Maybe Obama will veto it? 
USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Perun said:
Not so fast ... this thing has merely moved into the second phase. Expect court challenges, and republican governors of the states to refuse to enforce the law. (The second is already being threatened by some governors, I forget which ones, but I think Montana's governor is one.)
This reform, if it works, will change a huge part of the US economy. Obama has to win reelection in 2012 for it to work. A republican president in 2012 will just dismantle it, since many parts of the bill don't take effect until 2014. The Redumbicans still have a few more years to screw this up.
But, like I posted on digg yesterday when the vote was over: for the first time since Bushco invaded Iraq, I'm finally proud of my country again. Despite their best efforts, Congress finally did something right. (Or at least half of them did.)
So you can still act smug. Go ahead. Hell, if you Europeans ever gave up your superiority complex, the rest of us wouldn't recognize you anymore.
I believe the states have the option to vote to 'opt out' of this federal insurance. I honestly don't know a lot about it yet.
State law can contradict federal law, but (by law) federal law wins any conflict. This does not affect any actions by governors until those actions are challenged in court. Just like a POTUS, governors can issue executive orders affecting how laws are enforced, and these orders are not laws (though they can be declared illegal by the courts).
I did see a news story about some state legislatures creating laws which would nullify health care reform (or parts of it) in their state. These laws would be stuck down by a court challenge, but would be in effect until then.
I did see a news story about some state legislatures creating laws which would nullify health care reform (or parts of it) in their state. These laws would be stuck down by a court challenge, but would be in effect until then.
I'm doing a little research, and I'm not sure if I'm so enthused about this. If I don't have health insurance, the Feds will impose a penalty on me. So, my taxes go up, and I either have to buy insurance or face a fine for not buying. 
I don't see how this is saving the country.
I don't see how this is saving the country.
Your taxes are going to go up anyway. That's just because the government is fucking broke. Buying health insurance is a good thing. By adding more people to the pool - healthy people who don't see the need to buy health insurance - the overall costs go down. It's similar to the Swiss system.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Wasted CLV said:
Or (possibly) face huge costs for health care when you're not insured. Or even worse: refusal.
edit:
Perun said:
Funny, Utah is indeed one of the at least 11 states which will fight the reform in court.
(Others: Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia).
Refusal is an issue even with health care. US insurance companies are notorious for denying coverage for costly care. It kills thousands every year. That's one of the big reasons for the reform. It remains to be seen how the new laws will affect this issue.
It's supposed to reduce the reasons for refusal by increasing or removing caps and, of course, killing the "pre-existing condition" charm that so many have been denied coverage under. But we won't know for years and years what the true effect of this bill is. I tend to agree with the papers, though...Obama is now a landmark president.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
It indeed remains to be seen but I hope the reform will make things easier for people without a job (or with low income) when they need an operation or some kind of treatment.
Today I saw a rerun of a 2008 TV-broadcast in which they showed a woman who had to pay around 37,000 USD for a heart operation after an attack. It's going to take the rest of her life to pay that bill. Her heart attack meant her bankruptcy. She had to leave their house and live in the cellar of her parents.
Two years later (today) she was contacted again and she was very happy. Not for herself but for her kids. The reform came too late for her (she still needs to pay the full amount), but not for her kids. She hopes her kids can go to the doctor, the dentist etc, without worrying about it.
Today I saw a rerun of a 2008 TV-broadcast in which they showed a woman who had to pay around 37,000 USD for a heart operation after an attack. It's going to take the rest of her life to pay that bill. Her heart attack meant her bankruptcy. She had to leave their house and live in the cellar of her parents.
Two years later (today) she was contacted again and she was very happy. Not for herself but for her kids. The reform came too late for her (she still needs to pay the full amount), but not for her kids. She hopes her kids can go to the doctor, the dentist etc, without worrying about it.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
The fine bothers me, sounds too much like car insurance, except I can opt out of that by not having a car, but now I'm getting fined for being alive? That's just stupid.
As for state vs federal laws we have the wonderful example of Medical Marijuana. Posession of THC is a FEDERAL crime, but in California (and a few other states) Marijuana for medical purposes is legal, but if you are caught by a federal agent, you're still fucked.
As for state vs federal laws we have the wonderful example of Medical Marijuana. Posession of THC is a FEDERAL crime, but in California (and a few other states) Marijuana for medical purposes is legal, but if you are caught by a federal agent, you're still fucked.
Interesting if that becomes a precident, because just in the last 4 or so months, the Feds have stated, publicly, that they are not going to pursue people with the right to have medicinal marijuana.
