice, of course... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535138)

BTW, I've seen thousands of comment trolls, but I think this is the first story submission troll I've seen.

It's a good idea, maybe it'll help keep the bullshit left vs. right bickering out of the tech stories.

Re:A false choice, of course... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535054)

Except Fox. Fox is bad for America.

Re:A false choice, of course... (5, Insightful)

Kagura (843695) | about 4 years ago | (#31535218)

Except Fox. Fox is bad for America.

Just because Fox says the health care reform is bad doesn't mean that we should therefore support the reform. It disappoints me that this is the first comment I saw when I opened up this page. The point of this article is to discuss the reform in a constructive manner, not to bash entire ideologies just because they are not your own.

I am temporarily residing outside the U.S. at this time, and I haven't been paying attention to the argument. My mind is still malleable on this, so convince me one way or the other! Now, let's get back to a real discussion regarding the pros and cons of health care reform!

Re:A false choice, of course... (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#31535374)

Except Fox. Fox is bad for America.

Just because Fox says the health care reform is bad doesn't mean that we should therefore support the reform.

I think the issue the OP has with Fox has nothing to do with the Healthcare bill. A position that I also support.

Re:A false choice, of course... (5, Insightful)

linzeal (197905) | about 4 years ago | (#31535386)

You must be new here. When political stories hit Slashdot it is usually a bare knuckled ugly showdown between Anarchists, Liberals, Republicans and the Libertarians with the truly insane individual thrown in for good measure.

Re:A false choice, of course... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535056)

BTW, I've seen thousands of comment trolls, but I think this is the first story submission troll I've seen.

You MUST be new here...

Re:A false choice, of course... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535156)

The truth is, the non-left of the American public (i.e. centrists, libertarians, independents, right, etc) would better trust the government to run healthcare if they actually had a better track record of running other programs. Find any government agency that's tried to do exceptionally well and you'll find that the smaller the scope of their responsibility the better they did. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Postal Service, any regulatory agency - you get the picture. The federal government simply doesn't have a good resume; you can't blame the unbiased peoples for not loving the idea of the government running yet another program.

Re:A false choice, of course... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535348)

A false argument, of course...

The bill does not create a government agency to run health care. That would have been a single payer system. The bill is a set of consumer protections for health care consumers.

Re:A false choice, of course... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 4 years ago | (#31535282)

BTW, I've seen thousands of comment trolls, but I think this is the first story submission troll I've seen.

You must have kdawson's stories hidden.

Re:A false choice, of course... (4, Insightful)

Jhon (241832) | about 4 years ago | (#31535362)

"Nothing is as bad..."

Yeah. Keep saying that. When our government starts taking away our liberties (forcing people to buy health care, taking away private property to give to another private party are just two examples), I'd say that's bad for America. When it continues to spend us into either runaway iflation or economic ruin, I'd say that's bad for America. But that's just me.

Any rational person can see this "budget neutral" bill is a hoax. 10 years of taxes, 6 years of real benefits. WTF? Additional budget trimming based on rasing the capital gains tax with estimates of increases in tax revenue that are NEVER going to materalize (as they never have in the past when estimates like this were used).

If I STILL wasn't paying a tax to help support the spanish american war [wikipedia.org], I'd think this was a joke.

It is bad, wrong way to go about it (3, Insightful)

Bos20k (444115) | about 4 years ago | (#31535048)

If you really want to fix healthcare, do tort reform first. Then break up the AMA cartel. Then look at other things that may need to be changed.

Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535118)

This argument has already been beaten to death. Tort reform wouldn't make much of an impact at all on costs, and it definitely wouldn't solve the bigger problem of millions of Americans without access to health care.

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (3, Insightful)

Bos20k (444115) | about 4 years ago | (#31535178)

It certainly would improve access to health care by reducing costs. So would breaking up the AMA cartel.

Government run health care may make it more accessible to more people but it would do so at a huge cost. The quality of care is also very likely to be reduced.

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (1)

sageres (561626) | about 4 years ago | (#31535252)

/Agree, tort reform would curb frivolous lawsuits, and would help reduce insurance costs that make health-care so unaffordable. Once the cost is cut, only then we are ready for the nationalized health-care. Otherwise we are in a long-haul tax-based system where the government will keep increasing taxes each year as the cost of the health-care and the lawsuits (which would make Government responsible) would go up, and up and up.

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535212)

It wouldn't? The fact that a LARGE portion of healthcare expenditures are due to malpractice insurance won't impact costs much (My cousin is an MD, and nearly 70% of his gross income goes to malpractice)? And if you do cut the cost significantly, you don't think that millions more will be able to afford it? So rather than fixing a part of the system that's KNOWN to be broken, you're saying to ignore the broken part, and then add on other band-aids to make it all better... It's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound...

