Understanding the Kennedy health care bill
8 June
Over the weekend a draft of Senator Kennedy’s (D-MA) health care bill leaked. After playing with Adobe Acrobat, here is the text of the draft Kennedy bill as a text file (173 K), and as a single Acrobat file (3.4 MB). Update: I fixed the broken link to the PDF. Unlike the leaked version, both of these are searchable.
Calling it the “Kennedy” bill is something of an overstatement. Senator Kennedy chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, and his staff wrote the draft. By all reports, however, Chairman Kennedy’s health is preventing him from being heavily involved in the drafting. Senator Reid has designated Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) to supervise the process, but as best I can tell, it’s really the Kennedy committee staff who are making most of the key decisions. For now I will call it the Kennedy-Dodd bill.
As the committee staff emphasized to the press after the leak, this is an interim draft. I assume things will move around over the next several weeks as discussions among Senators and their staffs continue. This is therefore far from a final product, but it provides a useful insight into current thinking among some key Senate Democrats.
Update: I now have a three-page outline of the House Democrats’ health care bill. I have a new post which contains all of the content below, and compares it to the House bill. If you read the new post, you’ll get two for the price of one: Understanding the House Democrats’ [and Kennedy-Dodd] health care bill[s].
Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill.
- The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”
- The bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt.
- In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
- All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.
- A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.
- Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.
- A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
- The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.
- Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.
- Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.
- The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line.
- People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.
- People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area
- There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last.
- Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.
- States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them.
- Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.
- The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.
- The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”
- The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”
This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:
- The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
- Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
- A government-appointed board would determine what items and services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.
- You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs, because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and would therefore be significantly more expensive.
- Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.
- Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.
- The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with the new mandates.
- The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.”
I strongly oppose this bill.
Update: If this topic interests you, I highly recommend Jim Capretta’s blog Diagnosis.
(photo credit: kennedy.senate.gov)
Related Posts
(best matches are listed first)- Understanding the House Democrats’ health care bill
- Ten more things about the official Kennedy-Dodd health care bill
- The belt-and-suspenders of the Kennedy-Dodd health care bill
- Health insurance for poor kids
- New York Times to Senator Reid on health care: Speak loudly and carry a little twig
- Parsing the President’s health care reform letter
- Health spending fallacy
I particularly enjoy the comments of those who say they are moving to the EU to get away from this. Socialized health care has been a staple of Western European countries for decades. How many more 10% + premium increases will employer endure, how do we compete with other countries in this global economy, how are you going to feel when one of your kids can't get critical care because of insurance companies denying (rationing) care, do you think you can pay your premiums if you lose your job. Insurance companies have one motive, like any good capitalist company should, increase revenues and cut costs. An incentive to pay medical bills for their insureds is contrary to their motive to fatten the bottom line. We can act now–no bill is perfect–or we can wait until we hit that brick wall. Unless we act, that day is inevitable. We're the richest nation in the world and we let children die because they can't get insurance and we let families lose their homes because of dishonest, greedy insurance carriers that continue to get to get away with screwing people.
New to this site, I am literally shocked at this synopsis of the bill by Mr. kbh. I had googled this plan hoping to get a clear unbiased report only to be reading things like "Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would have their premiems subsidized by the healthy." Is this actually written into Mr. Kennedy's bill? On the contrary I see that this is simple bias hogwash aimed at stopping the discussion before it has begun. I have been a medical office manager for over 14 years and am anticipating my MBA – Healthcare Management in March 2010. This discussion should be an honest review of the facts given the fact that we are in a healthcare crisis in this country.
In order to get a better picture of Mr. Kennedy's bill and to hear from people who want honest discussion about a topic that has long been ignored, I see that I will have to go elsewhere to get my information.
there is obviously a strategy to take most of the active decisions away from the legislative and executive branch so that unknown, un-elected officials start to make the biggest decisions. There isn't a better recipe for disaster over the long term.
Unfortunately (IMO) newspapers are shedding all talented staff and going for the cheap thrill stories. Newspapers are morphing into tabloid journalism. This always has me asking what is their spin? Not wow, that is incredible journo.
http://www.gecengece.com
Here is all you need to know. I worked for the gov civil service and my healthcare did not include dental or vision and it cost me 300 a mo for family. I then switched to my wife's, same insurance co but through her company, and it cost us 150 a mo. Prescriptions cheap and low deductibles. Had surgery under mine and we paid 700 in deductibles. Wife had surgery under hers and we paid 0. To make matters worse, postal employees have better benefits but we were both gov employees. F the gov and OSAMA! As a vet, I can also tell you how they screwed me over with the GI bill as well. The gov can do nothing right.
