Nelson and Reid Reach a Deal: Game Over

[Vepres]

Good luck combining this with the house bill, it is game over, for the Democrats

[Vepres]

Yay!  More taxation, regulation and limits on personal freedom!

It's a very sad day for individual rights, limited government and freedom.   The majority of Americans oppose this crap bill.  May the Democrats reap what they sow in 2010.

[Vepres]

     So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

I am perfectly fine with women paying the same as men in regards to health insurance, but your point about auto insurance is well taken. I can't disagree with you there. That being said just buying catastrophic insurance isn't always enough. What if you come down with cancer, or your kidney stops functioning. What happens then?

In addition there are checkups like prostate screenings that apply only to men so its not as if women cause much higher costs than men. Pregnancies seems to be one of the main reasons health care costs more for them.

Perhaps I misinterpret the meaning of "catastrophic", but I would consider those to be catastrophic illnesses.

[Vepres]

    So this bill makes it a crime to not have health insurance? Can't say I like that idea much, though I guess it makes practical sense.

Yeah but I don't think anyone is getting put in jail for this. They will just be taxed more and if they don't pay that they will face the same consequences you face anyways today for not paying taxes. And I must say this is one of the bills I really approve of. I am much more apprehensive about mandates on small businesses.

     Even if they are merely taxed at a higher rate (nevermind the tax load already suffered by the lowest earners) rather than prison time, isn't that still just punishing someone for a victimless crime?

This is not punishment, rather incentives. If we are going to force insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions, we must make sure people can't just not have insurance until they need it. If we did that the sick would have to pay extremely high premiums. Individual mandates are the right and fair thing to do and it exists in most western countries. And means tested subsidies will be available to those who can't afford it so it's not as if people would have to choose between health insurance and other necessities.

Call it what it is - a poll tax for something of dubious value (government-mandated insurance that covers unnecessary things like mammograms and pregnancy coverage for men - no sex discrimination in policy pricing, remember - that's good enough for health insurance, where young men would otherwise be better off, but not for car insurance, where young women would be unjustly penalized - natch) that might better be served by saving plus owing a non-government sanctioned catastrophic insurance policy.

I am perfectly fine with women paying the same as men in regards to health insurance, but your point about auto insurance is well taken. I can't disagree with you there. That being said just buying catastrophic insurance isn't always enough. What if you come down with cancer, or your kidney stops functioning. What happens then?

In addition there are checkups like prostate screenings that apply only to men so its not as if women cause much higher costs than men. Pregnancies seems to be one of the main reasons health care costs more for them.

Perhaps I misinterpret the meaning of "catastrophic", but I would consider those to be catastrophic illnesses.

Then what's the difference between that and normal insurance? Doctor visits and blood tests don't really cost that much you know and it seems like that would be the only thing "extra".

Eh, you got me

Also, upon some thought, I think you may be right about the individual mandate (though I'd prefer positive incentives), though I hope nobody is sent to jail for it

[Vepres]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_cooperative

This would be a better alternative.

Oh yeah, forgot about that, far superior to the crap currently in our congress.

[Vepres]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_cooperative

This would be a better alternative.

Oh yeah, forgot about that, far superior to the crap currently in our congress.

Isn't there a co-op in the current senate bill in place of the public option?

I really don't know, wasn't it just made public a day or two ago?

[Vepres]

Too bad co-ops aren't really effective.

It's like the opposition to healthcare reform doesn't really care about what works or what doesn't work, it's about what sounds nice, is easy to do, or is more concerned about nebulous definitions of "personal freedom" instead of actually saving lives. This debate tires me.

Why? Because it conflicts with your ideology