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535334)

From the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0 [cbo.gov]

Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535140)

The US Postal Service

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535170)

Um, the US Postal Service is always in the red and is currently unsustainable. That's the way you want healthcare?

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535224)

The US Postal Service

I'm not sure where you come from, but in my hometown, forecasting a $238 billion shortfall in 10 years [leadernewspapers.net] is not considered "correct" nor "efficient".

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (4, Informative)

Sircus (16869) | about 4 years ago | (#31535144)

Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?

Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run? If there is, I'd missed it. It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (0, Offtopic)

Bos20k (444115) | about 4 years ago | (#31535284)

Um, if it doesn't initially have a single payer setup, it eventually will. Unfortunately at this point in time, our government serves no other purpose than to increase its own power. Both democrats and republicans have the same agenda just for different reasons.

The insurance industry is already highly regulated. If anything needs to be changed in those regulations, do it. In the mean time, do tort reform and seriously consider breaking up the AMA. The number of schools handing out medical degrees has DECREASED over time, not increased. This is due to the AMA withholding acredidation to server their own purposes.

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535356)

Is there anything that the government runs that really functions correctly/efficiently?

Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run? If there is, I'd missed it. It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).

And, yet, it still costs $960,000,000,000 to manage. Which, BTW, doesn't include the cost of the mandates.

Remember, kids, if you require company A to pay you X to provide service C, it is a "tax".
But if you require company A to pay X to company B for service C, it is a "mandate", and thus "doesn't count".

Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it (5, Interesting)

dorre (1731288) | about 4 years ago | (#31535190)

The most important thing is not if the government is able run health as efficiently as possible. The important question is who earns money on what. In case of 100% private health care, everybody (even insurance companies!) earns money when someone is sick. In the case of government run health care the government loses money if people are sick. So they have an incentive to keep people well and only recommend useful medications. I think that's the important incentive here to take into consideration. Do people really want a system where the doctor earns more money if you're more sick and so on?

Well, lets see (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 4 years ago | (#31535192)

How has private industry done so far with american healthcare? Cost more, gets less. Yup, that is a sign of success.

Oh and how has private industry been managing the economy?

It kinda amazes me that people with a healthcare system that is useless in the middle of a global recession all under the management of private industry, then dare to ask whether government can run things.

Imagine a discussion in North Korea: "Can private industry be expected to handle food production?"

Answer: "Who knows, but the question is silly when the current system is such an obvious mess".

Sometimes you got to take a chance. Do anything because when you are nose deep in shit, chances are anything is an improvement.

Can the government do a better job? It would be hard to imagine how they can screw it up even more.

Re:Well, lets see (1)

Bos20k (444115) | about 4 years ago | (#31535364)

Since the insurance industry is the most regulated of all in America, maybe the regulators should take some responsibility for the mess...

(last reply didn't seem to go through, hopefully not a repost)

This bill has nothing to do with health care. (3, Interesting)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 4 years ago | (#31535052)

It is a desperate grab for tax revenue [market-ticker.org] to shore up a faltering budget.

Real health care reform would either include a single payer system or a rational free-market plan [market-ticker.org]. Nether party is willing to do this, however. I wonder why... [opensecrets.org]

Re:This bill has nothing to do with health care. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31535160)

You're right.

I'm surprised Congressman Kucinich caved and decided to vote "yes". I don't agree with his "let the government treat citizens as children," but I could always count on him to stand by his principles (like Congressman Paul stands by his), and now it looks like Kucinich sold out on a bill that fixes nothing.

Re:This bill has nothing to do with health care. (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#31535210)

Kucinich is a politician. The dude knew that in the end, as a Democrat, he would have no future if he didn't vote for this bill; he was just blowing smoke. It is my opinion that he always intended to vote for it, and after the CBO analysis, he would be completely stupid (from a political standpoint) to still refuse to vote for it.

Somewhere in between. (5, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | about 4 years ago | (#31535062)

But then everyone knew that already.

I expect it will at least mitigate my issues getting health insurance after getting kicked off my parents' plan, so there's that.

As for the Republicans' complaints, I'm not really clear on what there is in this bill the Republicans didn't argue for. If the left had written the bill, it would dismantle the insurance industry and set up single payer. The only thing it's missing is tort reform, and the fact is that tort reform is a red herring. It accounts for 1-2% of healthcare expenditures, and that sounds about right. There should be a process for handling legitimate malpractice claims, and it's never going to be free.

