Health Care Act 2010 - Going Forward.

[Steven]

Bobbie

And I think that's the crux of the problem right there.

I see it as a right because I think it's for the public good, and here's why:  It makes sick people see a doctor (because they can afford one) before they can infect the rest of us.

I don't care for the  "right" vs "privilege" dichotomy. "Privilege" makes my skin crawl. But I think you may be on to something.  Could you spin this out a bit further?

I have a horrible time defining a "Right to Health Care".  IF its not in the Constitution, how would it read?

But, to be kind here's my thoughts for today:
I can easily argue we are endowed by our Creator with certain in alienable rights including Life.  I can not imagine Life without some level of medical care.  I take that as a sacred responsibility. Together, with other citizens, we can form a government to make our lives more secure by taking care of our bodies and aiding those who need medical help.  I take that as a Christian calling.

Thus, I have no basis to compel my government to provide medical care in the Constitution. But, by virtue of my Creator, I have the obligation to help others gain and maintain physical and mental health throughout their life.

Blessings!

[rusty]

Why would one take the "make it go further" group out of the numbers?  Doesn't their opposition to the Health Care Act of 2010 count? Is their opposition somehow less important than those who oppose it for other reasons?

Their opposition is different. They want more, not repeal. They (I count myself as one of them and I was polled), are interested in adding on to the bill instead of taking it away.

Is that I-want-more opposition "less important?" It felt that way to me as an important part of the case I've been making since 1990 was seemingly within our grasp and then was negotiated away. Was I unhappy with the final bill? Yes, but only because it could have been so much more -- not because I thought what we had was better than what we got. So, to use my unhappiness as part of an argument to repeal the bill is to misunderstand my views and the views of many other's.

[Denise Goodman]

Rusty -- that's exactly my position.

[Jeff Fairchild]

Why would one take the "make it go further" group out of the numbers?  Doesn't their opposition to the Health Care Act of 2010 count? Is their opposition somehow less important than those who oppose it for other reasons?

Their opposition is different.

Sure, but they still oppose the Health Care Act 2010, which is the point Richard was making.

They want more,

More what?  The question in the poll didn't say anything about more. Those you characterized as the "make it go futher" group actually responded that they opposed it because they thought it wasn't liberal enough.  I wonder what each person who stated their opposition on that grounds thought was meant by "not liberal enough".  I doubt that it was "more" of the law they just said they opposed.

not repeal.

I don't find any support in the poll you linked for this assertion.

They (I count myself as one of them and I was polled), are interested in adding on to the bill instead of taking it away.

I don't find any support in the poll you linked for this assertion.   

Is that I-want-more opposition "less important?" It felt that way to me as an important part of the case I've been making since 1990 was seemingly within our grasp and then was negotiated away.

Given the process that Obama and Pelosi and Reed employed, I bet the "I-want-more" crowd weren't the only ones who felt "less important", but it wasn't Obama or Pelosi or Reed who suggested here that their opposition to the Health Care Act 2010 shouldn't be included as opposition to the Health Care Act 2010.

Was I unhappy with the final bill? Yes, but only because it could have been so much more

More what?  More mandates? More waivers? More back room deals?  More blatent vote buying?  I suspect that's not the "more" you are talking about.  I suspect that, like almost everyone else I know, you were hoping that it would do more to provide quality health care to everyone while also gaining control over the rising costs of health care.

So, to use my unhappiness as part of an argument to repeal the bill is to misunderstand my views and the views of many other's.

Who here was doing this? Certainly not Richard in the post you quoted from. 

[Denise Goodman]

For me, more would be, among other things, a single payer plan or at least a public option.

[debrev2002]

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppose?show=0&t=1296942596

op·posedop·pos·ing
Definition of OPPOSE
transitive verb
1
: to place over against something so as to provide resistance, counterbalance, or contrast
2
: to place opposite or against something
3
: to offer resistance to

Jeff, as one who would have liked the Act to have  gone further, and still see us as having a ways to go, I can clearly say that I did not OPPOSE the Health Care Act of 2010.  I had hoped for something more;  I contributed to groups that campaigned for something more.  But I did not oppose it and was relieved to see it go through; given a choice between getting what went through or nothing at all, I firmly and fully supported it. My conversations with those who wished it had gone further doesn't indicate that they wish it hadn't passed, or want to see it gone.  They wish to see it go further.  To go further is to want to enrich and expand it not oppose it, at least for me.