There is an exorbitant amount of cost going into and surrounding the establishment of this bill. However these costs are only in addition to the overall cost of health care. Complete health care reform is necessary, not simply the provider care reform which we are currently awaiting. . According to Eva Mor author of (Making the Golden Years Golden), “The administration of the existing health delivery system is bloated with waste and unnecessary cost. If information was shared by all providers of health services and all insurers by using computerized systems to store all medical records, it would cut costs and reduce errors that would save and improve lives.” http://www.ourblook.com/component/option,com_sect...
Preventative care is something we need desperately in this country so the real question is going to be, how do we get it? Especially when there are so many parties who have private interests at stake in the face of reform. Health care is a public service which every American will eventually require at some point in their lives, however as it stands, health care has been diluted by bureaucracy, industry, and politics.
Is it true the senate has entered a clause exempting themselves from enrolling in this health care program???.
is it true the senate has exempted themselves from enrollment in this idiotic plan????.
Fixed. Thanks for catching it.
Ian Duncan said, “if enough people are forced to contribute the increase in premiums may be more modest.”
And there’s the problem with all this socialized ****. So Ian, are you going to send armed men to my house to force me to pay for your healthcare premiums? Then throw me in a labor camp and force me to produce income to pay for your crap when I still refuse?
We have this little thing called the Constitution. It is not a right and our founders made it VERY clear NO CHARITY to the people! Entitlments are unconstitutional under Enumerated powers of congress and the 10th and 16th amendment!
Grow up
Keep going guest… re: pursuit of happiness, driving a new car makes me happy, so does the idea of living in a million dollar house. And how about nice clothes, fancy restaurants, exotic vacations? Where do you plan to draw the line? Trust me, someone’s level of ‘pursuit of happiness’ will be even more extreme than yours, but who are you to judge them and say they’re wrong? Ironically, a healthcare plan like this one will actually TAKE AWAY those other two important things you mentioned — life and liberty.
@guest
I belive you are confusing “limiting” power with “granting” power. The quote you gave about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is all about limiting the power that a government can have over an individual. The idea is simply that these things, your life and your freedom, are yours and no government has the right to infringe upon them. There is no guarantee of anything other than government shall not take these things from you. Period.
You have the right to the PERSUIT of happiness, not to happiness itself. This simple means that you can work your a** off in any profession you like if money and power make you happy, or live in a cave in the woods if that makes you happy. It doesn’t mean that anyone owes you happiness.
You could say that about a lot of things involving the stimulus bill, too (obnoxious and invasive) but that was passed in record time. Be afraid, very afraid.
Probably would be news to our brave military that they are fighting for our right to be bamboozled by the government. They’re smart enough to know what they’re really fighting for is our right to stand up to wrong-minded, harmful moves by the current government such as this healthcare mistake.
Our men and women are not “dying by the thousands in Iraq”. We’ve been in Iraq for 7 years, and we’ve lost fewer troops than we lost in a SINGLE DAY on D-Day or at Iwo Jima. I’ve been deployed to Iraq twice, and will likely have to go again in the next year. We are still in Germany and Japan 64 years after the end of that war, and still in Korea 56 years after that war. We lost over 50 thousand of our best and brightest in the years we were in Vietnam, which the leftists lost for us via their self-aggrandized defeatist efforts. Stop with your putrid propaganda.
Health care is not a “right” when you use the force of thuggish government to enslave people to provide that “right” without just compensation. The idiotic idea that government bureaucracy will do anything to decrease costs and increase resources only works in brains marinated for years in bong water. If you want an example of how to lower medical costs while increasing efficacy, look at laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery – fields that are NOT covered by government/medicaid insurance – and thus prosper under true free market principles.
Guest,
Looking through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it says nothing about a “Right to Health Care”. And as for your anology, it is not even the least bit a logical argument. You have the Right to work hard and prosper so as to be able to support yourself. You do not have the Right to sponge off those of who do. France is waiting for you to arrive.
