Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

A Century-Old Principle: Keep Corporate Money Out of Elections
Published: August 10, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/op...20cohen&st=cse

It is inconceivable that Congress would now try to lift the ban. Americans are far too angry at Wall Street and the obvious failure of government regulations. But the Supreme Court has decided to force the question: It took a case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the ban on corporate contributions was not a central issue; told the parties to prepare legal briefs on the ban’s constitutionality; and rushed to put oral arguments on the calendar in September before the new term even starts.

The court’s conservative majority has been aggressively championing the rights of corporations, but overturning the contributions ban would take it to a new level. Corporations have enormous treasuries, and there are a lot of things they want from government, many of which clash with the public interest.

If the ban is struck down, corporations may soon be writing large checks to the same elected officials whom they are asking to give them bailouts or to remove health-and-safety regulations from their factories or to insert customized loopholes into the tax code.

If the conservative justices strike down the ban, they would be doing many things they disavow. They would be substituting their own views for the will of the people, expressed through Congress. They would be reading rights into the Constitution that are not expressly there, since the Constitution never mentions corporations or their right to speak. And they would be overturning the court’s own precedents.

The only hope is that the court is listening to Americans. As it weighs the constitutional issues, it should be mindful that this is another historical moment in which the public is committed to strengthening the wall between government and big business, not tearing it down.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I don't know of this article's credibility, but if it is credible, then it shows how nothing has changed with politics, not that I have expected it to do so.

My thrust is not anti-Obama, but rather that the politicians as a whole are doing nothing that is directed toward what could be a better life and future for this country. People should not be rendered destitute or even made poor with regard to seeking and receiving heatlhcare.

http://www.gregpalast.com/obama-on-d...ney/#more-2664

And what did Obama give up in return for $80 billion? Chief drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin crowed that Obama agreed to dump his campaign pledge to bargain down prices for Medicare purchases. Furthermore, Obama’s promise that we could buy cheap drugs from Canada simply went pffft!

What did that cost us? The New England Journal of Medicine notes that 13 European nations successfully regulate the price of drugs, reducing the average cost of name-brand prescription medicines by 35% to 55%. Obama gave that up for his 2%.

The Veterans Administration is able to push down the price it pays for patent medicine by 40% through bargaining power. George Bush stopped Medicare from bargaining for similar discounts, an insane ban that Obama said he’d overturn. But, once within Tauzin’s hypnotic gaze, Obama agreed to lock in Bush’s crazy and costly no-bargaining ban for the next decade.

[rjwjr]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Does anyone know who wrote whatever is the current 1000-page law that is being considered?

Just a guess. ;) (Yes, that's Hillary hard at work on health care in between trips to China and elsewhere.)

[0tr]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

...

We need Canadian-style socialized medicine in America, and the time for it is now! Yes, there will be higher taxes, but over all, the cost of living with socialized medicine will be much lower in America...... Think about it. Think, think, think!

Having worked in both the US and Canada, I much prefer the Canadian system. The insurance payment calculations were clear and done with the tax filing. No paying twice, once for myself, and once for medicare tax. This is a big problem here. When presenting at an ER or GP, the system was very simple. No bs about presenting the ssn (in Canada, sin) number.

I'm not convinced about higher taxes if it were truly Canadian style. One reason the US system is so expensive is the rot at the top (Scrushi types). Since this is US we're talking about, it could be muy expensivo.

One nice thing about Canada, Great Britain, and some other parliamentary systems, is that the elected representatives can actually crush lobbyist type activity, at least some times. In the US, the parasites run the system.

The only reason we don't have Canadian style is vested interests pulling out $Billions, and they lobby hard.

I know it can be done better, I've seen it.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

• The bottom line is that your current health plan may not be as good as you think it is, and there is a good chance that it will not be around when you need it.

• Health-care reform comes in several different flavors these days, but the basic minimum is that it allows all people to buy health insurance regardless of medical history, and it provides subsidies to help poor and middle-income families buy health insurance. That means that if you get sick and lose your job, you will still be able to get health care. That is something that everyone should be in favor of -- because everyone can get sick and lose his or her job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081100048.html


Decent discussion about the shortfalls of the current health insurance system by Simon Johnson and James Kwak that I think is worth reading and thinking about.

[jmdpet]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Does anyone know who wrote whatever is the current 1000-page law that is being considered? I've heard or read that most laws are written by lobbyist groups, but I don't know that is factual.

I'm not sure how contributions are defined here, but EJ just posted this web site:

http://maplight.org/map/us/bill/8471...committees/430

Note that there are several HR 3200 bills. I don't know enough about the legislative process to say why that is.

[GeraldRiggs]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

TERM LIMITS!

Term limits would be a good start along with banning of lobbists on capital hill.

Just a thought...........has anyone thought about this? I'm a little paranoid of how hard our government is pushing this healthcare bill. However, what would it do...............overtime it would cause people to select the low cost solution which is............Obamacare.................Which means we would be paying less...but paying it to the government.........The government needs all the cash it can get to fund it's budget and it only gets worse in the future. Remember when Argentina went tits up? They confiscated peoples retirement accounts because they needed the money. This could be a way for our government to get our dollars under the pretense of a big hot button......healthcare reform.
JMHO

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

And by "political suicide" do you mean unpopular with the majority of mainstream Americans? If so, this current debate may also be an exercise in political suicide.

Here's a simple idea, let's demand a health care system that must be adopted by all Federal elected officials to replace their current utopian coverage. Maybe then they'd take their time and possibly even read a few pages of the legislation before voting on it.

