Health care: Going from broken to broke

[maxx]

And on a lighter note:
http://www.slate.com/id/2249125/

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Just check out how much the median wage in the U.S. has risen since 1975. And yet we keep getting more millionaires and even billionaires"

Just look at how light it is outside and most people believe it will be dark tonight. Manufacturers are the predominant wage payers, they aren't getting rich. You're trying to drag those in the financial sector into your argument.

[rb336]

Just check out how much the median wage in the U.S. has risen since 1975. And yet we keep getting more millionaires and even billionaires.

not much at all compared to inflation and none compared to the increase in productivity of US workers

[Papasito]

lol - good stuff

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36152956...h-health_care/

Fla. doc's sign warns off Obama supporters

Democrats should ‘seek urological care elsewhere,’ says notice on door

[maxx]

I don't hear anyone hollering socialism when the government provides free or nominally-priced vaccines for the flu, childhood diseases, etc.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I don't hear anyone hollering socialism when the government provides free or nominally-priced vaccines for the flu, childhood diseases, etc."

That's because they are not being forced to take them from a private entity, at the private entities' price. The people yelling "Socialism" actually mean "Fascism".

[maxx]

This xtian conservative Glenn Clarke who is passing around his petition to stop health reform in Michigan looks like a snake oil salesman. He can tell the sheeple they have no right to health care, and then should health reform get stymied in Michigan, the sheeple can scratch their heads wondering where the hospitals went to in their areas. Everyone wants something for nothing, especially those who live in fantasy on a daily basis.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: " he looks like a snake oil salesman."

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important would you say one's appearance is in judging their stance on an issue?

[maxx]

Quote: "I don't hear anyone hollering socialism when the government provides free or nominally-priced vaccines for the flu, childhood diseases, etc."

That's because they are not being forced to take them from a private entity, at the private entities' price. The people yelling "Socialism" actually mean "Fascism".

They should be raising their objections with their own representatives then and not the President who was originally for a single payer system.

And I was talking about Clarke's way of operating and what he was saying. He is just an opportunist.

[oladub]

They should be raising their objections with their own representatives then and not the President who was originally for a single payer system.

This President, and previous presidents, should be judged for their actions more than their rhetoric. Reagan and the Bushes claimed to be a fiscal conservatives for small government. Obama was for single payer and ending the Iraq war immediately. Once in office, they all made major corporations more profitable.

[maxx]

This President, and previous presidents, should be judged for their actions more than their rhetoric. Reagan and the Bushes claimed to be a fiscal conservatives for small government. Obama was for single payer and ending the Iraq war immediately. Once in office, they all made major corporations more profitable.

Obama didn't write the new health care bill. Congress did. Republicans did just enough to make the bill palatable to the insurance industry and then didn't vote for it, trying to have it both ways.
If you just consider how the average classroom looks in terms of A students v. C students, then add in the loss of federal funding to schools while they had to find funds for the No Child Left Behind mandate plus the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs here, and you can see why a lot of people don't know the details of issues and end up not voting for candidates who will represent their interests. And now with a rightwing Supreme Court that has turned the elections into financial wars of attrition, it's a wonder any sort of legislation helping the average citizen will come out of Congress.

[oladub]

Obama didn't write the new health care bill. Congress did. Republicans did just enough to make the bill palatable to the insurance industry and then didn't vote for it, trying to have it both ways.
If you just consider how the average classroom looks in terms of A students v. C students, then add in the loss of federal funding to schools while they had to find funds for the No Child Left Behind mandate plus the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs here, and you can see why a lot of people don't know the details of issues and end up not voting for candidates who will represent their interests. And now with a rightwing Supreme Court that has turned the elections into financial wars of attrition, it's a wonder any sort of legislation helping the average citizen will come out of Congress.

Give me a break. No Republicans voted for Mugabecare but now you want to blame the corporate profits built into the plan on Republicans. Those who voted for this disaster are responsible, not those who voted against it. If Congress wrote it, how come Congress had only 72 hours, if that, to read it before the democrats signed it? It was, in fact, written in back rooms full of lobbyists and Obama's economic clown posse. No one, for instance, ever remembers reading about the military trained contingent of 6,000 doctors, or whomever, directly under the control of the President until after it was passed.

