the new health bill?

[Pooter]

Steve,

the difference is that you can choose to not buy a furnace at all. With this bill, you cannot not buy medical insurance if you choose. The fed is requiring you to buy a particular product. That's unconstitutional.

Jan, there is a provision in the bill that forbids banks from issuing student loans. Only the federal government and one bank (can't remember which one) can issue them. That's what you heard about.

Jim, an individual cannot opt out, but a state can. And not out of the federal requirement for insurance (and associated fees, fines, taxes etc) but the federal insurance pool. I still will have to payfor a system that my state might opt out of.   Nice eh?

Regards,
Brian

[sgerrard]

this health care reform bill was also somehow linked to student loans

Yes, student loan reform is part of the bill. They are returning the government backed student loans to the government, instead of paying banks to administer them. As far as  I can tell, you still apply the same way, but you are borrowing directly from the government (like I did in college), not from a bank. The money comes through the financial aid office of the education institution.

Google it, you can find more on it.

Steve

[grega]

Thanks Steve, Brian & Jim for your very important explanations on this reform.  I've learned a lot, and hope many others herein do likewise.  And I will pass this info on to friends who also question what's going on ....sans names of course.

Last night, I heard a very easy-to-understand discussion on a timeline for the possible repeal of this health care reform law .... the earliest might be Feb 2013 .... just after the next presidential election.  Interesting to follow that possibility.

Jan, I'm confused by your rather explosive remark ... after several thousand umpteen posts, are you allowed to say such things      Lori seems to have accepted the role of Nanny Ligosi (my 2nd choice is still Jim Carrey  ) ..... Denzel, with proper makeup for Michelle    ..... and "Walter" as the ______ VEEP   .   Oh yes, the possibility that Soundy will experiment with little bits of chocolate should leave you elated! 

Greg

[nteeman]

Steve,

the difference is that you can choose to not buy a furnace at all. With this bill, you cannot not buy medical insurance if you choose. The fed is requiring you to buy a particular product. That's unconstitutional.
...

Regards,
Brian

Sorry but I don't remember anything about health insurance in the constitution!  It seems that if you want to own a car you have to have insurance, right? That is OK because you can not own a car. Well by that logic I can say if you don't want a health insurance mandate you can leave the country!

You know the more I hear of the objections to healthcare I have to laugh. It seems people want the insurance companies to not be able to deny anyone, can not deny preexisting conditions, and be affordable. The insurance companies say OK then you have to have ALL in the insurance pool; healthy and unhealthy.  I can understand that. Hey you can't have your cake...
But what people really want is insurance that is affordable, they don't have to buy it until they need it, can cancel it once they are well, no out-of-pocket costs at all, has no deductibles, pays your alimony and home mortgage and... anything I forgot?

Neal

[Brendalu]

The amendment on the student loan portion of the bill that did not pass was the lowering of the interest rate from 6. something to 5.3%.

Brenda

[lori67]

Hey Neal,

Think we can get a plan that does windows too?     I figure since we're asking for stuff, I might as well go for it!

Lori

[nteeman]

Hey Neal,

Think we can get a plan that does windows too?     I figure since we're asking for stuff, I might as well go for it!

Lori

...of course, how can I forget the windows!

 

Neal

[grega]

Lori .... I like the fact that you're rehearsing for that role of Nanny Ligosi .... making sure that all sorts of necessary  ,  albeit ridiculous earmarks, are included in any and every law passed under "your" watch!

Keep up the good work!

[Pooter]

Neel,

Ahh.. another difference.  In the case of automobile insurance, the STATE requires it, not the federal government.  The right to force you to buy a certain good or service rests with the state, NOT the Federal Government.  

The reason you can't remember anything in the constitution about health insurance is that it's not there..  It's not an EXPRESSED POWER of the Federal Government to force you to buy ANYTHING so that power rests with the States.

I agree that what people want is out of line with reality..  Lower preminums, more coverage, no deductible, no out of pocket expenses, etc...  It will NEVER be that way no matter if insurance companies manage it or the federal government does.  Either you're going to pay premiums in line with the coverages of their "pool" of people or you're going to pay the Federal Government higher and higher taxes to pay for their "pool" people.  As it stands now, my "premium" is going to be lower (presumably, but not anytime soon), but my taxes will be higher.. the net is that my overall "bill" (to insurance companies and the federal government combined) is going up...  Notice they only said that our premiums would go down.. they didn't harp on the fact that my taxes would off-set that and then some.

To sum up my opinion of the Federal Government doing anything this big anywhere close to right:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775.   They had 234 years to get it right and it is BROKE.
 
Social Security was established in 1935.
They had 74 years to get it right and it is BROKE.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938.
They had 71 years to get it right and it is BROKE.

War on Poverty started in 1964.
They had 45 years to get it right;
1$ trillion of our money is confiscated each year and
transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965.
They had 44 years to get it right and they are BROKE.
 
Freddie Mac was established in 1970.
They had 39 years to get it right and it is BROKE.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before.
They had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal FAILURE.

Now, how long before they screw up our health care system, and more importantly how long will we let them screw it up?

I'll jump off my soap box now..  

Regards,
Brian

[lori67]

Lori .... I like the fact that you're rehearsing for that role of Nanny Ligosi .... making sure that all sorts of necessary  ,  albeit ridiculous earmarks, are included in any and every law passed under "your" watch!

Keep up the good work!