Deb

[Jeff Fairchild]

Deb,

Sounds like you would have been among those 43% who said they favored the Health Care Act 2010 in the poll rusty cited, rather than among the 54% who opposed it in the poll.

Jeff, as one who would have liked the Act to have  gone further, and still see us as having a ways to go, I can clearly say that I did not OPPOSE the Health Care Act of 2010.  I had hoped for something more; I contributed to groups that campaigned for something more.  But I did not oppose it and was relieved to see it go through; given a choice between getting what went through or nothing at all, I firmly and fully supported it. My conversations with those who wished it had gone further doesn't indicate that they wish it hadn't passed, or want to see it gone.  They wish to see it go further.  To go further is to want to enrich and expand it not oppose it, at least for me.

How should it have gone further?  More what?  Enriched and expanded how?

[Richard]

Jeff wrote

More what? More mandates? More waivers? More back room deals? More blatent vote buying? I suspect that's not the "more" you are talking about. I suspect that, like almost everyone else I know, you were hoping that it would do more to provide quality health care to everyone while also gaining control over the rising costs of health care.

Deb wrote

I had hoped for something more; I contributed to groups that campaigned for something more. But I did not oppose it and was relieved to see it go through; given a choice between getting what went through or nothing at all, I firmly and fully supported it.

I wanted more too- as did everyone I know who opposed and still opposes the current plan.
Most of all, we wanted more choices, and more open and honest consideration of how we might expand coverage to those currently left out---not a choice between "this plan or nothing."

We wanted more--more discussion, more transparency, more views allowed to be heard, more consideration of alternate approaches, more concern for constitutional issues, more concern for cost issues, more concern for how and who pays,...

[Steven]

Larry:
  Raising the questions of Constitutionality of the individual mandate on a Church forum seems quite appropriate from at least 4 perspectives:
  1. Keeping the Gov from exceeding its authority is in the interests of all citizens, Christians are not excluded.
  2.  The UCC has a long history of being concerned with justice in several forms having being a public advocate for just laws and holding the gov. accountable for  its actions.  The UCC, at the nat;l level promoted the Equal Rights Amendment for women wayyyy back when, just to name one constitutional concern meriting General Synod action.
  3. This Forum is about public and social policy. What could be more appropriate than laws which are being challenged on the basis of constitutionality. The decisions will frame social policy laws far beyond the Health Care Reform Act.
   4. This thread is about the current status of Health Care Reform as it moves forward, sideways and up/down.  When there is a Court ruling on part of that, where better for church folk to congregate and express their views?
   So, the next news will be whether the various cases will get processed through the Federal Appeals Court or go straight to SCOTUS.  Place your bets early & often! 
   Seriously, I hope all are praying for the judges & justices hearing the various cases such that God will grant them clear discernment and the ability to articulate their reasoning in ways most of us can grasp.

Richard:
  I agree pretty much.  I'm not sure about wanting "more" or "less".  I am sure the choices were never "all" or "nothing".

So, have alternatives to the Health Care Act of 2010 been proposed & considered? Yes, by the hundreds, apparently.

So, I did a small, brief amount of sleuthing. In both the 109th & 110th Congress, (2005-06 & 2007-8) over 1,000 different bills were submitted to either/and or both houses of Congress for consideration under the subject of "health"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BillText&c=110

It's search engine is a bit clunky to get used to but "Thomas" has "everything" relating to Federal legislation.

A few were passed, mostly innocuous. The vast majority with any real "meat & potatoes" were blocked.

If memory serves, in 2006 or 07, Senator Kennedy blocked cloture on a package similar to the GOP reforms I referenced earlier. 

Thus, attempts to brand the GOP as "The Party of NO" would seem to rest on a rather sandy foundation when the legislative record is examined. 

One area the Health Act doesn't seem to address would be patient's rights when Government run health systems fail. 