The federal government has no powers delegated to it to conduct a No Child Left Behind program, participate in programs like OPIC which encourage the loss of US jobs, or set up a national health care program, and it certainly has no business abridging speech or the press.

Alan Greenspan, over the weekend, went on record as saying that he suspected that OMB estimates of the cost of the new health care program significantly underestimated its cost. If so, he said, these underestimated costs were going to result in a national 'disaster'. That is just one person's opinion of course.

[Sstashmoo]

I agree with Greenspan. Anecdotal, but since the passing of this, people seem to be on guard and not spending very freely. This is becoming a 0ne-two punch.. The last thing our economy needed was a big controversial announcement from our Government causing more insecurity from consumers. Huge mistake.

Incidentally, Seems a lot of folks are not caring for his leadership. He's already around 44% approval and dropping fast, lost 6% last month alone. This guy is a big phony and figurehead for the special interests.

[Zacha341]

Yep, "underestimated" is the most troubling hard-to-dismiss factor withstanding partisan loyalties, or those not engaged in the politics therein... And president Obama owns this bill in as much as he approved/ approves and celebrates the plans passage, thus promoting it yet still. He can't have it both ways.

The underestimation factor is common pattern of expansive federal programs and bureaucracies. And Medicare is already insolvent. If this bows wrong we will be in trouble. From what I've read there seems to be very little cushion. And the margin by which we can continue to borrow is narrowing.

If we get into mass fiscal crisis it would be interesting to see what "emergency" edicts and policies would be applied to "joe or jane" citizen relative to their specific health care options.

Give me a break. No Republicans voted for Mugabecare but now you want to blame the corporate profits built into the plan on Republicans. Those who voted for this disaster are responsible, not those who voted against it. If Congress wrote it, how come Congress had only 72 hours, if that, to read it before the democrats signed it? It was, in fact, written in back rooms full of lobbyists and Obama's economic clown posse. No one, for instance, ever remembers reading about the military trained contingent of 6,000 doctors, or whomever, directly under the control of the President until after it was passed.

The federal government has no powers delegated to it to conduct a No Child Left Behind program, participate in programs like OPIC which encourage the loss of US jobs, or set up a national health care program, and it certainly has no business abridging speech or the press.

Alan Greenspan, over the weekend, went on record as saying that he suspected that OMB estimates of the cost of the new health care program significantly underestimated its cost. If so, he said, these underestimated costs were going to result in a national 'disaster'. That is just one person's opinion of course.

[maxx]

oladub: If Congress wrote it, how come Congress had only 72 hours, if that, to read it before the democrats signed it?

maxx: They've been talking about this bill for a year.

oladub: The federal government has no powers delegated to it to conduct a No Child Left Behind program, participate in programs like OPIC which encourage the loss of US jobs, or set up a national health care program, and it certainly has no business abridging speech or the press.

maxx: Congress has the power to fund programs like NCLB, but they didn't. The question of whether campaign contributions can be called speech is a matter of judicial opinion, and past opinions have limited everyone's freedom of speech. As for jobs, he government has passed measures in the past to protect U.S. industries., but of course, when W's war got us deeply in hock to the Chinese, we did lose bargaining power on a lot of issues. At least with the healthcare bill, the average citizen will get something out of it instead of death and destruction.

http://www.truthout.org/jeff-cohen-w...ege-loans58048
"...
Attached to the health care reconciliation bill is an unrelated college loan measure that goes in the opposite direction of health care reform. The loan measure sidelines private profiteers – the banks – and saves taxpayers money by making the government something of a "single-payer" which will soon be directly issuing most college loans in our country.
Direct lending by the government will cut out the middleman and save taxpayers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $61 BILLION OVER 10 YEARS – with $40 billion in savings being redirected to higher education in the form of more Pell grants, more aid to minority-serving colleges and more aid to lower-income graduates for paying off their student debt..."

[oladub]

maxx: They've been talking about this bill for a year.

maxx, The bill that was finally voted on was available for no more than 72 hours and no one read the whole thing. There were up to three versions at one time being discussed during the last year. Obama's promise of transparancy was again violated. I mentioned just one issue, the military trained 6,000 person cadre, which at least I never heard about until after passage. I assume that was one of the things snuck in. As Rep. Pelosi warned us, we wouldn't know what was in the bill until after passage.

maxx: Congress has the power to fund programs like NCLB, but they didn't. The question of whether campaign contributions can be called speech is a matter of judicial opinion, and past opinions have limited everyone's freedom of speech.