Who do you think is going to run this colossus? Insurance companies will run it. The same insurance companies that run the inefficient and fraud-filled Medicare and Medicaid systems. You know, the ones that are already out of money.
We disagree on what rights the Constitution grant us. My dad who fought in WWII would crack up if I thanked him for fighting for affordable healthcare.
Thank you for your commitment to your profession. You’ve obviously worked hard to achieve success (obviously a black mark with this current administration who wants everyone to be mediocre) and I and a lot of other Americans are going to miss you and others like you when we need you!
Washington will screw this up just like they did Social Security when they stole it, er, uh, voted to put it into the General Fund.
I know it cracks me up! They also think clean water, clean energy are rights as well. He wants EPA to have a Clean Water Act. HHHMMM that might work out as well as Jimmy Carter’s Energy Act or LBJ’s War On Poverty Act worked out. No one ever thinks abotu Laws Of Unintended Consequences
Matthew, you did not pick a bad time to start medical school. Depending on how successful the obamunists are in cramming nazi health care down our throats, there will be a mass exodus of physicians out of the medical field. Once enough media stories appear showing people dying or suffering due to the doctor shortage, there will be government efforts to “fix” that problem. Those efforts will fail as well, since people with enough intellect and drive to go through the trouble of medical school will only put up with the yoke of government slavery for so long before they also refuse to accept the government jackboot stomping on their respective necks. Eventually, when the health care system collapses, there will be a great need for good physicians, and your personal sacrifices will be appropriately rewarded. You just have to be patient.
At some point, can you give us your thoughts on the Singapore Model for universal healthcare?
guest, The Lord Jesus Christ does guarntee you anything beyond a place in heaven if you behave yourself and he is not involved or even interested in the governments of man. < redacted by kbh >
He has to be patient?? I thought he wanted to be a doctor! *sorry – I couldn’t resist!*
If you are serious in your opinion, then answer this. If health care should be mandatory, then why not make everyone have mandatory housing insurance? Mandatory food insurance? After all, people need to have food and shelter, don’t they?
Do you have the faintest concept about production of resources? Who are you going to enslave to make the drugs, surgical tubing, IV catheters, blood culture bottles, bandages, scalpels,radiology equipment, and the medicines to feed the bottomless maw of “free” health care? Who will be enslaved to serve as doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, radiology techs, lab techs and the like? Do you think Obama has the ability to simply defecate all these resources out of thin air?
Nazi health care has NEVER worked anywhere it has been tried without rationing care based on the whims of the political elite…who don’t have the faintest clue how to provide health care. If the government was so much better than the free market at providing health care, then why is medicaid bankrupt while plastic surgeons and ophthalmologists doing lasik are making good (and fair) profits despite LOWER COSTS?
I used to believe that all physicians should stop providing any medical care whatsoever to malpractice attorneys, politicians and their families until real tort reform was enacted and the government got out of health care. Frankly, I am so disgusted with the looter mentality I am about ready to go Galt myself.
The eager willingness of drug companies and insurance providers to get a chunk of the pie was addressed in a previous post. Does it really come as a surprise to you that they are receptive to obama’s proposals given the looming threat to their entire industry? This isn’t a noble acknowledgement of the “wasteful, inefficient mess” of the system. This is a self-serving acceptance of the fact that if they are not involved in the solution, they will be labeled as part of the problem and eliminated.
Yet another HUGE government entitlement, the biggest ever. Another government program punishing those who take care of themselves (physically and financially) and rewarding those who do not by having those who are healthy, subsidizing those who by their own bad behavior (smoking, drinking, overeating, drug abuse, etc) have more physical problems.
Why the hell should I work hard when the government only punishes those who work hard by imposing higher taxes and costs to support those who do not want to work. I am frickin sick of it.
The way I will fight back is to simply not to work so hard, not earn money, and then who will the government get to pay for all their programs?
Do you have a right to eat?? Yes you do if you pay for it. Many years of liberal brainwashing and suckling the .gov’s teat has warped your mind. The fact that I will have to pay for weak, feeble minded, parasites like yourself and your offspring, is just one more step closer to this country being reborn.
Where is it outlined it is a right?
If health care is a right, someone is OBLIGATED to provide it for you – with no right to expect compensation. People need to eat to survive – is a grocer obligated to give his merchandise away? A “right” subtracted from one party for the benefit of another is unjust.