Googling "Lawsuits Medicaid" yields over 1M results.  "Lawsuits-Medicare" yields over 2M hits.
Here are 2 stories Denise may have seen:
http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/01/18/health/maine-plaintiff-joins-lawsuit-against-medicare-agency/
http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=AGOffice_Press&id=51607&v=article

One must suffer $75,000 in monetary damages to sue in Federal Court, $25,000 in our County courts in OH.   The rich & greedy can file endless frivolous lawsuits forcing Dr's to practice defensive medicine to the point of paranoia. The poor have practically no access to civil justice when the gov screws up.

Solutions? 1. Introduce "English Rule" for torts, otherwise known as "loser pays". This gives law firms a serious incentive to evaluate the risks of losing and turn down low-probability, long-shot cases with the least merit.  Before passage, examine the track record of suits in English courts on similar issues with American counterparts.  Fine-tune policy to avoid the flaws in the British system.

2. Establish a separate Health Care Ombudsman Office similar to the IRS' "Problem Resolution Office" to which taxpayers can turn when the system has failed.  I've used it a number of times for tax clients with remarkable results.   It helps when an office's staff is seasoned and well-trained AND given the authority to over-ride the bureaucracy when warranted.

Its still bizarre when citizens have to sue the government to get medical care because the regulators need additional regulation.

2 final questions for which I can't imagine any simple or painless legal remedies:
1. Who pays for the medical care of illegal immigrants who's countries of origin have universal health care systems?

2. How do we increase the participation rates in Medicaid & SChips?  The current law expands eligibility but I'm unaware of provisions to make those programs more attractive and reduce fraud.   

Denise:
  Here's an idea, certainly not perfect, regarding pre-existing conditions:
1. Group plans already accept everybody, pretty much, regardless. Allowing more regional and nationwide organizations to form group plans would solve this to some extent. 
 2. How big is the problem? I have no idea. that could affect strategies to minimize problems.
  3.  Allow insurance companies to write policies that exclude the pre-existing conditions as well as policies that are targeted for pre-existing conditions.  Review & revise underwriting standards. Then, have a phase out period for the exclusion.  Or an extra charge.  Run the numbers, Review, revise, adapt. 
Insurance companies have to be able to avoid losses but if the Gov. picks up the tab, the deficit explodes.  That remains the toughest nut in the pot, IMO.  Could we focus on choosing healthier lifestyles? No laws needed for that but it would reduce health care costs significantly with no need for regulation. 

Now, time for zany or worse. 
OK, maybe a small, modest tax on "fat" content of food, with an automatic 10% annual increase mechanism until the annual tax collected drops below a 3 yr avg.  Use the tax $$ to pay for obesity related health care & nutrition education.  Do the same with the tobacco & alcohol taxes and other things that are choices and adversely affect health over time.   

Or, if you love/trust Gov. control, issue a plastic "Family Calorie Ration" card to everyone who buys food.  Each month you'd get an allotment of calories for the size & ages of your family. Every time you buy food, you swipe the card. When you've run out of calories, you can't buy any more food that month.  That would be right out of Rev. 13, shades of "666".   I can imagine a weird black market in high calorie foods developing. Hostess, Hershey's & Little Debbies would scream, IMO. 

 Well, on to other tasks like deciding who to root for in the Super Bowl. So, many choices, so little time.

Blessings!
 

[goodstoryteller]

The so called debate about Health Care in 2010 at least at the political and Congressional level never had an iota to do with health care--The republican leadership and opposition used it and still is an attack on Obama and wanting to regain control. Over and over they announced publicly there strategy "stop Obama" and regain control.   They don't give a (fill in the blank) about whether anyone but themselves get health care and their only concern is to have control of the government even if they have to drive the economy in the ditch again.  They still claim that there has been no recovery with the stimulus.  There malicious attacks on the system with unprecedented blockage of congressional activity is all apart of the stream.

The majority of provisions in what passed as health care reform were Republican ideas from the past. 

They created lies and spun and spun them until they had the appearance of fact i.e. death panels. Used it to deep fill their pockets with Insurance Company $. 

Much of it was colored by racism as well---Boehner, McConnell etc. 

I am flabergasted that so many Americans swallowed the the GOP Kool-Aid.

[goodstoryteller]

...Given that we are talking about a health care law,and particularly one that was not and is not supported by the majority of the people of the US...

