Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan - Polidicks

[quote=Associated Press via Google News]Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states. Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide. Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend. With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition. Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say. "The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass." Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government. "Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Herrera, the group's health task force director. Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation. He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature. "What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said. Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called the lawsuits frivolous. Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year. Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole. "For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."[/quote] [url]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0LSHNfmnWDnZ_JylqiFxeT5GKEQD9EGLNDO0[/url] And just to get it out of the way, I have read it, and "Glaber Topic". But still, is there any point in passing this thing now if the states are going to sue over this thing?

Everyone should have health insurance, it's not like we don't already do the same thing with cars. I might as well be driving this body around, just as I do with a car.

They don't see a small problem with a [b]law[/b] requiring one's attorney general to sue the country for a [b]law[/b] that it made? That's like like one state claiming that the first amendment doesn't exist and then creating laws upholding religion and casting down free speech. [URL=http://www.governor.state.tx.us/files/ecodev/j0189633.jpg]Oh wait[/URL]

Another win for big corporations that don't give a shit about Americans. Glad to see you sucking their cock glaber.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;20816069]Everyone should have health insurance, it's not like we don't already do the same thing with cars. I might as well be driving this body around, just as I do with a car.[/QUOTE] Except how people who can't pay the GOVERNMENT PREMIUMS still wouldn't have health insurance. [editline]01:56PM[/editline] HR 3200, section 222. [quote]SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING. (a) Establishment of Premiums- (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner-- (A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and (B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of-- (i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and (ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.[/quote] Let me put this in a way that you people can understand: Assuming the Public Option doesn't shit itself and die during the legislative process, the government will be CHARGING PREMIUMS to use the FREE HEALTH CARE. This is in addition to tax support. You will have to pay out-of-pocket money to use the public option. Come the fuck on.

Secession anyone? :jihad:

[QUOTE=Lankist;20816369]Except how people who can't pay the GOVERNMENT PREMIUMS still wouldn't have health insurance. [editline]01:56PM[/editline] HR 3200, section 222.[/QUOTE] It's not free healthcare, the GOP made sure that option was gone right away, rather it's a public option that will compete with insurance companies causing premiums to lower.

[QUOTE=Nyaos;20816415]It's not free healthcare, the GOP made sure that option was gone right away, rather it's a public option that will compete with insurance companies causing premiums to lower.[/QUOTE] How the fuck can you support that sort of bullshit? It's just government playing the same insurance run-around. Don't blame the republicans because proponents of socialized medicine are too big a pussies to actually WORK for a GOOD bill, and rather they settle for a piece of shit. It's not the republican's fault the democrats are afraid of meaningful confrontation. It's funny how it's all "EVERYONE DESERVES QUALITY HEALTH CARE BLAH BLAH" up until someone points out the fucking premiums, and suddenly you're all willing to fucking settle for a crock of shit program that isn't going to goddamn help. It's like you just want to beat the republicans, rather than actually create something meaningful and helpful. It is seriously infantile behavior.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20816429]How the fuck can you support that sort of bullshit? It's just government playing the same insurance run-around. Don't blame the republicans because proponents of socialized medicine are too big a pussies to actually WORK for a GOOD bill, and rather they settle for a piece of shit. It's not the republican's fault the democrats are afraid of meaningful confrontation.[/QUOTE] You are a moron. Single payer was never in any of the bills. It was killed at the idea table. Single payer is what most other modern countries have and it works excellent.

[QUOTE=Nyaos;20816447]You are a moron. Single payer was never in any of the bills. It was killed at the idea table. Single payer is what most other modern countries have and it works excellent.[/QUOTE] I'm a moron for telling you to fucking work for what you believe in? I'm stupid for saying you shouldn't settle for a piece of shit that is going to be completely counterproductive to your cause and will likely kill the cause entirely if there is significant backlash. Don't you dare hide behind the fucking Republicans, oh no they don't agree with you. Big fucking deal. Grow a pair.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20816468]I'm a moron for telling you to fucking work for what you believe in? I'm stupid for saying you shouldn't settle for a piece of shit that is going to be completely counterproductive to your cause and will likely kill the cause entirely if there is significant backlash.[/QUOTE] I thought you were implying that single payer wasn't a valid option. To clear up confusion, I hate the current bill too, because it's not going to do jack shit. The only way to possibly change things is with a public option, the only way to guarantee change is single payer.

And democracy prevails again, People voting for a law that wont allow them to pass a law, even if they vote for it.

And yes, the GOP is to blame almost entirely, seeing as they are backed by the insurance companies by insane donations. The same thing happened with Dems when Nixon proposed the same thing.

