@thisistobehelpful: The steep billing of non insured patients is actually a good example of costs out of control . And it's out of control because the health CARE industry choose to make the health INSURANCE industry their preferred form of compensation . There are a crap load of cost problems but everyone is ASSuming INSURANCE is where to fix it and regulate it .

And if the INSURANCE industry wasn't reimbursing the health care industry alot of these 'tests' would only be used as a last resort for non emergency care . Many tests are A tool and not the only tool .

You're right a nurse or emt can't do everything but unless you have a really chronic or catastrophic condition why pay 150-200$ for a doc visit when you can pay a clinic or Walmart 50-75$ . They'll refer you anyway if out of their skill level/jurisdiction .

It's already going on with eye care. Most of these eye glass stores are staffed with opticians as compared to an opthomologists . Something needs a second opinion or eye doc you'll get referred . More of the health care industry needs to go like that . And by the way glasses/eye care usually is one of the least insured segments of the health care industry and also one of the cheapest . The eye glass/eye care industry also has ALOT of competition with-in the industry .

WHAT?-minimal insurance reimbursements , true competition and one of the cheapest parts of health CARE ? uh-oh , can't have that now can we ?

And no you can't just go see an EMT or nurse for everything. They can't write prescriptions and it's about a grand to show up at the ERs around me.

You completely skipped over the fact that insurance companies have bidding wars with providers and then no-insurance patients get robbed to make up the difference. I hope you get cancer and lose your job in whatever order it is that makes you wake up.

what's you bet on what year we are going to have to bail out the Health Care Industry?

As I said in earlier comments here, the general welfare clause is being perverted to justify this bill. As for big corporate profits, the health care industry runs roughly a 3% profit, much less than most other industries.

If one would actually like to solve the problem that is our health care system, one might seek to enact tort reform and interstate competition. Yet, you won't find much of that in the thousand plus page bill that passed the House. Instead, you will find language on fining people who choose not to carry insurance and creating criminal penalties for the same.

Tell me, why are there handcuffs in a health care bill?

If something like this passes, I'm going to refuse to pay the fine that I will probably incur being unable to pay another premium. The entire point of a public option is to not have a premium to an insurance company because THOSE are the first thing screws up our chances at getting medical treatment without destroying our financial futures.

This country just sucks at being a first world nation. If I get cancer, I'm having a family dump my dead or dying body on the whitehouse lawn. TAKE THE HINT CONGRESS AND TAKE CARE OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS NOT YOUR LOBBYISTS. Jerks...

@Darklighter: Those are all fiction.

@ARP: This isn't a dem/rep matter. It's a constitutional matter. Don't let them fool you with their divide and conquer tactics. Look into your rights as an american and stand up for them before they are taken away.

@Bhockzer: Wrong. If you don't pay the fines you will sent to prison. it will make criminals out of people who choose not to have healthcare insurance (yes some people like me don't want it).

@bravohotel01: And healthcare *insurance has nothing to do with healthcare... lol

@hopson77: You're a bad American if you question what your masters are doing.

@DreamTheEndless: Death's little brother: I think you're delusional to not know that the states have power over the federal government. The States gave the federal government it's power. That is not some anti-government wacko thought it's the facts. I'm not anti-government. I'm pro non-criminal government and government who doesn't abuse it's powers and try power grabs for their own criminal agendas. If you beleive they have the right to maditory healthcare then you beleive it ok to enslave the people of the usa... because thats what it does. not only that but just wait till they start telling people they will have manditory shots and checkups.. just wait till they tell you that you have to put this drug in your body without any choice.. and see how free you feel.

Also, our taxes are ridiculous, it's not 100% free. They take like 8% of my dad's paycheck costing him nearly 8-10 grand a year in losses that he doesn't get back. That's one person. On top of that we pay 13% tax for everything we buy.

Lastly, our population is only 32 million, the States is over 300 million. The transition must be quite difficult.

Smiles! :)

@GuidedByLemons: I know people who got later stage colon cancer which manifested itself with physical symptoms and got an operation with no complications and/or remission . Even if discovered earlier the treatment would've been almost the exact same . I know individuals who are wiped out for 3-5 days for 1 conlonoscopy -what : loose a week of your life and much more income for a 'routine' test ? And that's just one test & trip to the doctors . The people who need continuous monitoring fine then : Ok the dollars for them . But is such financial and physically disabilitating 'routine' testing really worth it ?

The only reason many get routine tests is the doctor recommends it . And alot of doctors recommend tests to cover their butts to keep their insurance company happy with profits . Insurance seems to be self perpetuating in the health care industry .

And as far a lipid tests for bypass surgery . Again heart trouble manifests itself with physical symptoms long before you are going to the doctor for lipid tests . A lipid test should be for conformation on a hard to diagnose problem . The problem with many tests is that they are considered THE only tool by doctors when in fact they are one of many .

Too many patients and doctors assume they should be using Cadillac medical care on everything .

Alot of problems come from a lack of physical education and favorable lifestyle . That's where a couple sessions with a trainer could educate you and give as much information and even many of the same test results as one trip to the doctor . I'm not saying a trainer is a substitute for a doctor but they and others can do many of the same things doctors do including dispensing information .

Doctors and patients should be able to use physical symptoms much more than they are doing . Patients need to be able to realize what a fit body feels like . A doctor should know what a fit body LOOKS like in person and not off a chart . If there are reasons for the doctors to use tools such as a lipid test or colonoscopy then OK reimbursement for those test .

"routine" testing in itself is almost hit and miss dart throwing science in that it's like lets see what we can find this time . But where is THE PREVENTION: the things YOU can do in YOUR daily life to prevent those things . Better yet since it's paid for what is the medical industry doing to prevent rather than discover/reveal medical conditions .

Well holy crap then, I just can't imagine what is.

Big corporate profits, you say?

Ah.

@windycity: The last link with the title " Someone Else's Money " sums it all up .

And yes there are too many facets to health COST issue . This bill or debate isn't about better care it's about up front cheaper care . But we'll still pay for it in the back end .

They need to study cost issues including schooling , technology ( too much or not enough ) or find out wether there is just plain old price gouging .

This is a health INSURANCE debate . It's almost like paying a bill before you see the invoice . Too many involved in the whole debate have become hooked on an insurance based reimbursement health care delivery system that getting rid of it or changing will very difficult .