Re:Somewhere in between. (1)

Covalent (1001277) | about 4 years ago | (#31535166)

I agree with you on this one. The current system is a mismanaged hodgepodge of bureaucracy and regulation. The new plan would be a mismanaged hodgepodge of bureaucracy and regulation. The real question is whether this new system will be marginally better or marginally cheaper than what we currently have. I think one of those two things is probably the best we can hope for.

Re:Somewhere in between. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31535236)

"Insurance companies may not reject customers," (like you) is the ONLY part of the bill I support, and that only needed to be 1-2 pages long. The rest of the bill is filled with nonsense like fines against poor and middle income citizens, shortchanging Medicare by about 500 billion, increasing our national debt another 1/2 trillion per year, and so on.

Re:Somewhere in between. (3, Insightful)

osgeek (239988) | about 4 years ago | (#31535320)

I don't understand how someone could say that tort reform is a red herring.

In terms of the direct financial impact of malpractice insurance and litigation costs, tort reform doesn't help more than a few percent or so. But in terms of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary treatment because doctors are paralyzed to do anything besides order the extra tests and procedures, tort reform would make a HUGE difference.

Unnecessary treatment should have been dealt with head on, and tort reform is a key part of it since being sued is the excuse that doctors give for ordering all of that and the excuse that insurance companies give for allowing it. In reality, they LOVE it. Doctors get paid extra per procedure, and insurance companies just pass the costs on through premiums, making sure to collect their extra percentages.

Law suits are like terrorism. They affect the whole system in an extremely disproportionate measure beyond their direct impact due to the way that people change their behavior.

Comunisam (1)

Kerstyun (832278) | about 4 years ago | (#31535068)

Look's like we lossed the coald war afterall.

Re:Comunisam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535152)

...Considering that most people in the Eastern Bloc speak English better than you, I have to agree.

News for nerds. Stuff that matters (0, Troll)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 4 years ago | (#31535070)

What is so hard to understand in slashdot's slogan ?

Plus, insensitive clod, not everybody cares about this purely US-centric news. A lot of us live in developed countries and our birth were covered by a national healthcare.

Wrong forum (4, Insightful)

Chemisor (97276) | about 4 years ago | (#31535076)

Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation and you're asking if they approve of the government creating another entitlement? Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.

Re:Wrong forum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535128)

Slashdot is packed with the entitlement generation and you're asking if they approve of the government creating another entitlement? Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.

lol So true. Me me me me - that is all anyone care about in this country now. In the end just ride the wave to this countries downfall. Nothing we can do. To many people lack any comprehension on what this bill and others will do to this country. Enjoy the bread lines

Re:Wrong forum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535246)

"We" can start with basic writing skills. Maybe then "we" can have an opinion about more complex issues.

Re:Wrong forum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535350)

Well said, good Sirs! A good combination of personalities to describe our current population is Oliver Twist and Chip Diller from Animal House!

'"Please, Sir, I want some more."' . Oliver, asking the cook at the workhouse for more gruel.

Chip: [being spanked as part of Omega's initiation] Thank you, sir! May I have another?

Re:Wrong forum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535204)

Entitlement generation? You mean baby boomers, right? The first generation, who through their profligate ways, are leaving the country worse off for their children. The ones who voted in large numbers for the vanguards of the 'Me First' principle?

Just wanted to make sure we were all in agreement on exactly who the entitlement generation is.

Re:Wrong forum (1)

Zerth (26112) | about 4 years ago | (#31535300)

Might as well go to Hell and ask the Devil if sinning is bad.

Do you know how crowded it is down there? If you saw the labor requirements for just the inprocessing facility, you'd know the Devil would prefer more virtuous behavior from the world.

You got the wrong generation (1)

linzeal (197905) | about 4 years ago | (#31535342)

Greatest Generation and Baby Boomer's are costing 10k's to 100k's of thousands of dollars of year in health care costs and you blame this generation? Who smokes less, drinks less and is in overall better health than the three previous generations? Give me a break. My Uncle who worked maybe 10 years of his adult life started receiving Medicare last year and he is already up to half a million in costs with his congestive heart failure alone.

Re:Wrong forum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535354)

Original post was deleted. Odd.

By entitlement generation, I am assuming you are discussing the baby boomers, correct? Because it is the boomer generation, as a result of their profligate spending, That is the first in American history to be leaving things worse off for their children. This is the same generation that voted in large numbers for the leaders of the "me" first principles?

Just want to make sure we are all talking about the same entitlement generation.