Healthcare a right? Come on. Do you have the right to mandate that all motorcycle riders in Florida wear a helmet? Of course not, yet the government is about to extend them the right to healthcare subsidized by you and other healthier, less dangerous adventure seeking individuals? Healthcare is not a right, it is a discretionary pursuit. I choose not to cook with a brick of lard, in contrast to my neighbors who also happen to be morbidly obese. Out of compassion, I have offered resources that promote healthier diets, but they refuse. Why should I also pay for their inevitable need for stents, bypass surgery, oxygen, and disability pay when they refuse to help themselves?
Show me where in the Constitution of the United States of America (the law of the land)where subsidized health care is a right.
Guest
Many more than 4,000 men and women have died for your right to speak your mind. Have at it, but just remember that others have the same right to disagree with you. Some might be more charitable, others not. I must say that your continued “let’s just ignore this whole right/responsibility thing”–in your words, “bogged down by minutae” is disheartening. This “minutae” as you call it is the very heart of the argument. You cannot have it one way by first of all claiming that health-care is a right and then when people call you out, abandon your main premise as “minutae”. If you cannot muster the moral argument for your position, why should we?
Guest, the Constitution outlines all the rights we have–no healthcare is mentioned. Not even in a penumbra.
Free speech isn’t free, lots of people paid the price. Enjoy it and enjoy its consequences.
Best regards,
Mike
Jasper: While you successfully regurgitated the standard talking points you fail to see things through to their inevitable conclusion. While the government system might begin as an option of “last resort”, it will in short order become the only option. Without overwhelmingly large tax increases on businesses who don’t offer health insurance (which would be, incidentally, distastrous for small business), there will be little to no incentive for employers to continue offering insurance to employees at their cost. As these offerings become more scarce, the government option will become increasingly utilized resulting in increased cost for the program, rising debt, and a failing system in the pattern of medicare and the VA. While there are clearly problems with health care that need to be resolved, this is the farthest thing from the “right” answer that I can imagine.
By the way, in regards to the Health Care as a “right” issue…it is irrelevant. What people fail to realize is that, in cases of necessary medical procedures (emergency surgery and such), health care providers rarely deny anyone regardless of insurance or ability to pay (unless you look at VA and other government run facilities…coincidence?). While the procedure will be billed to the person after the fact, there are options available to help with those costs (bankruptcy, public help, payment options, etc)and the care will still be given.
“I will do procedures that have soft indications but are not absolutely contraindicated. If I don’t do this, I would have to go to multiple hospitals and spend twice the time to take home only a little bit more. I would rather spend time with my family than on the road. No one suffers.” Except my insurance premiums. Your admission is amazing. So you treat your patients like an ATM machine, unbelievable. Where are your ethics in all of this?
George, You misunderstand. This physician is admitting that he does marginally necessary procedures. At best this is legal, at worst this is unethical. If it is a discoverable pattern that deviates significantly from normal and customary practices and he bills medicare or medicaid he could be prosecuted for fraud.
His ethics are in the same place as yours. You know, in that little box where you put all your uncashed paychecks. All the paychecks you did not cash because you think that it is wrong for you to be paid for all the “work” you do. < redacted by kbh >
Hey Tim, that is exactly what the government wants us to do…to quit working so hard and for all of the people to be totally dependent on them…when they accomplish this totally, then they will have a completed Communistic government…They will take our money, our jobs, our taxes our firearms, our childrens souls and minds. We will be run like Hitler ran Germany….Do not quit your job or fall into this trap….You must fight this with all of your might and do not let them win. God bless, Dotty
Drug companies have already cut back research. When some of their drugs were allowed to be made generic sooner than expected they were unable to recoup their R&D. If you knew you were going to produce anything at a loss would you do it? I wouldn’t because I can’t afford it. Government taking what is not rightfully theirs in accordance with the law will stop this economy and there isn’t much anyone can do about it. My hope right now is with SCOTUS.
Sorry but the insurance companies are trying to keep your premium cost down unfortuneately with little success. I first started to see a huge increase in medical rates and hence health insurance rates with the rise in malpractice cost and the increase in drug cost. In order to fix medical cost you will have to have tort reform. With the amount of lawyers in this country that will never happen. Drug cost will take care of itself when the drug companies quit R&D and that is already happening.
I write insurance. I guarentee that you are right. Bad part about it is that most of these people could have had coverage but opted not to continue usually because they think that the cost is too high. They want someone else to pay for their care.