Ah, thanks!  Just for that, I've got a million dollars with your name on it!     Would you look at that - I think I'm already above her 8% approval rating!

Lori

[nteeman]

Neel,

Ahh.. another difference.  In the case of automobile insurance, the STATE requires it, not the federal government.  The right to force you to buy a certain good or service rests with the state, NOT the Federal Government.  

The reason you can't remember anything in the constitution about health insurance is that it's not there..  It's not an EXPRESSED POWER of the Federal Government to force you to buy ANYTHING so that power rests with the States.

I agree that what people want is out of line with reality..  Lower preminums, more coverage, no deductible, no out of pocket expenses, etc...  It will NEVER be that way no matter if insurance companies manage it or the federal government does.  Either you're going to pay premiums in line with the coverages of their "pool" of people or you're going to pay the Federal Government higher and higher taxes to pay for their "pool" people.  As it stands now, my "premium" is going to be lower (presumably, but not anytime soon), but my taxes will be higher.. the net is that my overall "bill" (to insurance companies and the federal government combined) is going up...  Notice they only said that our premiums would go down.. they didn't harp on the fact that my taxes would off-set that and then some.

To sum up my opinion of the Federal Government doing anything this big anywhere close to right:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775.   They had 234 years to get it right and it is BROKE.
 
Social Security was established in 1935.
They had 74 years to get it right and it is BROKE.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938.
They had 71 years to get it right and it is BROKE.

War on Poverty started in 1964.
They had 45 years to get it right;
1$ trillion of our money is confiscated each year and
transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965.
They had 44 years to get it right and they are BROKE.
 
Freddie Mac was established in 1970.
They had 39 years to get it right and it is BROKE.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before.
They had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal FAILURE.

Now, how long before they screw up our health care system, and more importantly how long will we let them screw it up?

I'll jump off my soap box now..  

Regards,
Brian

I don't know if I agree with everything you say is broke is broken. That is your opinion.  I will agree that as time goes on these programs need to be updated, re-thought, changed, fixed or eliminated. 

I will say that I am not ready to live in a log cabin in the woods with a shotgun by my side and believe 'hooray for me and the h*ll with everyone else!' .  I believe those days are over, thankfully.

Neal

[Pooter]

Neal,

The postal service has recently come to Congress asking for more funding and asking to raise the cost of a first class stamp... Again.  Because they're losing money.

Social Security, with benefits remaining the same, the amount that the SSA collects from workers versus what they pay out in benefits will equate in them ultimately losing money..  They've already gone back to Congress to "cash in" on some of the IOU's the Congress gave them to fund pet projects..  For all intents and purposes, they're broke.

Fannie and Freddie just got bailed out because they can't control their costs..  They're broke.

The "War on Poverty" speaks for itself.  When it first started, there was a certain percentage of the Americans poor.. so, we waged "war" and increased funding 400% since it started... Today, the same percentage of people are poor..  Where's the positive impact on the number of poor?  We keep giving and the poor keep asking for more.

Medicare and Medicaid haven't been able to break even almost since day 1..  Again, if you take into account the amount they're taking in (or projected to take in) versus what they pay out in benefits is a negative number.. For all intents and purposes they're broke.

The DOE's objective (one of) was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (so we didn't have the long gas lines and gas shortages like we did in the late 70's again)...  We are no less dependent on forign oil now than we were then.  They failed in one of their primary missions.

My point to all of that was that all of the "big" inventions of the government by either party has resulted in us spending a massive amount of money above and beyond what we were told, they've failed in their primary objective at the time they were created, or they're just plain ineffective at what they do.  Or, some combination of the 3 as the case may be.  So, why on earth would we think that the new health care bill will be any different from that?

Don't get me wrong.. I think the federal government has it's place and rights under the constitution to do certain things. They're a necessary evil in my book.  For example, they're GREAT at military things and generally keeping us all safe every night.  I just simply disagree that THIS health care bill will fix the problems that it supposedly aims to cure without a HUGE tab that you and I (and everyone else) will have to pick up.  Based on prior history of anything "big" that this government has tried to do (aside from militarily), they have a track record of failing miserably and I have no confidence in them to get this one right either.  Not to mention they can't constitutionally do what they're trying to do but I'll let the courts decide that one.  I'm just voicing my own layman's opinion.

Regards,
Brian

[leapyrtwins]

Jan, I'm confused by your rather explosive remark ... after several thousand umpteen posts, are you allowed to say such things    

Okay, now I'm confused    What'd I say 

Actually I was kind of proud of myself for reigning in my opinion.  I've abdicated the "tough-guy" role to someone else 

Go get 'em, Pooter    I think you should run for office.

Jan

[sgerrard]

Golly, I would never have thought the Post Office would come under fire. I can send Pooter a letter and have it delivered in less than a week, for fifty cents with some change back. That is an amazing bargain. A government postal service is essential to a successful nation; we would never have made it this far without one.

Buy some Forever stamps, man. 

Steve

[Pooter]

Steve,

Personally, I never use the USPS. But we are using it as a nation less and they keep charging more AND they want more of the budget money AND reduce services. In the business world, they would go out of business. Theyhave no incentive to be more efficient or better at what they do. They know we will pay higher for service and/or the fed will give them more money. I'm not asking they turn a profit, but at least break even. Is that too much to ask?  We are essentially a stock holder and we should expect more than below mediocrity, in my opinion.

The point was that they're part of a government trend of over spending, reducing service and sub-par services.

Regards,
Brian