And what do junkies do ? -they lie , cheat , manipulate and steal . Better watch your wallet and qualty of life for which this is supposed to improve

@GuidedByLemons: The problem here is that too many only believe what a doctor says even though you can get the same exact thing from a nurse , emt , trainer or a PA . You don't need a full fledged office visit for a doctor to tell you to exercise regularly or rest when you have a cold .

" preventive " health care is rather loosely used term when it comes to the health care industry . " preventive " health care as far as the current insurance based health industry is concerned more than likely an expensive test with expensive technology manufactured for profit by the supplier .

@u1itn0w2day: Agree with you on the costs issue. I don't understand why Congress has completed ignored the actual problem - high cost of medical care - in favor of wading into the insurance system muck. There are many facets to the health care issue, and coverage is far from the only solution.

Did anyone hear the two podcasts from This American Life on the issue of health care costs? Eye opening and disturbing when you consider how much is being left out of the whole health care debate.

[www.thisamericanlife.org]
[www.thisamericanlife.org]

Thus, you don't have to choose between food and health insurance. Sounds like reform to me.

With regards to the $100/month, I was only using it as an example. I know real premiums tend to be significantly more.

They are involved in healthcare *insurance*.

@Toffeecake: That's true. Unlike now, where a large corporation with zero accountability does that, especially choices like going to a doctor when you're sick (oops, that's a pre-existing condition now).

Also, aren't the republicans big into telling people what they can do with their bodies and legislating their own personal morality?

@Moosenogger: It's complicated, but here's the logic. Republicans and Conservatives want you to be born no matter what the mother or parents want.

After that, you're completely on your own. They don't care if you starve, get a diseases, get an education, etc. Any suffering during your life is your own fault and you're just lazy, even when you're 3 months old.

Now when you want to die, you can do so, as long as its not due to ending life support, removing feeding tubes, etc. They'll force you to keep it, but will make you pay for it.

Got it?

@Duke_Newcombe sees what you did there...: Yes, in their mind, that's exactly what it is. The freedom to either go bankrupt, die, or just work 150 hours a week to pay your medical bills and die early.

go ahead get the calculator and follow along
304,059,724 people in america
-39,100,000 people that are poor
which leaves 264,959,724 people who are supposedly paying 11,000 in medical taxes alone at end of year (already sounding improbable?)
so now we multiply (i'm making everyone even here)

and we come up with
$2,914,556,964,000 thats 2 TRILLION dollars
(does this even smack of correct anymore?)

and we supposedly spend about $2 trillion for health care .. so.. we broke even!! no one owes anything.. we have covered it just fine!!! we don't need health care reform!! *ahem* as you can see just by watching the news.. that's not true... if it were true that you ARE paying someone else's healthcare like that.. the bills would be PAID.. and they're not.. when you look at all the numbers thrown around it becomes obviously ridiculous.

So what is the reality? I'm guessing the reality is probably far closer to a couple of bucks every year (maybe even a couple hundred.... but not thousands) what does that work out to? a tiny fraction of the penny in your pocket (so not even the whole penny) just went to help pay for Joe's broken leg

So first i ask, why are you so adamant about not helping someone? Because that's what your question is really saying "why do I have to help?" Do you know who you are helping? Are you totally comfortable walking up to a complete stranger who say.. has pneumonia and saying to their face "hey I'm sorry that you are sick.. and that its actually treatable and you could recover fully.. but i just don't want to help, send my condolences to your family for your loss"

What do you think would actually happen if we took no tax dollars for health care AND refused treatment to all uninsured.. Really think about it. Where do you think our death rate would be at now? How many people would die from simple things? Are you really ready to send all those people to their graves.. and realize one day.. that might be you that no one cared about and let die.

@Trai_Dep: That's where the communication breaks down. Opponents have successfully convinced people that their taxes will go up if we get single-payer/UHC. That's true. However, they don't realize that the their net paychecks will likely go up because they don't have to pay health insurance premiums anymore.

@hopson77: I'm not a strict constructionist or a SCINO (Strict Contstuctionist In Name Only) like Scalia or Thomas, so I have an expansive view of the ICC and general welfare clauses (as well as believing in a right to privacy). So, I believe these agencies are appropriate.

What I'm probing here is that I find that many people and judges (like Scalia) are loose or strict contstructionists depending on if they agree with the particular goal of the agency, legislation, etc. In your case, I commend that you don't believe any of these agencies should exist and we should be left to the market, our own devices, and the states. I disagree, but I respect you standing by your principles.

@Trai_Dep: Yes, I'm not thrilled with this bill either. However, I view it very similar to they gay marriage debate. I would rather get civil unions now and work our way to civil marriage later, than an all or nothing. That being said, I think there are many who think this will be our only shot for quite some time and are trying to cram everything into it.

And I yours. Show me somewhere in the Constitution and/or one of its 27 amendments that justifies the existence of those programs/agencies. I do grant you that some of them are more justified than others, but I'm curious to see what you find.

@Eldritch: There is a multi-billion dollar industry who wants to protect every penny and are spending in excess of $1M per day to lobby congress. That's what you're missing.

@Esquire99: As opposed to the Republicans who skipped out on a Patriot Act vote to attend the Teaparties and talk about how healthcare reform is worse that the threat of terrorism. They did it entirely on love of country and principle, not to score cheap political points with the most vocal of their potential supporters.

And I'm sure that Republicans, who have a long history of voting lockstep, all do it because they want to, not because party leaders pressure them. Also, I'm sure that since the Health Insurance lobby donates more heavily to Republicans, it has nothing to do with it.

If you're going to apply Real Politic to a situation, apply it to both sides.

@hopson77: I'm interested in your views on the following:

1) Interstates
2) Federal funding of Public Schools
3) Federal Funding of Fire Departments, Policy, etc.
4) The EPA
5) The FDA
6) Any sort of consumer protection agency
7) National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests
8) Social Security
9) Medicare
10) FAA
11) FTC

@sgtcody: I hope you remember that self-reliance in the unfortunate event you're ever faced with a severe medical crisis.

Unless you were fortunate enough to amass an extraordinary sum of money, it doesn't take much to wipe out your life's savings in a hurry.

@lawnmowerdeth: When a government agency is well funded, has a reasonable mandate, and has sufficient authority over its operations, they do very well.

You're buying into the trick that Regean pulled with the EPA and lots of other agencies:
1) Underfund them
2) Give them confusing/contradictory priorities
3) Require more red tape or put somone incompetent in charge.
4) Give them more responsibility, but less authority to act upon it.
5) State that the EPA is a failure and that another approach is needed.
6) Repeat.