He can lose his insurance reimbursement as well. I think this is probably common. One of the areas of biggest expense for insurance companies (after prescription drug) is the cost of imaging (mri,cat,pet). Now you know why your premiums are going throught the roof.
I have been diagnosed with kidney failure. I lost my job–and with it, the health insurance provided by my employer–when I became too ill to work.
I need dialysis 3x/week, plus monthly blood tests to adjust the dosages of my prescription medications. Plus I’ve had several surgeries to install and repair the dialysis accesses in my arms and neck.
It’s cost me about $95,000 for the first year of treatment, and it’s going to be some $70,000 a year from now on.
I can’t get that type of continual, intensive, long-term care out of Emergency Rooms.
Fortunately, I live in Massachusetts, which has a state government mandate that insurance companies cannot deny me coverage for pre-existing conditions. Thanks to that mandate, I was able to purchase Blue Cross insurance on my own. Furthermore, Medicare considers kidney failure a disability, so they’re picking up 80% of the cost of my dialysis.
Without Medicare and that Massachusetts government mandate, I would be dead due to inability to pay once my meager savings run out.
Now under YOUR free-market approach, what options would I have other than begging from some charity?
Nice to see an insurance saavy person here. Keith had a series of posts on the uninsured awhile back that showed that the true population of the uninsured is much smaller than 47 million. I forget the numbers but they broke down I think about 16 million make more than 50k and can afford insurance if it was partially subsidized in a government pool, about 8 million were non-citizens and about 6 million qualified for medicaid or other government provided benefits but had not applied. That leaves about 17 million who would need heavy subsidization to bring them into the healthcare system. This is very doable.
Publicus, If you get your health insurance from your employer you are getting a subsidy from the government for those benefits because they flow to you tax free. There is not a single person in the US who has employer provided insurance that is not getting this subsidy now. Your 401k contributions before tax are a tax deferred subsidy allowing greater consumption today. A good share of total compensation carries some sort of incentivizing subsidy. But to simply say that the uninsured should not get a subsidy when almost everyone else is is disengenuous.
Government spending does often run against the grain of the electorate. Pork barrel spending and the monopoly power that spending often incurs on the recipients gives the public less bang for their bucks. Government transfer payments to healthcare providers that are below market rates shifts payment burdens onto others. These increasing burdens may be encouraging people to drop insurance coverage, worsening the problem of the uninsured. The question remains, how can we craft policy that avoids these well known outcomes of current policy choices? One of those new policies might be covering the truly uninsured with a government insurance pool option. This option will take years to show results in improved health outcomes from increased access but it is a legitimate social goal since we are all paying the costs of the uninsureds late or inappropriate entry into the healthcare system for critical care (we don’t let people die in the streets).
all i have to say about any plan of this type……if you can’t afford insurance (most commom reason for not having it), how are you going to be able to afford the fine? i smell a rat. a huge, hairy, smelly rat! even with all of their talk of making it “affordable” does anyone remember when car insurance became required by law? now people drvive illegaly without it, because they can’t afford it. also, while i don’t really have anything good to say about insurance companies, they are businesses. and a bill like this holds a gun to their head. hmmmmm…..comply or fold….fold please. does anyone realize the black hole that will open up in our economy? and don’t forget, better or worse, insurance companies did ther part in helping us out of the great depression
I would imagine Keith would frown on debating the constitution but your reading of the authorization of government spending on healthcare originates in the spending clause not the commerce clause. Any regulation of healthcare originates in the spending clause through oversight of the spending. Backdoor regulation like participate or face ruin is not constitutional but an oversight clause in a spending bill like the TARP is allowed. I am not so sure about the spending on the auto bailouts but it seems to be constitutional on its face. But Ginsburg is reviewing the chrysler fiat merger we’ll see if anything comes of it.
I’m happy to have folks debate the constitutional aspects of this. As long as everyone’s civil and basically respectful to each other, have at it.
What people are saying is that “Health Care” is not a right in this country according to the constitution. Providing Medicare and Medicaid was passed by congress and it is legal. Just because something isn’t a right doesn’t mean that it is illegal. You are confusing rights with something being legal or illegal.
They ‘loaned’ it to the General Find, for which the General issued ‘bonds’ to the Social Security ‘trust’.