I include the 10th Amendment as a guide to determine whether the federal or state governments have various delegated powers while Democrats and most Republicans don't so we probably aren't going to agree on that. Of course, corporations don't have free speech. They are inanimate. However, People who work for corporations have as much right to lobby for their interests as do representatives of unions, religious, and other private organizations. Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Who would be next once you open that door? Clergy? Groups whose positions you oppose? If the campaign contributions are used for ads, that is speech and/or the press.

As for jobs, he government has passed measures in the past to protect U.S. industries., but of course, when W's war got us deeply in hock to the Chinese, we did lose bargaining power on a lot of issues. At least with the healthcare bill, the average citizen will get something out of it instead of death and destruction.

Direct lending by the government will cut out the middleman and save taxpayers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $61 BILLION OVER 10 YEARS – with $40 billion in savings being redirected to higher education in the form of more Pell grants, more aid to minority-serving colleges and more aid to lower-income graduates for paying off their student debt..."

Again, where in the Constitution is the power delegated to Congress to monopolize a portion of the loan industry? I can't even find the part mentioning funding education let being a banker for college students. Those are the options of individual states. In just what you wrote, more Pell grants, aid to minorities, and aid to low-income graduates were included on the cost side of the ledger. That this will save money, is more than I can imagine. More likely, the federal monopoly on educational loans will wind up looking more like Fannie & Freddie. We will see but unrelated metastacizing government power grabs don't belong in an unconstitutional health care bill.

[ghettopalmetto]

Again, where in the Constitution is the power delegated to Congress to monopolize a portion of the loan industry? I can't even find the part mentioning funding education let being a banker for college students.

Where in the Constitution is Congress required to hand taxpayer dollars to private sector banks for doing a job that the government can perform at a lower cost?

You know damn well that if funding for higher education were left to the states, it would be nothing but a race to the bottom. Oh sure, the kids lucky enough to grow up in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland would be fine. Not so much the poor bastards from Alabama and Mississippi.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[oladub]

Where in the Constitution is Congress required to hand taxpayer dollars to private sector banks for doing a job that the government can perform at a lower cost?

Nowhere. States can probably do that but not the federal government without amending the Constitution. Your problem is that doing so is presently not a delegated power unless you can cite such wording.

You know damn well that if funding for higher education were left to the states, it would be nothing but a race to the bottom. Oh sure, the kids lucky enough to grow up in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland would be fine. Not so much the poor bastards from Alabama and Mississippi.

Totally disagree. Minnesota and Iowas, for instance, attract new businesses because they do provide good local public and private education. Every state has the right to determine how to spend its money. If you need an example of racing to the bottom, it would be California which used to provide about the best level of public education but its citizens have since endorsed so much other government spending that it's schools are in rapid decline. Oh, and California votes Democrat. North Carolina and Virginia, on the other hand, have improving educational programs.

It doesn't matter because there is no delegated power given to the federal government to broadly involve itself in education. Your last quaote is irrelevent here because there is no jurisdiction if specific powers are not delegated to the federal government and no one can be deprived of something that is illegal.

[ghettopalmetto]

Nowhere. States can probably do that but not the federal government without amending the Constitution. Your problem is that doing so is presently not a delegated power unless you can cite such wording.

So what happens when you have a student from one state who decides to attend university in a different state?

And does something have to be explicitly delegated in order for Congress to take action on it? Show me where the power to cut private bank subsidization out of student loan servicing is explicitly prohibited. If you want to go that route, then NASA, the FAA, and federal gasoline taxes should all be prohibited by the Constitution as well.

Totally disagree. Minnesota and Iowas, for instance, attract new businesses because they do provide good local public and private education.

Cite source, please.

Every state has the right to determine how to spend its money. If you need an example of racing to the bottom, it would be California which used to provide about the best level of public education but its citizens have since endorsed so much other government spending that it's schools are in rapid decline.

Full disclosure: Californians also limited their own ability to raise funds to pay for the programs they adopted through initiative. This is why the type of popular sovereignty you like to advocate is a piss-poor idea.