Re:Wrong forum (0)

Alarindris (1253418) | about 4 years ago | (#31535372)

Well then you must be from the asshole generation where you don't want to share with your neighbor and everyone has to have a hard life to be a good person.

Single payer system (3, Insightful)

TyFoN (12980) | about 4 years ago | (#31535098)

The Americans really need a single payer system like the rest of the world, so no this is not the correct way. However it think it appears a lot better than the current mess they have.

Re:Single payer system (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 4 years ago | (#31535150)

The Americans really need a single payer system like the rest of the world

You haven't been paying attention to the balance sheet shenanigans going on in Greece, have you? Does anyone really know how expensive these programs are or if any government in the developed world is actually solvent or not?

Re:Single payer system (5, Informative)

TyFoN (12980) | about 4 years ago | (#31535288)

The US spends more money in percent of GDP in health care than any other country in the world [wikipedia.org]. The Greece debacle is more about a government that increased wages and welfare to a point that the economy could not sustain, but it has nothing to do about health care specifically.

Re:Single payer system (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 4 years ago | (#31535376)

You're not paying attention to the Greece debacle, specifically how large financial institutions helped the country use exotic instruments (fraud) to hide their true debt levels. Then, with full knowledge of the actual financial condition of the country, they bought Greek bonds. If and/or when Greece gets bailed out the money will go to these same banks.

How many other countries have they done this to? Does anyone really know how sustainable Europe's social welfare programs are?

Health care: break the MD cartel (1, Insightful)

Kludge (13653) | about 4 years ago | (#31535104)

Nothing will improve in health care in the US until we have more doctors. Prices are high because demand is high and supply is low. Unfortunately the AMA carefully controls how many new MDs are granted every year, and purposely keep the number low to keep their salaries high.
Requiring people to buy health insurance will only make our problems worse. It will drive up prices higher. Until the MD cartel is broken, health care will be a big mess.

Re:Health care: break the MD cartel (3, Interesting)

wjousts (1529427) | about 4 years ago | (#31535184)

You know the AMA only represents about 20% of physicians right? And they are actually usually very conservative and have blocked health care reform in the past? Which is one of the reasons they don't have more doctors as members.

Re:Health care: break the MD cartel (5, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 4 years ago | (#31535230)

Your supply is high. In the UK we have 1.5 doctors per 1,000 people, in the USA, 2.4. Of course, we treat our doctors like crap.

The USA spends more per head on medical care than the rest of the world but gets poorer service. Either your efficiency is really low, or too much is getting creamed off the top as profit.

Part of the efficiency problem is that due to your liability culture you throw too many tests and treatments at things.

Part of the profit problem is that your medical system is run like a business that considers 15% a low profit margin.

Re:Health care: break the MD cartel (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#31535328)

Part of the problem is a McDonalds on every fucking street corner.

Re:Health care: break the MD cartel (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 years ago | (#31535318)

the AMA carefully controls how many new MDs are granted every year

Have you looked at your local medical school lately? Many medical schools are at or extremely close to capacity. We can't just start certifying more doctors this afternoon just because we need them - at least not if we want qualified doctors - we need more schools for training those doctors. The closest medical school to where I live has an auditorium that seats over 100 students, and is used for many of their first-year-MD classes. We cannot expect to arbitrarily increase the enrollment numbers and not have the quality of education suffer when the student-teacher ratio changes.

Concerned (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535112)

It is so bad for this country. People think "free health care for all, that makes sense", but in essence, this bill will put your politician in the drivers seat of health care. You will have to plead with politicians to get better care. It will be a nightmare and the quality of our care in the US will decline for all.

News For Nerds (1, Flamebait)

Megaweapon (25185) | about 4 years ago | (#31535126)

Not enough clickbait today, Taco?

Re:News For Nerds (1)

jimbobborg (128330) | about 4 years ago | (#31535194)

Someone in Congress described this as a "VA-like" system. Have you ever dealt with the VA? That's Veterans Administration. I work with a lot of former military, I get to hear horror stories about VA hospitals. Think about that before you start cheering for this.

Re:News For Nerds (1)

Sircus (16869) | about 4 years ago | (#31535380)

"After controlling for enabling and need characteristics in logistic regression models, Veterans Administration (VA)-only users were 2 to 8 times more satisfied with their outpatient care than were VA nonusers on 5 out of 10 satisfaction measures.". Oh, and I have a source [sagepub.com]. You appear to have a mysterious "Someone in Congress".

Also, the proposed health care bill doesn't set up anything even slightly like the VA. VA -> single provider of health care, like the NHS in Britain. The proposed public option would have been a step toward having a single payer, but still with multiple independent providers. The proposed bill doesn't introduce either.