Putting people in charge of government who hate the government is self-fufilling prophecy.

@subtlefrog: My big worry is that the mandate will stay, but the public option will turn into a "trigger" that can be easily manipulated so that its actually never triggered. So, we'll be required to buy overpriced insurance but without the cost control measures the public option was intended to create.

Medicare is wildly popular. Time for all Americans to get access to it.

@[DFX] Deimos: Yes, it has nothing to do with him being black and minorities seeing the (D) next to his name and thinking about all that "free money". Nope. That din't play a part in it at all.

[en.wikipedia.org]

I think that instead of a mandate. Make it legal for hospitals and doctors to refuse coverage or to make it legal for health care providers to garnish wages. "Poor" people without coverage are, generally, the ones driving up health care costs. If the feel sick, off the emergency room. Addicted to Heroin? Lets go get a battery of tests to find out why your chest hurts....

@Digigage: Because, as usual, Republicans whined, whined, and then whined some.

@Megleris:

Did you not see 60 Minutes last week where the exposed Medicare fraud? One person made $20 MILLION dollars per year by submitting fraudulent claims to Medicare. This was just one person. Just because their admin rate is low does not mean they are efficient. It means they are simply paying claims without any oversight. The same thing would happen on a public plan. You don't hear about fraud in private plans nearly as often as you do in Medicare/Medicaid.

Canada has a similar system. Each province decides what medication is free and what isn't. The ones that are free are extremely limited in selection. Therefore, in Canada, your postal code will easily determine whether or not you get your treatment for free (Although, the actual availability of the drugs is Canadawide, AFAIK, but the costs of some of them mean they are effectively not available, especially certain new cancer fighting drugs)

And the debacle that is Ontario's (and other provinces) handling of the H1N1 vaccine makes the US' slow, controlled rollout look like a panacea. $2,300 for a shot if you want to pay, here (Ask Medcan). Sports players get special recognition. Lineups so long people parking at 8 am getting parking tickets at 6 pm (The spots didn't allow 6-9pm parking). Ridiculous.

Don't even get me started on how stupid it is that to keep yourself in even halfway decent shape, you need to live in a city for YEARS to get a real doctor due to excessive shortages, and you are pretty much going to have to pay medical insurance anyways (Albeit less than they do in the US), lest you end up with bad eyesight, teeth, need regular medicine, or even just have some sort of chronic pain eased by physio.

And entire provinces of nurses/doctors/paramedics going on strike? Good grief! But it's pretty regular occurrence in Canada, especially out west.

No thanks, Canada isn't a bastion saint of medicare. Now, some places in Europe, that's where socialized medicine is actually working. And for less money, too.

Now, before you say I'm insane, here's the deal: Canada's way of doing health care sucks. The US way is better. The European way seems to be even better than that. In that order, right now I'd rather have the US system here, but, quite honestly, I'd go for the European way of doing things anyday.

This is a great day for America. The majority of Americans elected Obama based on, in part, his promise to overhaul healthcare. It is a shame that so many uneducated people have been tricked by the far right and corporate fascist interest into opposing this bill.

If the Republicans want to be stubborn and filibuster this in the Senate, they just need to push it through the budget reconciliation process. In either case, the uninformed and unenlightened few will not be allowed to hold up progress for everyone.

Keep pushing them Obama.

@ohnoes: Bob will die because there will be no XYZ insurance anymore and the govt. run health care does not "care" about bob or the lines are too long.

During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The "robust public option" which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

And as usual, your opinion is informed only by your terrible knee disorder and your hilarious misconception of the term "free market."

@fs2k2isfun:

Hence all are insured. It is cute you think premiums are 100 bucks a month

Never heard that term before today.

What's so wrong with asking that a government stay within its bounds and scope of power?

@morlo:

I live in MA and there is no issue getting to see a doctor.

And "Most people with no or insufficient insurance don't go to doctors. " Really? You beleive that? I would agree that they will not get any preventative care, but they go to the hospital when a crisis strikes.

[en.wikipedia.org]

@Shugardrawers: "PLEASE THINK OF THE GREATER GOOD FOR THE MAJORITY!"
Wha? This is not a principle on which our country was founded. The US was created based on individual freedom and self reliance. If you want to work for "the greater good of the majority" you would be quite happy in Cuba or North Korea. I would rather enjoy my freedom and be responsible for my own welfare (and that of my family).

Coverage out of your own pocket can easily cost $10,000 a year.

So, take the 2.5% fine of gross income and figure out how much you can make before the fine cost more than the insurance.

This means that anyone earning under $400,000 a year is now stupid for buying insurance ahead of time instead of just paying the insurance fine since according to this bill you cannot be turned down for preexisting conditions.....

No insurance company is going to survive under these conditions.

The Constitution specifically spelled out the powers of federal government, and you may find that list here: [en.wikipedia.org]

Nowhere in that list is anything close to authorizing Congress to pass a bill of this manner. The "general welfare" clause argument is being perverted to justify this albatross of a bill.

I wish I could say that I find funny the notion that someone who actually reads and understands the documents upon which this country and its government were founded and asks that we stay within that scope is an "anti-government whacko" or whatever derogatory comment was tossed in my direction. Instead, it's a reflection of a society in desperate need of maturity and appreciation for those that have gone before them.

I support more regulation of the insurance companies, I support the banning of prescription drug advertising and I support making insurance more affordable. But you know what? All of this can be done WITHOUT a government run health plan.

I think this is the kind of issue that needs to go direct to the people. Let's have a national referendum on health care and let every voter cast a yes or a no on this massive bill and see where the votes line up. I can just about guarantee you it wouldn't pass.

While I don't think the UK's system is terrible, what I'm advocating is quite different: something like Canada's system, with a private health care industry paid through universal government health insurance.

I always get a kick out of it when people go into histrionics about government bureaucrats controlling what medications and treatments you have access to. Presumably you prefer that your access be controlled only by private bureaucrats with a vested profit interest in denying you anything they can get away with.

so, in reality, the problem here isn't gov't-run - it's gov't-contracted.

Someone didn't read his constitutional amendments.

@Rectilinear Propagation: You have EVERY right. The government does not have the ability to give OR take away rights. Now, that does not mean that healthcare is a right, as someone has to actually PROVIDE it for you.

True, but most of the things the federal government does aren't within its official rights. In fact the government was criticized for its inaction w/r/t Katrina, for example, instead of being praised for it. People expect the government to do things which it's not allowed to do, and the leviathan is happy to comply.