That often quoted "fact" ignores the detail that many in that "unhappy" majority wish the current bill went further -- like single payer or a public option. If you take the "make it go further" group out of the numbers, those opposed to the Affordable Healthcare Act are a 37% minority.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027264.php

Why would one take the "make it go further" group out of the numbers?  Doesn't their opposition to the Health Care Act of 2010 count? Is their opposition somehow less important than those who oppose it for other reasons?

[Steven]

Karl:
  Anyone whose vocabulary includes "flabbergasted" is a friend for life in my book. 

Sorry to let you in on the secret, but the DC culture is pretty corrupting on all sides.  Please check through the GOP sponsored health care bills from the 109 & 110th Congresses Dems blocked for purely political reasons. 

The whole play was scripted cynically with both sides playing their assigned parts all too willingly. 

The last time in DC there were Kool-Aid stands run by Dems, GOP's and lots of others as well. My taste-tester claims they all were spiked. 

Rest assured the Dems are plotting to retake the House. The attack ads on my new GOP Congressman have already began after less than a month in office, not even 2 paychecks, less than 10 days after his local office got the phones & internet turned on.  He is among just 3 new Congressmen to be so honored with such ads.

If you dislike someone, they are distorting & selling Kool-aid. If we like them, they are "merely" positioning and framing the issues carefully."  Nah, we've all drunk too much of the wrong stuff.


Larry:
  thanks!

I'll plead guilty of not having read the Dred Scott case in some time.  Since I wasn't there, I prefer not to speculate. Hindsight is always 20/20.

The 2nd test case is dicier by far and could make a good separate thread for those of us who enjoy splitting hairs endlessly & with some humor without diminishing the issue's importance.

Or would you be saying, like me, that the constitutionality of the matter is not of primary concern and there are more important matters to consider?

Yes, the Libertarian corner of my brain is shooting off fireworks. My Social Justice nerves & Religious Right genes have joined in a coalition with my Charismaniac lobes to try to get the Libertarian side settled down.   

This too, could be worth exploring elsewhere.
However, our Congressmen take this oath of office:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,......

As a nation of laws, the Constitution remains the framework of our government.
(Personally, I answer to God above all other "powers". )

 If I find our Constitution lacking, I see at least four options for citizens:
1. Crusade to amend.
2. Rebel and subvert, committing treason.
3. Leave for another land.
4. Accept & live within an imperfect world.

If I'm a Congressman or the President, I voluntarily give up my right to ignore the Constitution but must actively defend it or resign.

The question of a law's constitutionality seems foundational and thus primary. Laws which are unconstitutional become null and void upon court review, regardless of motivation or goal. 

But, if you wish to appeal to a higher authority, fine!  The Constitution is not mine, by any stretch except in discerning what laws may be passed in this country.
However, you're assuming the burden of defining the boundaries of Congressional authority as Congress is a creation of the Constitution and derives its authority from the consent of the governed under that document.

My more immediate point would be when the various court cases move forward, I look forward to hearing how others respond to the rulings regardless of outcome. 

  This law was the best we could get given that the Dems are corporate shills and would not oppose the wishes of big insurance.

Jeepers, creepers, lay off the name-calling.
My just retired Congressman, a Dem, has convinced me he is a man of deep conscience and personal integrity. I admire his character & integrity even if I disagreed with his politics. Calling him a "shill" seems demeaning and completely unnecessary.  Some how "Big Insurance" doesn't sound like a compliment either, except those corps are staffed by real people with spouses, kids, grand-kids and the like. De-humanizing anyone seems out of place for folks of faith. 

Go ahead own and admit your negative feelings about specific actions or policies or people but do not put them in boxes or succumb to convenient negative stereotypes. Leave that to Beck & Al Sharpton & Co.   
I have my own axes to grind about corporate culture and its inherently corrosive effects on insiders and their families, but that's another thread.  it makes me pretty mad, but they are no more evil than I am. 

(full disclosure, part of my family's income is derived from health & life insurance premiums from really big insurance companies. Not much, mind you, but some. )

Blessings!

 


Blessings!