CBO projections (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535116)

A friend recently asked me to explain in plain English how this healthcare bill is going to save Americans money by reducing the budget deficit. This guy answered it simply, and better than I ever could:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/19113

Bonus: the doctor who wrote this has "Shadowfax" as his online handle.

I don't have health insurance. (0, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31535122)

I have catastrophic insurance, so if I get cancer and my bills go over $20,000 then THEY will cover the cost. Like a safety net.

But most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor. I like it that way because it makes the doctor attentive to MY needs not some insurance bureacrat or congressional politician or HMO.

If this Pelosicare Bill forces me to abandon my system of paying cash for product (or else be fined by the government), then I will be very very angry. I will also be concerned what else "they" might force down my throat. "Buy a Prius or other hybrid, else we'll fine you $1000."

This is not freedom. This is like a return to 1770 when Parliament dictated to citizens as if they were Serfs.

Re:I don't have health insurance. (4, Insightful)

schon (31600) | about 4 years ago | (#31535346)

most of the time I pay CASH (about $200 a year), which means I deal *directly* with my doctor.

I live in a country that has government-run universal insurance, and I deal *directly* with my doctor, too. I'm not sure why you believe this isn't possible.

Pray you do not get a chronic condition (1)

catherder_finleyd (322974) | about 4 years ago | (#31535352)

If you get a chronic condition (MS, Diabetes, etc.), you will regret your catastrophic insurance choice. Your routine, non-covered expenses will go through the roof. It will get worse if the condition is such that you have problems working full-time, or you lose your job, etc.

I hope it's rushed through (0, Troll)

ircmaxell (1117387) | about 4 years ago | (#31535124)

I hope it's rushed through, because then it may give ammo for the Supreme Court to rule the action as unconstitutional/illegal... Not to mention that Fed healthcare as it stands is unconstitutional... Amendment 10 of the constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

So explain to me how the US government has the power/right to do this?

Re:I hope it's rushed through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535176)

Didn't you know? The fact that they're constitutionally allowed to make laws gives them the power to do /anything/. Alternately: Didn't you know? The fact that they're supposed to protect the country gives them the power to do /anything/.

Re:I hope it's rushed through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535294)

Better yet, explain to me how Obama is qualified to run MY healthcare, what with the STELLAR job he is doing with Freddie / Fannie, The United States Postal Service, and AMTRAK. Not to mention the utter readability of the United States Tax Code.

Re:I hope it's rushed through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535304)

The federal government is doing it through the tax code. They have the power/right to impose taxes and distribute funds. Similar to how the No child left behind act gives the federal government the power to influence education.

Re:I hope it's rushed through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535332)

You voted, and you're a people; therefore, you delegated the power to them.

Need a little more research on Article 10 (4, Insightful)

elhondo (545224) | about 4 years ago | (#31535344)

If I take what you're stating correctly, then Article 10 would also be able to shoot down Medicare, Fannie/Freddie, the NEA, the DOL.... NASA. In other words, it sounds right, but ever since the Civil War, I don't think it's been enforced in the manner you describe. There are specific exceptions in case law when dealing with commerce, and with health care spending in the top 5, it's a pretty easy out for the SC. I think you need look no further than the DEA's position on medical marijuana laws to realize that the 10th isn't that powerful. I'm not arguing that the 10th shouldn't be the law of the land, just that it plainly isn't, and a court challenge on strict 10th amendment grounds would cause an upheaval to the federal government.

Re:I hope it's rushed through (1)

Wolvenhaven (1521217) | about 4 years ago | (#31535382)

Can I sign up for your newsletter? I argue the 10th amendment pretty much every time a debate like this comes up and people dismiss it because they only know the first 2-3. Here at college I have seen a disgusting trend towards "the constitution is broken so let's just ignore it" among both students and teachers and I can't wrap my mind around how they came up with such a idiotic idea.

Government intrusion into healthcare caused the cost to go up, restricting the number of doctors, requiring cookie cutter instead of modular health insurance plans, "oversight" and "control" which create bureaucratic empire building jobs, all increasing the cost while doing little to help.
Even if it were constitutional, the public wanted it, and it got signed into law, does anyone really want the people who can't manage the programs already there? Medicare is billions of dollars in debt, the Post Office is as well, and the VA hospital is one of the most poorly run, inefficient, and costly medical service there is. If they cannot even give affordable, quality healthcare to our veterans, how well do you think it will work for everyone?
(Note, "you" is not referring to parent, it's a plural argumentative "you")

Obama-Care (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535130)

Its bad. Look on page 102. Its describes the way a "panel" will determine which insurance you "will" buy. And that is just the start.

