House Passes Healthcare Bill

Bond · 03-22-2010, 04:42 PM

Well, saw this happening once the bill was passed yesterday:

"March 22 (Bloomberg) -- Twelve states plan to challenge the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul passed yesterday by the U.S. House, according to statements made today.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania are among 11 states that will sue “as soon as the president signs the bill,” claiming it places a burden on already cash-strapped states to pay for an expanded Medicaid program and build an exchange so individuals can find affordable insurance. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli also said in a statement his state would sue on the similar grounds.

The states that say they will sue are Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington."

Source: Business Week

Oops, I see Prof already posted a similar article.

Question: What federal government entitlement program has ever paid for itself and simultaneously reduced the federal deficit?

Answer: None in history.

Vampyr · 03-22-2010, 04:58 PM

There is a small, bitter part of me that is just happy we're going into debt over something I actually wanted for once.

TheGame · 03-22-2010, 06:23 PM

Have states ever sued the federal government before for redirecting how tax dollars are spent? Or are they sueing because of the mandate? That just kinda sounds weird to me...

Bond · 03-22-2010, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

Have states ever sued the federal government before for redirecting how tax dollars are spent? Or are they sueing because of the mandate? That just kinda sounds weird to me...

The twelve Republican attorney generals who did / will be filling suits on behalf of their respective states are calling into question the constitutionality of the bill, which has to do with the mandates that you mentioned. The issue is addressed in the article I posted a few posts up.

Professor S · 03-22-2010, 07:04 PM

From what I understand the opponents of the bill will argue using the 10th amendment about state sovereignty and the constitutionality of mandating individuals buy health care (or any other product). Supporters will argue the commerce clause that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

TheSlyMoogle · 03-22-2010, 07:21 PM

I realize this will sound odd coming from me, but it seems like a lot of this is a step into the wrong direction instead of a step forward.

I also find it silly that not having health care is grounds to fine someone $695.

TheGame · 03-22-2010, 08:11 PM

Thanks for the info Bond.

That will be very interesting. The problem now, is that if someone doesn't have insurance, and goes to the ER.. and can't afford to pay their bill... then society as a whole here has to pay for that person. Since the single person without insurance is burdoning the rest of society by not having insurance, is it wrong for there to be a penalty given by society for this action?

Guess we'll find out.

Professor S · 03-22-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

I also find it silly that not having health care is grounds to fine someone $695.

The silliest part is the thinking that a $695 fine will convince someone to get a $6,000 healthcare plan when they can just wait until they get sick and no one can turn them down.

But then again, Mass. kind of operates the same way and they have a very low uninsured rate, so it may work in reducing the percentage of uninsured, but to me the math doesn't work out.

Typhoid · 03-23-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

That will be very interesting. The problem now, is that if someone doesn't have insurance, and goes to the ER.. and can't afford to pay their bill... then society as a whole here has to pay for that person. Since the single person without insurance is burdoning the rest of society by not having insurance, is it wrong for there to be a penalty given by society for this action?

Maybe I'm being jaded because I'm Canadian, and you know - nice, (

) but thats how I believe it should have been going for you guys the whole time.

Any emergency surgery, or needed procedure should be covered by the government/taxes if the person can't pay for it themselves. Every aesthetic procedure is covered by the person who wants it.

What's so bad about helping those who need the help? If my taxes help some little 5 year old with a poor family get heart surgery so he can see his 6th birthday, I have no problem with that. If my tax money also goes to help some college kid who needs life-saving surgery, I still have no problem with that.

I have trouble actually figuring out why people have a problem with this kind of healthcare. Maybe it's because I already have this healthcare.

Dylflon · 03-23-2010, 04:41 PM

In response to Typhnoid:

I concur. I really don't understand this "what about me?" mentality that has people so against paying taxes for social programs and healthcare. I like my tax dollars making people's lives better. That's supposed to be what they're for. If everyone is only concerned with personal gain, it's a lot more difficult to progress as a society. Why would people argue about tax dollars helping someone get surgery but not argue with tax dollars being spent on illegal wars?

Anyways, this may be financially burdening, especially in the short term, but feel good that the quality of living in your country will be increasing.