Here's another idea, why don't these idiots establish an independent, non-partisan commission to actually study the issues, the perceived problems, possible improvements, and possible solutions. Similar to the 9/11 Commission for example. They can publish their findings and we can all read and debate their ideas rather than rushing some plan into law.

Yes, health care is a touchy subject on both sides of the fence. Either way they end up pissing off a large voting segment. Politicians tend to avoid anything even slightly inclined to produce controversy. After all, its not like they are really worried about the people's health here. This is about power and hanging on to it.

I think a commission to study health care is exactly what should have been done. Instead its left up to lobbyists and special interest groups, both only trying to push their own agendas. Problem is, these days almost everyone in a position of authority is very politicized. They owe their status and position to their connection with one of the two leading parties. So to find truly independent minded people to staff such a commission might be tough. People exist who could do it impartially. But would they want to become involved when it means stuff like we just had happen down here in Atlanta. A swastika was painted on a congressman's office sign.:eek:

There really has been very little real debate on this subject until now. I think some of the violent reaction has been simply in response to Obama trying to ram this through without much thought as to what the people want. I'd like to see a poll asking those against reform whether they are against ANY reform or just THIS plan.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

And by "political suicide" do you mean unpopular with the majority of mainstream Americans? If so, this current debate may also be an exercise in political suicide.

Here's a simple idea, let's demand a health care system that must be adopted by all Federal elected officials to replace their current utopian coverage. Maybe then they'd take their time and possibly even read a few pages of the legislation before voting on it.

Here's another idea, why don't these idiots establish an independent, non-partisan commission to actually study the issues, the perceived problems, possible improvements, and possible solutions. Similar to the 9/11 Commission for example. They can publish their findings and we can all read and debate their ideas rather than rushing some plan into law.

I don't know for certain, i.e. I have no references, but probably such already exists with some "think-tanks" or some group such as Kaiser-Permamente.

Does anyone know who wrote whatever is the current 1000-page law that is being considered? I've heard or read that most laws are written by lobbyist groups, but I don't know that is factual.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

And by "political suicide" do you mean unpopular with the majority of mainstream Americans? If so, this current debate may also be an exercise in political suicide.

Here's a simple idea, let's demand a health care system that must be adopted by all Federal elected officials to replace their current utopian coverage. Maybe then they'd take their time and possibly even read a few pages of the legislation before voting on it.

Here's another idea, why don't these idiots establish an independent, non-partisan commission to actually study the issues, the perceived problems, possible improvements, and possible solutions. Similar to the 9/11 Commission for example. They can publish their findings and we can all read and debate their ideas rather than rushing some plan into law.

That is a valid point I believe. Actually laws that exclude application to congresspeople but apply to everyone else should all be rescinded.

It would be fair if all elected officals in Washington only got the same healthcare coverage as the average citizen of DC if such could be determined, or maybe the same care as the 45M do now that do not have insurance. Most of the elected officials, as least Senators, are millionaires so let them pay whatever the market allows for people who do not have any insurance. I almost guarantee you it would evoke some changes in how healthcare is made available to everyone in the US. If you have health insurance keep up with what are the fees that you get charged and be glad for whatever coverage you have. If you don't have insurance and are not truly wealthy, then read the charges and weep and start considering bankruptcy if you are seriously ill.

[rjwjr]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I mainly wanted to point out that "$118,000 per person" was not just for medical care. It included pay. At least that is the way I read it.

I'm sure the military model isn't the answer either. It's a shame we didn't start this process years ago. Now we are going to rush into something that really should have been well thought out. Of course even discussing health care reform in the past was political suicide. So I have to give Obama credit for bringing it to the forefront, warts and all.

And by "political suicide" do you mean unpopular with the majority of mainstream Americans? If so, this current debate may also be an exercise in political suicide.

Here's a simple idea, let's demand a health care system that must be adopted by all Federal elected officials to replace their current utopian coverage. Maybe then they'd take their time and possibly even read a few pages of the legislation before voting on it.

Here's another idea, why don't these idiots establish an independent, non-partisan commission to actually study the issues, the perceived problems, possible improvements, and possible solutions. Similar to the 9/11 Commission for example. They can publish their findings and we can all read and debate their ideas rather than rushing some plan into law.

[MarkL]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

It's a shame we didn't start this process years ago. Now we are going to rush into something that really should have been well thought out. Of course even discussing health care reform in the past was political suicide. So I have to give Obama credit for bringing it to the forefront, warts and all.

It's been through years of thought by many, ever since the Clinton Administration made and failed at their run.

Oh... I'm sorry, you did say "well" thought out.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Notice how the article and the poster conveniently forget to include the rest of the paragraph that is covered by the words "EXCEPT as provided in this paragraph..."

The poster, in other words me, didn't out of convenience or otherwise forget anything. I'm always searching for the truth. I've no loyalties to party. Keep the posts coming, but skip the editorial next time.

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Yeah more "talking points" .

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Although you may be surprised by my previous post, I'm a fan of health care reform and agree with virtually everything you say above. However, the military doesn't seem to be the model...

I mainly wanted to point out that "$118,000 per person" was not just for medical care. It included pay. At least that is the way I read it.

I'm sure the military model isn't the answer either. It's a shame we didn't start this process years ago. Now we are going to rush into something that really should have been well thought out. Of course even discussing health care reform in the past was political suicide. So I have to give Obama credit for bringing it to the forefront, warts and all.