Neither. (4, Insightful)

jgreco (1542031) | about 4 years ago | (#31535134)

It's nothing like the health care bill we should have had, something to create a health care system comparable to other modern countries. The Democrats have no backbone and kept watering it down and morphing it until it was only vaguely acceptable to just barely enough of them to possibly pass. This sort of thing leads to awful legislation.

The Republicans, of course, are chanting "wait, wait, this is being rushed," but the facts are that they had years in which they could have pushed through health care reform - years where it was clearly necessary. Despite what they say, your average Republican simply doesn't believe in health care reform, which is why it didn't happen under Clinton and wouldn't happen under Obama if they could figure out a way to delay it. So instead of pushing for a fiscally responsible and conservative health care reform, the Republicans are really pushing for the status quo, without trying to seem like they're doing that.

Both parties stink. I'm kind of hoping this passes, but then the Republicans come into power. It'll be impractical for them to repeal this, but perhaps they'll be smart enough to tinker with it to make it better. Past history is not encouraging, though.

Re:Neither. (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 4 years ago | (#31535290)

The 'pubs are saying "wait wait" because they're wanting to delay this until after the elections. Should the Dems win the elections, they'll find some other excuse.

NO ONE here can tell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535142)

No one here can tell because the damn bills are in such flux that even the goddamn Congress can keep up with it and the GAO is crushed with requests from them to figure it out. [washingtontimes.com]

So, I'll restate: no one here will know what's going on with regards to what's in the bill. No one in the news media knows exactly what's going on.

All the doom and gloom you hear and all of the wonderfulness of the plan are all speculation and hyperbole to get viewers and ratings.

Re:NO ONE here can tell (3, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | about 4 years ago | (#31535220)

There's only one thing you need to know and the rest is pure diversion:

The taxes start now and the benefits start later.

The reason this bill is being shoved through against so much opposition is because the government is frantically trying to raise tax revenue before the debt black hole sucks them in. Too bad we've already crossed the event horizon.

Unconstitutional Mandate (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 4 years ago | (#31535146)

I don't know how mandating citizens to purchase health insurance is going to pass Constitutional muster.

Put it on the shelf until November (1)

sunking2 (521698) | about 4 years ago | (#31535148)

In less than 8 months time the entire House will be up for reelection. This is a critical issue and at this point everyone points to their own polls to pitch their case and prove the population wants what they want. Let the results of the House elections decide the issue once and for all who wants and who doesn't.

Very expensive half-assed bill (5, Insightful)

jjo (62046) | about 4 years ago | (#31535158)

As you might expect, this bill is heavy on the benefits and light on the necessary pain. There's virtually only one effective cost-control measure, the tax on high-cost health benefits, and that has been pushed off so far in the future that it will be killed before it sees the light of day. The bill recognizes that coverage of pre-existing conditions requires an individual mandate, but then implements it in a half-assed way that won't achieve the objective of forcing healthy people to get coverage. (It also puts a dual drag on job growth by both raising taxes on private investment and directly increasing the cost of employing people. Way to go.)

I would much prefer a bill that provided funds to the states to let them structure their own solutions to the health-care problem, as Massachusetts has done. But the top-down command-and-control midset in Washington is too strong for that.

Neither (3, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 4 years ago | (#31535174)

It won't do anything. This will go down as the 2010 Health Insurance Bailout act. Few Americans who currently don't have insurance will be helped, and few who do will notice one iota of difference. The largest group of people who will see positive change from this is the top executives at our health insurance companies.

Too many hands in the Cookie Jar (4, Insightful)

Nautical Insanity (1190003) | about 4 years ago | (#31535180)

The evidence for the efficiency and quality of government-run healthcare in other countries is indisputable.

However, too many people have been making money hand over fist in the US to let any system where they would be the cut cost pass. Overall, it's an opportunity for the government to provide what the market cannot. Either affordable healthcare or writing into law corporate profits. I don't trust our congressmen to avoid the latter.