And, yes, like Onhell said, that is my problem with the whole gig: if I don't want to buy health insurance, I shouldn't be fined for it. what the hell? If my taxes were going up, and I had 'free' health insurance, ok. But the taxes are going up, and I'm forced to pay for insurance, so that is a double whammy. For those of us that live in the middle, between having enough to get by, and making too little and getting 'free' coverage, that can amount to a lot of money each year-- I'd guess $3000-5000 more a year for me. And I'll go back to my previous statement: I'll pay 3-5K so some 30 year old working at McDonalds for minimum wage, living in his mom's basement, gets 'free' insurance.
I'm not saying reform doesn't need to take place, but it needs to take place in the 'medical infrastructure'. Instead of putting a band aid on it, fix the actual problem. There are standards and menus to fix your car, your house, you name it. Clean up the crap out there-- those jokes about $50 aspirin... too serious to be a real joke. Fix things like that first. I'm not an anarchist, or a rightwinger or what ever. I voted for Obama. I know he wants to help. I just don't think this is it.
Ok, the thing is that is my right. I have (or should) have the right to choose if I have insurance or not. If I don't, just like playing poker, its a gamble. I don't think that 'free' insurance is a right. But I think the choice to have insurance should be.
And, yes, like Onhell said, that is my problem with the whole gig: if I don't want to buy health insurance, I shouldn't be fined for it. what the hell? If my taxes were going up, and I had 'free' health insurance, ok. But the taxes are going up, and I'm forced to pay for insurance, so that is a double whammy. For those of us that live in the middle, between having enough to get by, and making too little and getting 'free' coverage, that can amount to a lot of money each year-- I'd guess $3000-5000 more a year for me. And I'll go back to my previous statement: I'll pay 3-5K so some 30 year old working at McDonalds for minimum wage, living in his mom's basement, gets 'free' insurance.
I'm not saying reform doesn't need to take place, but it needs to take place in the 'medical infrastructure'. Instead of putting a band aid on it, fix the actual problem. There are standards and menus to fix your car, your house, you name it. Clean up the crap out there-- those jokes about $50 aspirin... too serious to be a real joke. Fix things like that first. I'm not an anarchist, or a rightwinger or what ever. I voted for Obama. I know he wants to help. I just don't think this is it.
Forostar said:
Ok, the thing is that is my right. I have (or should) have the right to choose if I have insurance or not. If I don't, just like playing poker, its a gamble. I don't think that 'free' insurance is a right. But I think the choice to have insurance should be.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Wasted CLV said:I'm doing a little research, and I'm not sure if I'm so enthused about this. If I don't have health insurance, the Feds will impose a penalty on me. So, my taxes go up, and I either have to buy insurance or face a fine for not buying.
LooseCannon said:
Assuming supply remains constant (or goes down), why would increasing demand -- which is what "adding more people to the pool" by government fiat would presumably constitute -- LOWER health care prices? I have not studied the law carefully. I'm guessing most of the Representatives who voted on the bill, for and against, haven't done so, either, though hopefully more carefully than me. But the only way this will make health care more affordable is if there is a cap on insurance premiums. Otherwise, if I'm an insurance company, why wouldn't I raise my rates? And yet we have this...
Hmm. No (or higher) caps + increasing demand + flat (or decreasing) supply = higher prices. I didn't get a PhD in economics, but I know enough to know that.LooseCannon said:
I think that part of what cornfedhick said has been overlooked by many: increasing demand. I'm sorry, but at least here, in the US, people feel that if they are paying for something they are 'gonna get what they pay for.' Health insurance has just become a Chinese all-you-can-eat buffet. If its a sniffle, a headache, or a splinter, someone will be at the doctor, because they are paying for the 'right' to their 'free' insurance.
Well, there's 2 reasons. 1, of course, is that preventative care (regular doctor visits) are much cheaper over time than emergency medical care. And the second is that if Wasted, a mostly healthy 30-something person with a couple mostly-healthy kids pays into a plan, he's probably not using it as much as the 60+ person who is a life-long smoker, who may not have been able to get health care earlier.
So, you force people into the plan who won't use it as much as the people who want it, and the people you force in will hopefully be healthier over time.
So, you force people into the plan who won't use it as much as the people who want it, and the people you force in will hopefully be healthier over time.
cornfedhick said:
There is, in a way. One of the first regulations to take effect (either 3 or 6 months out, can't recall which) is: insurance companies will be legally required to spend 80% of incoming premiums on health care. There will come a point, in theory at least, when they cannot raise your premium without also providing better care.
The thing that will make insurance affordable is the public pool, but that doesn't happen until 2014.