@Nicole: Did you read that link in the first comment?

@parkj238: You do know that "red states" are running more in the black than "blue states" right? Texas has little to no debt, California is out of control.

@jayphat: I think people are mistaking my wait times. I'm not refering to the E.R. visit. I will be the first to tell you that sucks. About 6 years ago I was involved in a wreck where I THOUGHT my arm was broken(it wasn't thank god). I had insurance. The guy next to me was involved in a wreck as well. His arm was probably broken. I know for damn sure his knee was screwed up, as it shouldn't have been that low on his leg. His insurance was questionable. After a 2 hour wait for me, and a 7 hour wait for him, they call me first. I make them take him.

My point in terms of wait times was general procedures. MRI's and the such. I have a friend who lives in Sarnia, who thought it was perfectly fine that he was knocked unconcious playing football, and that waiting SEVEN months for an MRI was perfectly healthy.

If you want to know how much a blood test (or any other procedure) costs, call and ask to speak to the office manager at your doctor's office. They can tell you how much procedures will be billed for, and the amount you pay will be the difference between that and how much your insurer is contracted to pay. Or in your case, the full amount if you don't have insurance. Even still, you can ask for a discount if you are paying in cash.

@GuidedByLemons: Really? You're ready for the federal government to step in and say what you can and cannot eat, what medication you will and will not be able to have, hell even wether or not you can use a ladder? Because that' what happens with a single payer system. Do some research on England's system.

Single payer is a monopoly by the government with the option to control EVERY aspect of your life in the name of controling costs.

@fs2k2isfun: What about those who've had health insurance (through one carrier or another), and then gets diagnosed with an expensive disease to treat?

They've been paying into the "insurance" system their entire lives, so the companies should have managed their risk accordingly. If for some other reason, (e.g. person loses their job), is it right then for another insurance company to turn around and deny coverage? From a business standpoint, it's not helpful from a bottom line - this is why the bill is mandating universal coverage.

That way, risks can predicted with reasonable accuracy and rates be adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately, employment and health are too entertwined - and just because you lose one oughtn't mean you'd lose the other.

@lawnmowerdeth:

National Defense
National Highway System
Social Security
Medicare
Environmental Protection
The Federal Court System
FDA

This is just a few. Please tell me which of these we would be better off turning over to private industry as a for-profit business?

@Digigage: Because uteruses are not part of the body, silly.

@Eldritch:

I myself would prefer a single-payer system but we are generally pleased with the results here in Massachusetts, so please don't misrepresent the health plan results.

60% of residents and 70% of physicians support it. 97% of Mass residents are covered and the cost to taxpayers has been a 1.7% increase to the state budget. There was a brief shortage of Primary Care physicians as more people came into the system but that has been offset by decreased reliance on Emergency Room visits for basic care. All indications are that the initial ramp-up costs have slowed and real savings will be accomplished longterm as preventative and wellness care begin to work their way through the system.

It is not a perfect solution but as a model for national coverage, it is a vast improvement over the existing system.

@cf27:

Oh yes, our great and wonderful US House of Representatives have passed a bill, that for the first time in the history of the US, requires an individual to buy a good or service whether they want it or not, simply as a consequence of their existence.

If this were to ever get through the senate, you're alternative to buying insurance is to put a bullet in your brain...

What do you folks think?

Sorry about the off-topic rant—I'm gone.

Hey I've got an unique idea that all of the masterminds in Washington haven't thought of. Instead of us giving you more money to oversee programs you aren't qualified to run and will clearly will be bankrupted in the next 10 years (at most) why don't you look at all of the waste and fraud that is already going on in the programs you currently have and use that money to fund your little medical program?
And YES Washington we do and should have a say in how our money is spent and/or wasted by career politicians that could care less about the people they are supposed to represent. I'm not stupid enough to believe that the only answer out of our mess is to give more to the very source that got us into this mess...HELLO!!
I'm sure you know the definition of insanity: Continue to do the same thing and expect different results. However I am smart enough to know that next year when elections come up there will be many of you so-called caring politicians will have the opportunity to become lobbyists for the very system you created because you won't have your jobs after the American public votes your sorry butts out.
Senate it is up to you to have the ethics, fortitude and love of country to not allow this bill to go through as it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back...folks paying for this (well really there isn't a realistic way to do it) will damage us beyond repair.

That is not the way it works in the US, although you would think that from the way our government acts.

We the People have the rights, endowed by our Creator. Some of them are abridged as explained in the Constitution.

In many cases, people who use the ER as a clinic wait until they are so sick that they can't work before they show up. They don't show up with a cough - they show up with pneumonia and stay for a week or two.

You are correct in that for many true EMTALA cases, they skip, and the hospital has to make it up somewhere else - namely medicare/medicaid and private insurance.

Hospitals want cash paying customers more than either Medicare/Medicaid or privately insured. They're like unicorns, though. Most public hospitals have huge groups of people that their sole job is working EMTALA cases and finding any way they can to be paid for services rendered.

The big problem in all of this is that non-citizens will still qualify to be treated under EMTALA, but have no access to the public option, so the hospitals will still be left holding the bag for them. Depending on the geography, that can be a considerable amount of people.

They don't run the Post Office. It does not receive any Government funding.

Exactly, lets break up the states and see how well the Red States do without the tax income generated from the Blue states.

The rest are turgid trash.
The bible contradicts itself so much it's not funny.
The lord of the rings - 3 books about walking (even the trees walked!)
Harry Potter - poorly written, the Literary version of a McDonnalds hamburger
Atlas Shrugged - where to start? It's basically Bulverism, and trumpeted as some philosophical treatise. If you need 60 pages to make a speech in a book, you've lost your point.

It is also a "damned reality" that this boondoggle costs more than $1000 a year.

Surely we could come up with something better than this?

The fact that this is done in the "Interstate Commerce Clause" and yet does not include reforms like buying insurance over state lines tells you how bad it is.

Need an appointment with my GP? How about tomorrow? Need an appointment with my OB/GYN for a post-birth checkup? How about next week? Need to be seen by a doctor in a rammed ER with chest pain for my husband? How about 10 minutes? Need a swine flu vaccine because I have a baby? How about a free shot at the local city clinic, in and out in an hour despite the huge lineup?

Oh, yeah, and all of this is 100% free. I already pay for it through my taxes, which aren't inordinately high.

Granted, I live in a big city, and access to services is better here. But that's the case anywhere.