Look at the whole picture (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535232)

You have to view the entire plan...as well as read the bill to comprehend what this bill intends to do. It is not about abortion. It is not about ruining the insurance industry. It is not about controlling the economy. It is not about reducing costs as many perceive reducing costs. It is not about coverage of people who are not currently covered. It is not about covering illegals. What is it about then you ask?? Look at the people presenting and supporting the bill. Look at the bright future movies and books verses those that do not portray a bright future and notice the differences. Remember the book 1984 from school?? That is the future they wish to put inplace with this bill. And the peoples that will pay the highest price for this future are the ones that support the bill with great enthusiasm without understanding its implications. If abortion is the only option 'approved' for anunwanted pregnancy, the numbers say we can reduce the population growth by over 40,000,000 people over the next 10 years. That is 40,000,000 people that do not need health care, unemployment, jail cells, time in courts, drugs, government support programs, food stamps, discipline issues, gang members, divorces, people needing low income housing, etc. It will also reduce healhcare costs by over $600,000,000,000 just in delivery costs alone! Get the picture! The bill will control those "who cannot control themselves". Oh, and the illegals....once they are identified as illegal (due to the healthcare and federal databases being linked), ICE is automatically notified, the person or persons detained and sent back to country of origin after basic medical care is provided (at minimal cost).

Correct Spelling (0, Flamebait)

mcspoo (933106) | about 4 years ago | (#31535238)

cspell: Faux "News" Why do millions of people think a comedy channel provides real news? Faux "news" is NOT a news channel. It's a comedy channel using absurdity as a comedic take on American society.

*sigh* (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535242)

Political debate in the United States is *dead*.

Every number you have heard or will hear about health care is a lie. It used to be that the Congressional Budget Office put out good numbers, but politicians have gotten too good at manipulating the process. Now, even CBO numbers are untrustworthy.

The rate regulation in the Senate health care bill is a disaster. The first problem is that no one in their right mind would ever enter a market which is rate regulated. The bureaucratic red tape will keep newcomers out. The second problem is that rate regulation removes any incentive that health care insurers have to control costs. Why? Because under the Senate bill, 90% of total health care insurance revenue must be paid out for health care. So, total revenue is x. All profit must come from y, which includes profit and all non health related expenditures. The last variable is z, health expenditures. x = y + z. y = 10% of x. z = 90% of x. How do you increase your profit in such a system? Easy. Increase z.

If I ran a health insurance company, on day 1 of the new health care regulations, I would shut down my fraud department. Not only would I get rid of a nonhealth care expenditure that must be counted against y (and thus my profits), but it would also increase fraudulent health care expenditures, which will be included in z. If the feds want to stop fraud, let them spend *their* money to do so. I don't care anymore.

So my insurance premiums go up because I am spending more money on health care. Won't my customers just go to my competitors? Well, because of rate regulation, there won't be very many competitors. The few existing competitors will be very likely to do the exact same things I'm doing.

Aren't I afraid that my customers will just drop health insurance altogether? That's the beauty of it. The Senate bill requires everyone to buy insurance. They can either buy my ridiculously overpriced insurance or they can pay a fine. And guess what the fine is used for? That's right, subsidies for other people to buy my insurance, so one way or another, I get the money.

Even if you want european style health care (which many Americans do not), the Senate bill is not the way to do it.

who knows (1)

JeffSh (71237) | about 4 years ago | (#31535244)

who the hell could possibly know? the bill has more pages than a dictionary. no one really knows what's in it. i doubt even the people voting on it for us know what's in it.

Not perfect, but a start (4, Interesting)

astaines (451138) | about 4 years ago | (#31535258)

From our perspective (I'm a health policy person based in Europe), US health care is staggeringly expensive, very variable, and very unfair. It's the single biggest cause of personal bankruptcy in the States.

Your health is poor, overall, especially you have poor child health, and relatively poor maternal and infant health.

A large part of your population have no access to good quality health care, and this imposes large costs on your society.

Your major companies find high health care costs for staff a major burden, and this sharply reduces the competitiveness of good US employers.

You have the highest administrative costs for heath care that I know of, now running over 30%, and at current rates of increase, in thirty years you will be spending 100% of your GDP on health services.
At the top end, there is no better health care anywhere for acute illnesses, but very few people can access this.

The proposed changes are a start, and only a start. With no public option, there is a real risk that the insurance companies will continue to combine together to rip you off. However, the current proposals will save a lot of money over the next decade, which is why the insurance companies are spending millions buying ads, and influencing politicians to stop the change.

I hope it passes!

Effectiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535260)

It isn't only a question of effectiveness. There are legal and moral issues as well.

Moral: It is wrong to force your will on someone. Just because a majority of people get together and decide they want something doesn't give them the right to take it by force. I know that has become one of the finding principles of our country, but it is wrong.

Legal: The federal government lacks the legal authority to enact this legislation. This could only be implemented at a state level, or a county/city level if a state allows for that.

Dear readers with mod points... (5, Insightful)

twoallbeefpatties (615632) | about 4 years ago | (#31535266)

I do not have anything of actual use to say about this bill, other than common talking points, unsourced blather about what this bill will accomplish, and vague appeals to antiauthoritarianism. But please mod me +5 Insightful like you're doing with everyone else, just to be fair.