[Bobbi Cote-Whitacre]

The so called debate about Health Care in 2010 at least at the political and Congressional level never had an iota to do with health care--The republican leadership and opposition used it and still is an attack on Obama and wanting to regain control. Over and over they announced publicly there strategy "stop Obama" and regain control.   They don't give a (fill in the blank) about whether anyone but themselves get health care and their only concern is to have control of the government even if they have to drive the economy in the ditch again.  They still claim that there has been no recovery with the stimulus.  There malicious attacks on the system with unprecedented blockage of congressional activity is all apart of the stream.

The majority of provisions in what passed as health care reform were Republican ideas from the past. 

They created lies and spun and spun them until they had the appearance of fact i.e. death panels. Used it to deep fill their pockets with Insurance Company $. 

Much of it was colored by racism as well---Boehner, McConnell etc. 

I am flabergasted that so many Americans swallowed the the GOP Kool-Aid.

Karl,
We must have been separated at birth.  Couldn't have said it better myself!  That's exactly how I saw the process.

[Jeff Fairchild]

For me, more would be, among other things, a single payer plan or at least a public option.

Thanks for the response Denise.  It is much more helpful than ambiguous statements about “more” or “further”.
 
I like the single payer system because it offers the potential for the greatest simplicity in offering health care to as many people as possible in the US with the minimum amount of administrative overhead.  I am concerned that to control costs it may drive some of the “best and brightest” away from being health care providers.

On the public option, one simple proposal would be for the Feds to offer to be the health insurer for any citizen that applies, with the cost of the insurance to the citizen being determined based on the best quote for any particular set of benefits that the citizen can obtain from a private insurer, discounted by the amount that the Feds believe is being “overcharged” by the private insurer.  For example, under this proposal, I could present the Feds with my insurance bill from last year (over $21K) and the Feds would offer me the exact same coverage discounted by the “private provider overcharge” percentage.  Seems like the Feds would attract a very large pool of insured under such a proposal, which should help to normalize the Feds costs.   This proposal has the advantage of not needing to change a thing about the current system and participation in the Feds’ public option is completely voluntary.   

I wanted more too- as did everyone I know who opposed and still opposes the current plan.
Most of all, we wanted more choices, and more open and honest consideration of how we might expand coverage to those currently left out---not a choice between "this plan or nothing."

We wanted more--more discussion, more transparency, more views allowed to be heard, more consideration of alternate approaches, more concern for constitutional issues, more concern for cost issues, more concern for how and who pays,..

Richard, same thanks to you as to Denise.  I agree with the more's that you mention.  I hope the best opportunity for a truly workable reform to our health care system wasn't squandered because of the lack of the more's you cite. 

[Richard]

Jeff wrote:

Richard, same thanks to you as to Denise.  I agree with the more's that you mention.  I hope the best opportunity for a truly workable reform to our health care system wasn't squandered because of the lack of the more's you cite.

This isn't congress.

Regardless of what was or wasn't squandered at the last best opportunity for health care, and regardless of whether the current and the next best opportunity are squandered in congress again, the best opportunity for discussion continues to be squandered here.


This is not a discussion of healthcare.
Its not going forward.

It's going around and around and around over the same insistance by some participants that anyone who disagrees with the current healthcare law must be  some combination of power-hungry, racist bigot who hates the poor.

Anyone who has concern over the constitutional issues, the pretense claims, obviously would have supported the Dred Scott ruling- which is a patently false claim.

This  claim pretends- against the constitution, against history, and against common sense,  that to support the constitution must mean supporting a 150 year old ruling that supported slavery.

The constitution, history, and common sense show that it was support for the constitution and the constitutional process of amendment --not lofty pretenses of higher priorities- that ended the issues of slavery. History also shows that there was a civil war- and several states that seceded from the Union, undoubtedly in support of some higher priority than the US Constitution and the rule of law-- and support for the practice of slavery.

The accompanying pretense - that there are "higher" concerns and priorities pretends, against the constitution, against history, and against common sense, that there is some way to obtain justice and freedom and protect universal rights by ignoring -even rejecting and opposing-any concern for rule of law.

It's the same argument and pretense in discussions here that address issues of the UCC Constitution and the constitutional issues of polity. Some believe that as long as they claim some "higher" priority, then all  concern for constitutional issues is proof - of course- of being some extremist reactionary opposed to the Gospel and the poor and oppressed.

The same arguments have split the country and the church in the past. The same split and the same result could be achieved again.