US Healthcare Bill.

[Kiwi 1691]

Also of concern are the some 12 to 16 million who choose not to avail themselves of health care plans. Of primary concern though is that enough Senators have a good enough understanding of the U.S. Constitution to make the right decision, no matter what that may be.

It does seem odd that so many choose to not have health insurance in the US. I can understand not having it if you havn't got the money, or if the insurance company won't insure you. Shortsightedness, by those who can get insurance but choose not to, I presume costs the entire population.

[Don]

It does seem odd that so many choose to not have health insurance in the US. I can understand not having it if you havn't got the money, or if the insurance company won't insure you. Shortsightedness, by those who can get insurance but choose not to, I presume costs the entire population.

Look at health insurance, any insurance for that matter, as a gamble. The insurance company is betting you won't need it, thus they 'win the bet' and make a profit. The insured is betting he will need it and when he does, he 'wins the bet'. It's not too hard to understand that a young person, especially one in good health, could figure that they won't need it and decide not to participate in, what they see as, a losing proposition.

[pauli007001]

Well lets hope that enough senators realise that 30 million Americans unable to get health insurance is a BIG issue.

40 million people in America are uninsured, roughly half of them are Illegal immigrants, the others are uninsured by choice, knowing that the state will pick up the cost, or they will be sent bills that they will never have to pay.
I guess nights in the Bar or at home swigging copious quantities of cheap crappy beer is more important to them than being responsible adults.

Being uninsured in the USA, Like Poverty, is a choice.

[Tantal]

Oooh look at me exhausting my knowledge of constitutional law!

Don't sweat it. Your Constitutional knowledge is no worse than that of our President and Congress.

I'll give you a brief history lesson though. Prior to the Constitutional Convention, there were numerous trade disputes between the various states (one state charging tariffs and such on goods from other states). So, when the Constitution was being debated, the states decided to let the U.S. Congress be a fair arbiter in settling trade disputes between the various states. Thus, the "regulation of interstate commerce" language. Well, eventually the power-hungry (from BOTH parties) decided to use this to their advantage. Almost every piece of legislation that the Federal government passes now is done under the guise of "regulating interstate commerce." The Fed needs to tread very carefully here because the states are getting tired of it. Not only is the Federal government confiscating everyone's money and spending it the way Washington sees fit, but now they're telling the individual states how to spend what's left. They probably won't go anywhere, but almost every state has a secession movement. They're small and considered to be on the fringe now, but just wait until you have to have the government's permission for every gallon of gasoline, every bite of food, every visit to the doctor........AND they're taxing people at 60%. You can hardly call yourselves a "free" people anymore at that point. You can only push people so far, so hard, and for so long before things get ugly.

Also, think of the precedent this would set if the Supreme Court upholds that the government can order someone to purchase a good or service. The casual observer would say "well, it's OK. It's just health care.......and everybody needs to have health insurance." What happens the next time the government thinks you "need" something? Or, worse yet, the government simply wants something and wants you to go purchase it for them. They'll just be able to order you to go buy it. So, the next time G.M. or Chrysler is losing money due to inept management, the government won't even have to do a 'bailout'. They could simply send me a letter stating "Dear Mr. Tantal, according to registration records, the vehicle that you currently own is now 15 years old and there is no lien on it. Further, your most recent tax return showed that you had a net income of $XXXXX.XX in 2009, meaning that you have the financial means to purchase a new vehicle. In order to secure the financial solvency of our American automobile manufacturers and to protect the jobs of American union employees, you are hereby ordered to report to the nearest General Motors or Dodge/Chrysler dealership and purchase a new vehicle at MSRP from dealer stock within 90 days. Failure to do so will result in a penalty of $30,000. Failure to pay such penalty may result in the garnishment of you wages, seizure of property and/or incarceration."

Is this really the sort of power you think a government should have? If this law is upheld, there will literally be no limit to what Congress may do with the citizens' money. Trust me, this is not what our Founders had in mind when they set up our Representative Constitutional Republic. This is the kind of corruption you might expect to see in one of the various dictatorships that calls themselves "democratic".......which is exactly where we are headed.

[Don]

40 million people in America are uninsured, roughly half of them are Illegal immigrants, the others are uninsured by choice, knowing that the state will pick up the cost, or they will be sent bills that they will never have to pay.

According to the 2007 census data, the actual estimate of uninsured in the U.S. is 45,657,000 of that number non citizens are estimated to be 9,737,000, so your "numbers" are off by more than 25 percent, according to the census bureau.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm?...235_table6.pdf

Being uninsured in the USA, Like Poverty, is a choice.

Which we both know is a gross generalization on your part. sometimes it's a choice, usually age related (34 and under, generally those who refuse the gamble) and sometimes it isn't.

[pauli007001]

According to the 2007 census data, the actual estimate of uninsured in the U.S. is 45,657,000 of that number non citizens are estimated to be 9,737,000, so your "numbers" are off by more than 25 percent, according to the census bureau.

About.com: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/p60no235_table6.pdf


Which we both know is a gross generalization on your part. sometimes it's a choice, usually age related (34 and under, generally those who refuse the gamble) and sometimes it isn't.

There was a census in 2007? Theyre doing them every 3 years now?The census is completely accurate?
Stimates by the federal government have numbered Illegals at up to 20 million in the USA but the exact figure is not known.

The 40 million figure was approxomatly, somone else said 30 million, you didnt get all high and mighty over their figures, I wonder why!!

The uninsured are uninsured because they choose not to purchase Insurance(knowing that the govnt will pick up the tab).
The poor are poor because they choose to be, they wouldnt be poor if they found better paying jobs, problem being that better paying jobs require harder work or greater responsibility, the poor being lazy and irrisponsible choose not to take these jobs.