It'll do both (-1, Troll)

Orne (144925) | about 4 years ago | (#31535268)

This bill will

  • ... Fundamentally transform how health care insurance is managed in the United States
  • ... Probably result in lower standards of health care service, as businesses are forced into tightening their budgets. We already see that Walgreens has decided to drop Medicaid patients [wn.com] because the government is reimbursing them a fraction of wholesale.
  • ... Allows the federal government to provide funds for abortions. This is the political sticking point that is fracturing the Democrat party at the moment.
  • ... Allows the Republicans to sit on the sidelines and nit-pick, since the House is Democrat controlled, and Senate is 59/100 (but their bill passed already).
  • ... Piss off the American public. 53% of the polled public [rasmussenreports.com] oppose the bill as written.

The bill will probably pass. There is an indication that many Democrats will vote Yes in a "scorched earth" fashion, as many are already polling to lose their positions in November. The Republicans will probably sweep in the fall elections, akin to 1994, stalling Obama's progressive run of the last year and a half. Since his administration has shown no inkling of actually being "bi-partisan", unless he fundamentally changes his approach to politics, Obama will probably be remembered as Jimmy Carter II.

It's only 2700 pages. If you care, read it. (1)

karlnyberg (743268) | about 4 years ago | (#31535272)

Rather than bashing one side or the other based upon perceived biased information, go get the document and read it yourself. Then, weep for future generations, either way.

Just look to the North... (3, Funny)

S-4'N3 (1232394) | about 4 years ago | (#31535274)

If the health care reform plan goes through then it signals the end of civilization as you know. Just look at where I am from, Canada, where we introduced universal health care in 1962. Since then, we've been living in barbaric fiefdoms, the likes of which have not been seen outside of the Hyborian kingdom.

Re:Just look to the North... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535308)

If we go to a single payer down here, where will your Canadian Politicians go for health care...

To Big (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 4 years ago | (#31535306)

The problem is that it is too big. Being able to do a large bill is good politically but not for the american public. There are a lot of things going on in big bills. Almost everyone has something they don't like about it. So by passing a bill you really kinda force pass a bunch of bills, with no real debates on each section.

Smaller bills will be much easer to handle.
Laws to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on medical reasons. Probably an easy pass.

Laws to require everyone to get healthcare a difficult slim pass and probably will take some extra time to perfect.

Laws about funding for abortions as part of the plan. Probably will be filibuster out. However filibusters take a lot of work and filibustering everything will probably literally kill a party. So they will not overuse the filibuster allowing passing for other details.

TACO (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31535312)

share. *BSD is the 4arty 1n street

Canada (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | about 4 years ago | (#31535322)

The issues aren't the system. The problem are the paranoid people who goto the emergency room because they have a cold. The problem is that the pharmaceutical industry push doctors to over prescribe, causing even more visits to the hospital and clinic for follow ups and what not.

Also, universal healthcare in Canada is more like a federal mandate telling the provinces to setup such a system. Each province has their own healthcare system that's partially funded by the federal government. I'm not sure about the US, but I'm sure this would have been more palatable to americans if the healthcare law was the same, giving the individual states more autonomy over healthcare services.

In any case, Canada's system isn't perfect, and yours won't be either. It won't do much for reforming the pharmaceutical industry. It will have a positive effect on the over all health of society though.

Or it might drive you all into civil war, which would be pretty fun too.

Healthcare is a good thing. This bill is not. (1)

salesgeek (263995) | about 4 years ago | (#31535330)

Any bill that expands power for the IRS (does anyone else think that the IRS has no place in making health care decisions?), places an entire sector of the economy under Government control (Biden's words, not mine) and will create lots more opportunity for people to go to jail is just not the prescription.

As it is, this law basically raises taxes, forces healthy, young people to buy insurance and creates a class of people who are too wealthy to get assistance and not wealthy enough to afford insurance, and then jails them for being squarely in the middle class. Why not take a little more time and do this right, and make it so health care becomes a right, not an enforced purchase of insurance bundled with a tax increase?

Sure. (2, Insightful)

taskiss (94652) | about 4 years ago | (#31535370)

"Will this bill do what the administration claims to do"?

Yes it will. It claims to tax the households in the upper 5% much greater than it does today, it claims to increase insurance costs for a large percentage of folks, and it will re-distribute the wealth it collects into the medical industry to provide health care for the lowest percentage of folks who mostly don't have insurance because they would rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...