I guess you don't know why that was thing was a good thing.

See, the south wanted slaves counted for enumerating Representatives but did not give them votes.

So they would have completely packed the House of Reps and Slavery would have lasted even longer.

And, as someone else pointed out, it was removed when slavery was removed. They also pointed out that you did yourself no favors by giving a slanted view of the subject.

It's sad to think that our elected representation will not legislate as the constitution allows. Control over health care was never given to congress. Health care reform should only include those items which are under their authority, such as protecting the public. If they must be involved in health care it should only be to protect those without insurance from being discriminated against. I received lab services for which my insurance company paid in full $110. If uninsured, I would have been billed for $551. Since when is it right to charge uninsured people 5 times what insurance companies pay???

Legislation to require even pricing (with cash up-front discounts allowed), and which requires every patient be given (in advance) a price list of all services from which to choose what they are willing to pay for, would go far to correct the problems in health care. If I enter a hospital, I should choose if I want to pay $15 for a Tylenol, or pay to have strange doctors drop in constantly so they can bill me. In a free-market system, these things would already have come about, but our government already has enough control over the medical system to prevent free-market forces from functioning as they should. How sad.

Ideally, the system would mean that purchasing through the insurance exchange is cheaper than the fine. I don't offhand know my AGI from last year, but I think that the fine would be only marginally larger than what I pay for insurance through my employer.

@mac-phisto: HUSKY is alive and well. Due to crazy finances, and even crazier new insurance (or lack thereof) coverages and premiums, I had to move my fiancee and kids onto it. Much to my surprise, we qualified for the free program.

I dislike using any state or federal funded assistances. But as many of us are learning right now, pride is nothing when you need to keep your family safe and healthy.

@CyGuy: Cao voted for the bill only after the House got all the votes it needed. What he did was publicly voice his opinion while not actually affecting the vote much at all. It was going to pass with or without his vote, and IMO, he did it for the votes in his district, like any savvy politician would.

Rationing and wage freeze = try to attract employees with fringe benefits.

You're not lucky at all. If you lose your job, you could find it impossible to get coverage. Health care, in an age where few people work for the same company for more than a few years, let alone a lifetime, should not be tied to employment.

I have paid for Kaiser HMO myself since my 20s. Now I'm in my 40s, and I'm in -- no need to beg to be elt in.

Madison said: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators." Madison argued that there would be no purpose whatsoever for the enumeration of the particular powers if the general welfare clause was to be broadly interpreted. The Constitution granted authority to the federal government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefit of the general welfare of all the people. This understanding of the Constitution, as described by the Father of the Constitution, has been lost in this century.

Is there a cap on how much a person can pay for their insurance? The Baucus Senate bill allows health care costs to be up to 20% of your income. When I saw that, I immediately suspected the insurance companies would raise my rates to 20% of my income. Currently I pay about 4.5% towards a barely there individual health insurance plan through Blue Cross. I don't know about you, but if I pay 20% of my income to health insurance I will be bankrupted, which wouldn't help any because all my debt is student loans which can't be discharged.

@hopson77:

Good luck with that. Ever since the Supreme Court has allowed the Congress to regulate essentially anything under the interstate commerce clause, they are going to be able to regulate health care. And if you say "but each state has its own insurance plan, its not interstate commerce" that argument will fail, because supreme court cases have held even doing something yourself and not letting it get into the stream of commerce has an effect on interstate commerce and so it can be regulated. The main case on this was a farmer growing stuff for his own consumption and never sold it just used it himself - the court held his activities could be regulated because even though he's not putting his stuff into the stream of commerce, his not putting stuff into the stream of commerce effects the stream of commerce, and so can be regulated. So, good luck arguing the Congress cannot pass and enforce this bill.

1. we're going to pass a health care plan
2. written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it,
3. passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
4. signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes,
5. with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
6. overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
7. financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

@CyGuy:

Lieberman has already said he would filibuster any public option. So, unless they put some extra pressure (we will take away your committees) he is not going to back it. I don't see this getting past a filibuster.

Like many other people, I lost my job around the beginning of this year. Despite my best efforts I haven't been able to find anything else in my field, so by now I'm beginning to run out of money. I've done away with everything but the bare essentials (and yes, smartasses, that includes internet access -- I'm leeching it from a neighbor). Still, pretty soon I won't be able to afford my medication or doctor visits. Food and shelter are more immediate needs, and my money will all be going to secure those two things.

In other words, without either this bill or a turnaround in the economy, I'll be dead in a year or two tops.

It's really more like a 2-star motel with a 1000% increase in the threat of rape.

so, it came down to power of the purse - do you give up all your federal dollars to provide healthcare to anybody that wants it, or do you buckle & eliminate your state-run healthcare for anyone that wants it?

@Ursus Maritimus: Maybe so, but they can attack your property and garnish your wages- making your life a living hell.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but lets say you make $60k a year. You don't carry insurance on yourself and your employer doesn't offer it. That's $1500 a year penalty and most likely, would be just taken out of your tax return if you received one, right? Or you would just owe the government during tax season?

@Laura Northrup: Ha, I love you Laura... if you didn't say it, I was gonna ;)

Most of us are here to fight for individualism and protection against corporate America. A fight that is paralleled in the health insurance debate.

Most of us believe that the government has a role to play in protection of the consumer, and corporations can choose to play nice and reap the rewards of good customer service (Zappos) or pretend that customer service has no connection to sales (Comcast - though in their case, they may be right).

My point is, all this hyperbole about "government takeover" is missing the point.

We shouldn't be asking "when has the government done anything right?"...

We should be asking "Is heath care a right?"

In the year of 2009, I believe that, yes, basic health care should be the RIGHT of citizens of a 21st century culture. No sick person should have to worry about how theyre going to afford to get better.

And the fact of the matter is, most of you who are so opposed to this reform, have never had to fight against insurance companies to pay for necessary services. Most of you have jobs with insurance, and don't feel the pain of the uninsured, or underinsured, who get paranoid at the first sign of a cold, and stress about how to pay for medicine for a simple UTI infection.

There are a lot of things wrong with this bill (yes, I've read it...double spaced, size 18 font, lots of "title" and "definition" lines...its easy to read). For example, the individual mandate is most likely unconstitutional. But this bill also gets a lot of things RIGHT.