[Opinionated]

Don't sweat it. Your Constitutional knowledge is no worse than that of our President and Congress.

I'll give you a brief history lesson though. Prior to the Constitutional Convention, there were numerous trade disputes between the various states (one state charging tariffs and such on goods from other states). So, when the Constitution was being debated, the states decided to let the U.S. Congress be a fair arbiter in settling trade disputes between the various states. Thus, the "regulation of interstate commerce" language. Well, eventually the power-hungry (from BOTH parties) decided to use this to their advantage. Almost every piece of legislation that the Federal government passes now is done under the guise of "regulating interstate commerce." The Fed needs to tread very carefully here because the states are getting tired of it. Not only is the Federal government confiscating everyone's money and spending it the way Washington sees fit, but now they're telling the individual states how to spend what's left. They probably won't go anywhere, but almost every state has a secession movement. They're small and considered to be on the fringe now, but just wait until you have to have the government's permission for every gallon of gasoline, every bite of food, every visit to the doctor........AND they're taxing people at 60%. You can hardly call yourselves a "free" people anymore at that point. You can only push people so far, so hard, and for so long before things get ugly.

Also, think of the precedent this would set if the Supreme Court upholds that the government can order someone to purchase a good or service. The casual observer would say "well, it's OK. It's just health care.......and everybody needs to have health insurance." What happens the next time the government thinks you "need" something? Or, worse yet, the government simply wants something and wants you to go purchase it for them. They'll just be able to order you to go buy it. So, the next time G.M. or Chrysler is losing money due to inept management, the government won't even have to do a 'bailout'. They could simply send me a letter stating "Dear Mr. Tantal, according to registration records, the vehicle that you currently own is now 15 years old and there is no lien on it. Further, your most recent tax return showed that you had a net income of $XXXXX.XX in 2009, meaning that you have the financial means to purchase a new vehicle. In order to secure the financial solvency of our American automobile manufacturers and to protect the jobs of American union employees, you are hereby ordered to report to the nearest General Motors or Dodge/Chrysler dealership and purchase a new vehicle at MSRP from dealer stock within 90 days. Failure to do so will result in a penalty of $30,000. Failure to pay such penalty may result in the garnishment of you wages, seizure of property and/or incarceration."

Is this really the sort of power you think a government should have? If this law is upheld, there will literally be no limit to what Congress may do with the citizens' money. Trust me, this is not what our Founders had in mind when they set up our Representative Constitutional Republic. This is the kind of corruption you might expect to see in one of the various dictatorships that calls themselves "democratic".......which is exactly where we are headed.

I hate it when you make sense! Thanks, hadn't looked at it from that angle. I still think socialised medicine is the way to go and that most opposition to this bill is on the laughable and ideological grounds that it is the road to socialism, but I can see that in it's current form at least it would appear unsuitable for yourselves.

[Opinionated]

A general housekeeping notice, have merged threads "US Senate Healthcare Bill Suffers Set Back" and "Healthcare ReformStill Has To Go Back To The Senate - it ain't a done deal yet".

Ops.

[Don]

There was a census in 2007? Theyre doing them every 3 years now?The census is completely accurate?
Stimates by the federal government have numbered Illegals at up to 20 million in the USA but the exact figure is not known.

Don't be so obtuse. I never said they did a census in 2007. It's an estimate by the census bureau and you well know that's what I said. I think I'll take their estimate over yours, or anyone else. Also note that the estimate was done by the census bureau during the Bush administration, not the Obama presidency, as if that would make a difference.

The 40 million figure was approxomatly, somone else said 30 million, you didnt get all high and mighty over their figures, I wonder why!!

What I said was:

According to the 2007 census data, the actual estimate of uninsured in the U.S. is 45,657,000 of that number non citizens are estimated to be 9,737,000, so your "numbers" are off by more than 25 percent, according to the census bureau.

Note: I have put the words 'estimate' and 'estimated' in bold for those who have reading comprehension problems.

You want some cheese with that whine? I fail to see how anyone could call that 'high and mighty'. I simply said your numbers are off by more than 25%. That's a huge error. If I had said; "pauli your are a dumb *** who doesn't have enough sense to count above the number of fingers and toes you possess" that may have been stretched, by the very paranoid, to be 'all high and mighty', abusive even, but I didn't. I pointed out the error and indicated my source. I think I was very civil.

You are without a doubt, in my experience, one of the most easily offended individuals around. You're right pauli, I've got it in for you specifically. I'm one of those who are a 'hater' and 'abusive' and you're not the paranoid, overly defensive individual you come across as.

Stop being thick. I quoted the official government figures because I just looked them up, not to take the piss out of you.

The uninsured are uninsured because they choose not to purchase Insurance(knowing that the govnt will pick up the tab).
The poor are poor because they choose to be, they wouldnt be poor if they found better paying jobs, problem being that better paying jobs require harder work or greater responsibility, the poor being lazy and irrisponsible choose not to take these jobs.

All 40, some odd, million don't want insurance so that's why they don't have it? Every poor person is poor just because they choose to be? That's as stupid as these 'self esteem' idiots that insist on telling every child they can be anything they want to be if they just try hard enough. Your arrogance is mind boggling. Sounds to me like you're being the 'hater' here, to use a word you're fond of.

Ps: Just so you know, when a person without insurance, goes to the ER for treatment, and can't or refuses to pay, it's the hospital that's on the hook, not the 'government'. Hospitals can, and do, go so far as to turn the bill over for collection, garnishee wages, etc. in an attempt to recoup at least part of the costs. Admittedly, they do incur big losses from non payers but they do have the power to try to recoup. Hope that wasn't too 'all high and mighty' for you, as it wasn't intended to be.