Oh, and California votes Democrat. North Carolina and Virginia, on the other hand, have improving educational programs.

North Carolina and Virginia also voted for Barack Obama. What's your point?

It doesn't matter because there is no delegated power given to the federal government to broadly involve itself in education. Your last quaote is irrelevent here because there is no jurisdiction if specific powers are not delegated to the federal government and no one can be deprived of something that is illegal.

Huh????

[ghettopalmetto]

Here you go, Oladub.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. [[clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

It seems that many of the things you claim are "unconstitutional" don't fall within any of the limitations enumerated in Article I, Section 9.

[oladub]

It seems that many of the things you claim are "unconstitutional" don't fall within any of the limitations enumerated in Article I, Section 9.

Actually, you are trying to show me where the Constitution delegates the power to have a monopoly or anything to do with student loans or other broad measures of education and I can't find those things in Article 1, Section 9. The 10th Amendment simply says that the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to states and the people. Article 1, Section 8 lists a number of delegated powers given to Congress but I don't see local education among them either. Keep looking. The states have a huge role to play in education, health care, and other elective programs. If state voters make bad decisions, as in California, they get to pay for their own mistakes. If they make better decisions as in some of the upper midwest states, they will enjoy benefits. Things that work should be copied.

So what happens when you have a student from one state who decides to attend university in a different state?

And does ? Show me where the power to cut private bank subsidization out of student loan servicing is explicitly prohibited. If you want to go that route, then [[1)NASA, the [[2) FAA, and [[3) federal gasoline taxes should all be prohibited by the Constitution as well.

They pay out of state tuition unless the states have reciprical agreements. The government isn't explicitly prohibited from giving student loans but, more importantly, it is not delegated to give them in the first place. Something has to be explicitly delegated in order for Congress to take action on it without amending the Constitution. [[1)NASA, which the President recently almost destroyed, might be covered by the clause allowing Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Those are existing delegated powers. [[2)The existence of the FAA would have support from the commerce clause, the provision for building [[postal) roads and erecting necessary buildings, the provision to regulate felonies [[on the high seas), the responsibility of enforcing those edicts, and the exclusive authority allowed to establish treaties and some other relations with foreign countries. . Even if the FAA didn't exist, states could cooperate in setting up a non-federal entity that would do the same job at least amongst the states. For instance, states pretty much agree to accept each other's drivers licenses, license plates, marriage licenses, and vehicles. Highways continue acress state borders. I don't have any objection to the FAA. It seems like the federal government has the responsibility for at least regulating all international air traffic as it always has for international shipping. [[3) Federal gasoline taxes would be legal if an import tax was assigned to imported oil. Congress also has some responsibility for post roads and the provision thereof, the ability to raise revenue, and create export or import taxes. I think those three issues are a lot easier to justify than the DOA, national health care, or a monopoly on student loans although all of the three things you mentioned could be handled differently than they are and with less federal involvement. Education, health care, and student loans are examples of things that could be almost exclusively handled within state. That is a bigger difference than, for instance, regulating international air travel.

[Stosh]

Actually, you are trying to show me where the Constitution delegates the power to have a monopoly or anything to do with student loans or other broad measures of education and I can't find those things in Article 1, Section 9. The 10th Amendment simply says that the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to states and the people. Article 1, Section 8 lists a number of delegated powers given to Congress but I don't see local education among them either. Keep looking. The states have a huge role to play in education, health care, and other elective programs. If state voters make bad decisions, as in California, they get to pay for their own mistakes. If they make better decisions as in some of the upper midwest states, they will enjoy benefits. Things that work should be copied.