For example, there IS tort reform in this bill!! Yes! TORT REFORM! RABBLE RABBLE! Its in the bill already! So are all the tax credits that the GOP pretends they want. And guess what? All of this is going to actually REDUCE the deficit by 100 billion $$ in 10 years (according to the CBO). This is being paid for by taxing the uber-rich (not by taxing businesses - so you won't see increased consumer prices) and by getting rid of the horrible Bush-era Medicare Advantage programs (Medicare = 100$, dental = 10$, Medicare + dental = 400$??? Math don't work)

I know this is a long comment but really folks... step back and take a look at the rest of the world, and at our national history. If this imperfect bill does not pass, health reform will be put on the back burner for another 10-15 years, at which point we will really start seeing the advantage that other countries have over us, by having a healthier populous. Im sure that changes will need to be made in the future, but you need to crawl before you can walk, and the current system ain't goin nowhere. Forget your party affiliation, read the bill as if it were being proposed for another country, and see if you could imagine it working that way.

Peace. (drop drumsticks on ground)

Thing is, the UK's NHS hospitals knows they a) have accountability to their trust, which is accountable to the government. and b) have competition in the form of private healthcare.

A box of wetwipes doesn't cost $12 either (taken from a Tennent Healthcare bill for my son's birth)

HOWEVER, when you do go in for those things, the cost is low. Like $30-40. Not the $200 it'd be if I went in without insurance in America. And if you go in with a problem, your payment is going to be $5 or less.

It's not perfect, in a perfect world yearly exams would be covered, but I'm pretty happy.

You have a star, so I assume you've made some insightful comments in the past. However, this one, from my perspective at least, seems to be blatantly ignorant. Or maybe I'm missing whatever point you're trying to make. ;)

If not, then please try and make sure you have your facts straight before you make such inflammatory comments in the future, so as not to embarrass yourself. ;)

@Trai_Dep: All I want is a policy for catastrophic hospitalizing events and bill racking tests & supplies. That's the only thing insurance should be there for. If the patient wants free office visits and very low deductables they should pay or expect to pay more. I don't want to pay extra for someone who has to make a 150$ visit to the office for the sniffles and be told rest,fluids and take these OTC meds.

I'd love to be my own provider AND NOT have to pay alot in INSURANCE premiums for routine/ordinary/non emergency health care. A truely free market would drive down cost but so much of the medical/health care industry have become hooked to INSURANCE like a junkie on crack that true alternatives are not only hard to come by but hard to accept .

Ahahahaha you're what is wrong with this country, starting with the fact that the GOP plan would've resulted in spending money on covering less people than currently covered.

And also how much low income does it take for you to be low income?

It's not IF we're going to pay, we are. It's HOW we'll pay, and how rationally, humanely and economically we do so.

@Tetrine: In a for profit insurance based system that figure might be correct .

And that's the whole problem . Everybody is looking at this from the stand point of ONE way of paying for health care . Not only is the bill focusing on ONE method of payment because that's what this is a health care method of payment bill it fails to address the COSTS and true alternative solutions to cost .

If anyone CHOOSES to use insurance to pay for their medical needs they have to have to understand in a for profit insurance based system that risk will spread out and if the for profit insurance companies want to throw in the cost of the uninsured into the premiums so be it . You box yourself in with a single method of payment - insurance : extensive insurance at that . One of the many problems with this plan is that it does not provide alternatives for paying OR controlling costs . As long as a third party is paying for it the costs will be out of control .

I want to see ideas explored like paid medical school or subsidized equipment purchases . The medical cost should be driven down to the point where insurance should be for catastrophic hospitalizing events . And not a 150$ trip to the doctor for the sniffles .

What does that mean? chowderheaded states rights?

I'm not following what you meant by that.

Are you saying that we shouldn't be a collection of free and independent states in a union for a common good? That is after all what we are. A collection of states, united for a common defense, etc. However over time, it has been corrupted to an extreme. The US Constitution is a LIMIT on the power the Federal Gov't can do. It wasn't a document to have free reign like the current way of thinking and lump things all into the commerce clause or general welfare clause like the courts have allowed.

The States were to retain their rights to govern themselves basically. Thus the 10th Amendment. As far as I know, it's still in affect.

The whole thing that it's a "living document" is bs. It's a limit on power, pure and simple.

The Holy Bible
The Complete Works of William Shakespeare
Where The Wild Things Are
The Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter
Atlas Shrugged

It would actually save $5bil/year. But like I said, it's simply a band-aid, it doesn't address any actual issues with health care in this country. Besides the CBO report admits that it's not entirely clear if tort reform is the right thing to do.

I'm not saying that there isn't things that could be done to fix things and to help people. But bilking more and more people for a minority isn't the answer. There are things that can be done that don't cost money to the taxpayers.

All I would like to see is that happen first. Sure if that doesn't work, we can try other things.

Sure... put me in the pool. It will be vastly cheaper for me to opt-out of my employer plan. And pay the 'tax' for not having insurance... then going to get a plan when I need it.

There is no intensive to NOT do something like this.

All I was trying to say is TRY to do things that don't cost us all more money that we can't afford. Just b/c you want something for free doesn't make it a good idea. And saying we all in the same risk group doesn't make sense to me, since I won't be paying for a policy anyway, and just paying my little tax to not have a plan until I need it.

Great idea.

reforms so that docs dont' have to pay HUGE premiums for malpractice

@bohemian: I agree 100% , you can place someone especially at a lower wage level to make choices that they didn't have to make before like if paying for something they can't afford . A couple thousand dollars is alot of food , a month or two of rent , gas , car repairs so you can at least get to A job .

Someone has skipped health insurance for a while is usually doing it to manage a budget without putting themsleves in a position to take food stamps , welfare or even borrow money from family or a bank .

And this is where the government really gets in your businesss . And since the government loves paper work there will be records & documentation that someone else will be able to take or subpeona one day .

I've gone through many periods in my life where I couldn't afford health insurance . The very cost they're trying to save with MANDATED insurance will come right back in the way of increased food stamps , welfare , credit problems , bankruptcies etc . If I couldn't maintain a car I'd would be done . Even an 8 dollar an hour job requires or prefers those with a car .

With mandated insurance you are forcing people into a public funded system .

"Bob gets no insurance. So he sits at home, sick. Then one day he gets really sick and has to go the hospital. It costs the hospital 1,000,000 dollars to treat him. Bob can't pay, in fact, he ends up dying before his time since he didn't have his disease controlled. The hospital is out 1,000,000 dollars. But the insurance company wasn't out any money! Phew! Of course, if Bob had been able to buy insurance/covered back before he was sick, maybe his disease wouldn't cost 10,000 dollars a month to treat."

[www.huffingtonpost.com]

@Esquire99: People don't want to pay directly for their health . And that's half the problem . You have entire generation or two that simply pulled out an insurance card or payed a deductable for general non emergency office visits .

I have frequently saved money even if I have to pay for an office visit or two out of pocket . The premiums for the plans for paid or lower cost office visit can exceed the cost of a couple of out of pocket visits .

But as with the health insurance plan user you have an entire industry that has become accustomed to being paid by an insurance plan or third party which can raise the cost and increase their profit at the corporate level especially . Even the third party or suppliers realize that an insurance plan will be paying for their product wether it's an mri machine or drugs .

There are alot of problems involving cost but my whole thing with this bill is that only addresses or assumes that controling the insurance end of the industry is the answer . It's saying insurance is the only way to get health care ,the only way the only solution .

And then passing this 2,000 page bill on a Saturday Night??? wtf

Could someone explain why this is in there? It just seems to stick out like a sore thumb.

I take 8 different medications. The copays alone are $280 per month. THE COPAYS! There is NO cap on that expense.

Since our only child is 22 and out of the home and we don't own a home because his job requires frequent transfers we have little tax write offs. Medical won't qualify either. We ARE the middle class hard working people this bill is meant to help. And we are FAR from alone. In fact, while your circumstances may differ greatly...ours are in fact much closer to the majority of middle america. PLEASE THINK OF THE GREATER GOOD FOR THE MAJORITY! We've busted our asses for the upper classes for decades while they used every tax loophole they could create. It's time they gave something back to those who put them there. And I believe that's most of us here.

Moving on: The price tag is in no conceivable way "on top of our currently enormous deficit": it is more than offset with taxes and cuts/savings. And if you think the bill doesn't reduce the cost of care relative to the status quo you might want to take that up with the CBO, who have put a whole lot more thought into it.

I posted this on the 2nd page, but it's relevant to this discussion, so I'll repost here.

[costofwar.com]

Site run by the National Priorities Project.

Dunno about its accuracy, but it shows the total cost of the Iraq war to date is (as of right now) just under $700 billion since 2001. They're saying the combined cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to date (since 2001) is just under a trillion.

If these numbers are accurate, 8 years of 2 simultaneous wars have cost less than this healthcare bill's final tally. There are things I both agree and disagree with regarding this bill. Just throwing that out there.

@Esquire99: Actually since canadians are taught american history in high school they probably understand the US constitution better tha you do.

Site run by the National Priorities Project.

Dunno about its accuracy, but it shows the total cost of the Iraq war to date is (as of right now) just under 700 billion since 2001. They're saying the combined cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to date (since 2001) is just under a trillion.

If these numbers are accurate, 8 years of 2 simultaneous wars have cost less than this healthcare bill will. There are both things I agree and disagree with regarding this bill. Just throwing that out there.

@jayphat: Are the wait times for long term illness or for emergency rooms because the Americans have horrendous emergency room priorities which are heavily biased twards the rich with the poor getting the short end of the stick. As for the debt is that any better than our country's national debt?

@ChemicallyInert: There is no such thing as a health care system that works economically. Not if it actually covers everyone even just for emergency services.

@trmentry: so you believe wanting to be healthy if you are sick is not something we should get but "entitlement" if we can't pay for all of it ourselves?

Whining about how the bill will force poor, put-upon insurance companies to rake in slightly less money managing larger risk pools is repugnant: Nobody in a developed nation should ever go without needed medical care, period. Single-payer is the best way to get there, but it's politically impossible in this country. This bill is a whole hell of a lot kinder to the insurance companies, and consequently kind of half-asses the job of providing everybody with medical care.

Bottom line, I believe in the free market to exactly the extent that it makes the world a better place. I view adequate medical care as a much more fundamental right than the right to unrestrained profit-seeking.

@fs2k2isfun: You know you can actually still buy car insurance after you total your car. You can't always buy health insurance if you get sick even if its just a cold or an allergic reactions in some cases.

@lawnmowerdeth:

Of course the Post Office is losing money -- we're in the middle of the biggest recession in US History! God, name a company that isn't laying off employees and losing money right now... oh wait, the Insurance Companies!

The VA does a better job that our screwed up private health care where I live.

Our post office has very nice people that run it. They just upgraded everything and changed the city to city route so our mail gets where it is going faster.

Our fire department rocks. I could go on all day about some of the things they have to put up with but always do a great job.

Most interaction with government agencies are far better than dealing with Comcast or Best Buy.

The problems brought to light were at Walter Reed. A large portion of the problem was blamed on 3rd party contractors that were supposed to be maintaining that building and didn't.

Having seen the care and how things are handled at some of the better VA hospitals I would rather go there than some of the for profit private providers. 3 month waits for an appointment and doctors insisting on $900 CT scans because you need a hay fever med in spring? Yea private health care is Soooo good.

You are missing a huge portion of health care spending. Chronic conditions. These costs huge sums of money per year to treat people and the costs are far more than anyone could pay out of pocket themselves. This is why we need everyone in the same big risk pool.

Why do people focus on something saying it will only save X as if to imply it isn't worth it. I'd say $10 B/yr is a start. Who wouldn't like to save $32 for every man, woman and child in the US?

The fact of the matter is people simply don't want to have to pay (directly) for their health care. They expect insurance to pay for everything and it's a travesty if they have to pay anything out of pocket. Instead of paying for routine costs out of pocket and having an insurance plan to cover the unknown, people expect their insurance company to take a small premium in exchange for paying ALL of their bills. W

Tort reform is just a band-aid, at most it'll save under $10Billion/year(I don't remember the exact figure). Big deal.

So, if I have asthma, I can now get insurance that will cover the emergency appendectomy I end up having 10 years from now but still won't be covering my asthma.

Your argument is now moot. Try again.

@MsFeasance:
Can someone tell me how the Constitution provides a womens right to abortion as a "right to privacy" under the 14th amendment, yet myself, my employer, and my insurance company enter into an insurance contract, choosing what does and doesn't get covered, and suddenly that's everyone's god damn business?

@Eldritch: You may want to look at the ginormous wait times in Canada. Or the fact that once, you are born in England, you are saddled with 25K right from the start in public medical debt.

Do you know the history of what the UNITED States means? The People formed the States who were all independent before the Revolutionary War. Then the States formed the UNION. The US Constitution was a limit put on the FEDERAL Gov't. The States for the most part would still be their own entity. But that has been twisted over time to where the FED forces crap on the States.