They pay out of state tuition unless the states have reciprical agreements. The government isn't explicitly prohibited from giving student loans but, more importantly, it is not delegated to give them in the first place. Something has to be explicitly delegated in order for Congress to take action on it without amending the Constitution. [[1)NASA, which the President recently almost destroyed, might be covered by the clause allowing Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". Those are existing delegated powers. [[2)The existence of the FAA would have support from the commerce clause, the provision for building [[postal) roads and erecting necessary buildings, the provision to regulate felonies [[on the high seas), the responsibility of enforcing those edicts, and the exclusive authority allowed to establish treaties and some other relations with foreign countries. . Even if the FAA didn't exist, states could cooperate in setting up a non-federal entity that would do the same job at least amongst the states. For instance, states pretty much agree to accept each other's drivers licenses, license plates, marriage licenses, and vehicles. Highways continue acress state borders. I don't have any objection to the FAA. It seems like the federal government has the responsibility for at least regulating all international air traffic as it always has for international shipping. [[3) Federal gasoline taxes would be legal if an import tax was assigned to imported oil. Congress also has some responsibility for post roads and the provision thereof, the ability to raise revenue, and create export or import taxes. I think those three issues are a lot easier to justify than the DOA, national health care, or a monopoly on student loans although all of the three things you mentioned could be handled differently than they are and with less federal involvement. Education, health care, and student loans are examples of things that could be almost exclusively handled within state. That is a big difference than, for instance, regulating international air travel.

Please crosspost this to the solid block of wrongheaded text, please.

Thanks in advance.

[ghettopalmetto]

Something has to be explicitly delegated in order for Congress to take action on it without amending the Constitution.

Please cite:

1. Clause in Constitution where this is stated and/or
2. Supreme Court decision that rendered this opinion.

It's funny how you post this unsubstantiated bullshit line of reasoning, and then explain how the federal government has the power to regulate airplane traffic and motor fuel taxes. WHA??? My copy of the Constitution doesn't say jack shit about airplanes or motor fuel taxes. Therefore, the FAA is "unconstitutional" by your reasoning, right?

[oladub]

Please cite:

1. Clause in Constitution where this is stated and/or
2. Supreme Court decision that rendered this opinion.

It's funny how you post this unsubstantiated bullshit line of reasoning, and then explain how the federal government has the power to regulate airplane traffic and motor fuel taxes. WHA??? My copy of the Constitution doesn't say jack shit about airplanes or motor fuel taxes. Therefore, the FAA is "unconstitutional" by your reasoning, right?

I answer all the questions you throw at me as best as I can but you come back empty handed in your search for any mention in the Constitution of any delegated power to substantially control education, health care, or student loans in the Constitution. Had you read or comprehended anything I wrote, you may have noticed references to the 10th Amendment which I will now cut and paste for you.

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

It is pretty straight forward. For instance, the powers to coin money, appoint ambassadors, authorize jury trials, or collect income tax are delegated by the Constiution. It was more than I could take in the first time I realized what it was saying too because it is so contrary to everything I had assumed and been told about the relationship of the federal and state governments and the limits of federal government power. Many years ago, it was hard to adjust to the fact there was no Santa Claus either even though people I trusted told me otherwise. Same thing. It's not necessarily a bad thing if you are a Democrat. You can either amend the Constitution to do big government things like Wilson did or do them at the state level. Why not have an affordable statewide single payer plan like Ontario's instead of the inferior universal corporate enrichment plan offered by Obama?

As to your second paragraph, I already answered all your questions. Please re-read. Only the federal government Constitutionally has the power to negotiate all sorts of agreements with foreign countries so the FAA or some other federal construct would have to deal with those countries just as historically the federal govenment was charged with doing with shipping. We don't have to ignore the Constitution because clippers replaced smaller vessels or airships replaced flying clippers. States are not even allowed to conduct certain deals with foreign governments. One huge difference between the the FAA and education, health care, and student loans, which you don't seem to understand, is that the latter can be orchestrated without any involvement of the federal government with or without the 10th Amendment.

My wife told me that she read a story about when some early European sailing ships were sighted off the East Coast. A party of Indians viewing them in the distance were sure that they were only clouds. Only the Shaman with them had a loose enough mind to realize they were some sort of ships. That's what happens when people read the 10th Amendment for the first time. They say, "it can't mean that. Surely there must be some judicial treatises to explain it means something other than what it says."; and there are. So when some 'bullshit' little kid says the emperor has no clothes, do seek the assurance of like minded people that indeed the Emperor's powers are everything they are said to be.

[ghettopalmetto]

I would say that regulation of the financial sector, e.g. subsidizing the student loan industry, most definitely falls within the purview of the federal government.

And why not have a universal single-payer health insurance system, you ask? I would prefer that route myself, or at the very least, a public option for health insurance, but as we've seen over the course of the past year, something like that is politically untenable at this time.