The way things are heading, what is the point to still having State and Local Gov't? I'm truly afraid of that. Central Gov't is a bad idea.

Suddenly, I become sick with a horrible disease and can no longer afford to pay out of pocket. Insurance companies are now forced to pay for my expensive care since they can't deny me insurance. It's like buying car insurance after you total your car.

I agree that some cases of claims being denied are preposterous, but there has to be a better way of managing insurance exclusions. I understand the scenario above is the impetus for the fines (if one chooses to not buy insurance), but I think there are major ethical and constitutional issues with mandating insurance coverage.

I believe in an America where one has freedom and is not mandated to buy anything. Its a shame the 200 page GOP alternative plan did not get a better look as it had great potential to reduce costs.

@Tightlines: No no, it's $1.2 trillion by 2019. This doesn't start paying out until 2013, but starts collecting immeadiately. It's more like 1.2 trillion over SIX years.

People don't seem to get that. It's not propaganda, it's a damned reality that the insured are paying for the uninsured -- they ARE getting care and WE are paying for it.

@ChemicallyInert: Bst By? Wlmrt?

@GC: YES, THIS. I'm hoping for the chance to move north of the border someday. That or Japan (also has a healthcare system that won't leave people dying like what America has now, not to mention anime and all that other fun stuff).

What possibly could go wrong?

I wonder if one's perception of our Government is based completley off of the operations of the local post office...

I truly hope that the dying protests against health care reform are the death throes of the GOP and conservatism in America.

When they take on a patient with no pre-existing conditions, they are taking on a risk. They manage that risk by collecting premiums. The hope is that collectively they will pay out less than they take in. When they take on patients who they KNOW will cost a ton of money, that's not taking on risk, but taking on a known cost that will not come close to breaking even.

The Congress shall have Power To [...] provide for the [...] general Welfare of the United States

"We are from the government and here to help you"

Bastards had a special session on a Saturday just to pass this bag o' crap. Where is the real leadership in this country? I say kick the bums out!

@Eldritch: Because it's not about making life better for Americans. It's all about setting up loopholes to allow someone to line their pockets.

Maybe the post office, and that's even losing tons of money. I can't think of anything else.

2100 pages. It's going to suck.

Health care needs reform, there's no doubt. But I do not believe that this bill is the reform that is needed.

I can't see the gov't jailing those who refuse to buy health insurance, wouldn't make the best of headlines.

The military get some of the best care 'round, medicare has the highest approval rates of any insurance, the public option is WAY more effecient (medicare vs medicare advantage, medicare is 13x more effecient). I REALLY disagree with there being a mandatory insurance requirement WITHOUT there being an accompanying public option.

@morlo: You're right, they have to wait until a problem gets bad enough to warrant a trip to the emergency room at Cook County General, which costs, at a minimum, thousands more than routine checkups.

Am I just missing something? Why do we have to make everything three billion times more complicated than it has to be?

It's a clusterfuck, and the paranoia and general ignorance of a large number of people isn't helping. Objections and constructive criticism welcome, insanity- not so much.

Introduce a reasonable public option - then why do we need insurance at all? base it on the NHS idea (but fix what is broken there), and then there is nothing to fine people for.

The military is run well from a discipline and getting things done perspective, but has so many holes through which money leaks it's almost funny.

With all the other pointless garbage in this bill, it would have been nice to see the flex account rules relaxed; mainly what you said... getting rid of the "use it or lose it" clause.

Bob has a disease that costs $10,000 per month to treat
Bob goes to XYZ Insurance company to get coverage
XYZ would normally say, "Well, since you can't pay a $10,001 per month premium, there is absolutely no way this will be profitable. In fact, it will cost us a ton of money to insurance this person. Thus, we will deny them coverage.
But now, Congress has said they have to provide coverage. Thus, XYZ is forced to enter into a contract that they know will provide them absolutely no benefit and will actually cost them a ton of money.

So you agree we need to shut down the military?

Or you have a problem with the not-tax-supported post office and its ability to deliver your emo poems from your door to your grandma's door in Kansas in three days? (To borrow from Jon Stewart)

(Not that I'm one of those loons who thinks that the income tax is unconstitutional. Or even one of those people who thinks every dollar of tax money is eeeeebil.)

o reforms so that docs dont' have to pay HUGE premiums for malpractice

o allow insurance companies to sell over state lines, open up interstate trade, something congress is supposed to do.

o make insurance what it's for. catastrophic events. do you really ask what it costs if someone else is paying? Why not? You ask what other things cost, why not this? Forcing Docs/Hospitals to compete would bring costs down. Think Lasik, you can call any Lasik Doc and they will QUOTE you the cost of the procedure. Call you PCP and ask what it costs to get blood drawn for a test... they have no clue. this brings us to:

o everyone gets a flex savings type account to 'save' pre-tax money for doc visits, etc. but this one isn't use or loose, it rolls over year to year so it's a true savings account type thing.

I love the idea of 'no pre-existing conditions'. However the 'tax' to pay if I don't' carry insurance is CHEAPER than for the insurance itself. And if I get cancer or some such, I can't be denied when I go in to get insurance to have someone else pay for it.

The program sucks. The federal program will suck.

Further, it really bothers me that the Federal govt. is forcing companies to cover all of their employees. That seems to be something that they should be doing, not the Feds. Of course the only reason Congress gets away with this is the fact that the Supreme Court has basically blown the doors off the Commerce Clause and will allow the Feds to do whatever they please.

Jerry: FAA, covered, CDC unconstitutional. Our representative government is limited, it may not violate the constitution.

@hopson77:

But neither are a lot of things (roads, the FAA, the CDC, etc.). Does that mean we should wipe out anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution? There may be some people who feel that way, but we have decided, through our represenantive forme of government, that this would be a bad idea.

Out of college I had an office job that required me to get a health insurance license, and I'm still confused by many of the options available to me (though I'm lucky enough to have generous insurance options available to me through my employer).

I'm not going to take a political stand on this thread, I just wish people who "don't want this coming out of my paycheck" realized how much they're already paying for people with no or insufficient insurance.

"Insurance mandate: Uninsured Americans will pay a penalty; low-income people exempt."

The above doesn't affect me, but F off government. Get out of our business.

This would of course require getting 60 votes for cloture for the Senate to vote on the House bill, but any Dem that can't vote for a bill that a Republican has already voted for should be booted out of the caucus.