[QUOTE=Nyaos;20816512]And yes, the GOP is to blame almost entirely, seeing as they are backed by the insurance companies by insane donations. The same thing happened with Dems when Nixon proposed the same thing.[/QUOTE] The GOP is the counterbalance to the democrats. They are the two forces of opposition that ensure a legislative natural selection. The democrats tear republican legislation up. The republicans tear democratic legislation up. That's how it's supposed to work. If you can't make it past the fucking REPUBLICANS, a group of fat, slow, old, white motherfuckers, how the FUCK is your bill going to survive out in real world application? Despite your oversimplified analysis on legislative action, the Republicans do more than just vote against. They have to participate in debate. They can't just say "NO" and not vote. You undermine their arguments, you get your bill passed. In this process you essentially foolproof your bill.

By definition yes. But with informal rules like filibusters, it turns into a fucking broken system where nothing gets done. You assume that the fat old white people in congress have no power, when clearly that's not true. Once it's passed them, its law and it is enforced. However, what is in the bill now is so weak that insurance companies will guarantee a way around it. Capitalism is supposed to be the great equaling force, but how come 1 billion people in the world live in their own shit in slums, while capitalist companies exploit them? Some equalling force. Things don't work as they say they do.

They do have power. So does the opposition. This is the fucking point. Capitalism has nothing to do with legislative action, buddy.

Anyone who says capitalism is an equaling force is an idiot.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20816369]Except how people who can't pay the GOVERNMENT PREMIUMS still wouldn't have health insurance. [editline]01:56PM[/editline] HR 3200, section 222. Let me put this in a way that you people can understand: Assuming the Public Option doesn't shit itself and die during the legislative process, the government will be CHARGING PREMIUMS to use the FREE HEALTH CARE. This is in addition to tax support. You will have to pay out-of-pocket money to use the public option. Come the fuck on.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's not free healthcare, but neither is Medicare. You pay through taxes, or you pay out of pocket, healthcare isn't free. Also, what you're not mentioning is the subsidies available to people that can't afford it, nobody is going to go broke trying to pay for government health insurance. Odds are if you're poor enough to need government health insurance, you either qualify for Medicaid or enough subsidies to put a considerable dent in the public premium. These little state bills are meaningless protests by Republicans in power in their various states, federal law supersedes state law and there's nothing they can do about it. It's as silly as all those little Republican claims of state supremacy that popped up right after the election, they don't do anything.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20816603]nobody is going to go broke trying to pay for government health insurance.[/QUOTE] That's funny, because the premium rates haven't been defined yet. It's almost as if you're talking out of your ass! But that certainly can't be, you never do that!

[QUOTE=Lankist;20816636]That's funny, because the premium rates haven't been defined yet. It's almost as if you're talking out of your ass! But that certainly can't be, you never do that![/QUOTE] If it does happen, the final premium rates will be set at or slightly below average premiums in the market, otherwise it's not worth doing because nobody would buy government insurance unless it was the cheapest option. Much like Medicare, it would operate as a total nonprofit with the same administrative costs as Medicare, about 3%, meaning 97% of every dollar would be paid right back out as coverage. You still fail to address the Medicaid expansion for people up to 133% of the federal poverty level, the subsidies available, the alternative of a 2.5% income tax increase for people that don't buy any health insurance at all, and the hardship exemptions for people who would suffer as a result of that income tax hike who would qualify for Medicaid at that point anyway! You talk fancy and bitch about bill numbers, but you really don't seem to know shit about what the legislation will actually do.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20816740]If it does happen, the final premium rates will be set at or slightly below average premiums in the market,[/QUOTE] That's funny because nowhere in the bill does it say that. It says premium rates will be defined depending on locality, and they will be defined solely as to cover the necessary labor and expenses of providing healthcare, which are pretty fuckin high. This means it is basically taking money (that the uninsured don't have) in order to pay for an ambiguous medical complication that may or may not take place in the future. Remember, premiums are monthly billings. And you pay them sick or not. Now, is it just me, or does this sound like a goddamn business strategy? Because that shit is the SAME shit that normal insurance companies do. Only this insurance company is going to have an excessively patriotic logo.

There isnt going to be a public option so why bother arguing about it anyways.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20816767]That's funny because nowhere in the bill does it say that. It says premium rates will be defined depending on locality, and they will be defined solely as to cover the necessary labor and expenses of providing healthcare, which are pretty fuckin high. This means it is basically taking money (that the uninsured don't have) in order to pay for an ambiguous medical complication that may or may not take place in the future. Remember, premiums are monthly billings. And you pay them sick or not.[/QUOTE] I know what premiums are and how they work. It's going to be cheaper than anything else on the market: A. Because it would otherwise be unable to exist, and the entire point of a public option is to establish an alternative that is sufficiently affordable so as to force the rest of the market to compete. B. Because profits don't figure into the equation at all, their expenses are as low as possible, as previously demonstrated by Medicare's low administrative costs. Other insurance companies focus completely on making a profit, and therefore gleefully raise premiums by double digits every year because people don't have the choice of not paying them. You're still not saying anything about the fact that people who can't afford insurance will be covered under Medicaid or provided with subsidies so they CAN afford insurance, subsidies paid for with taxes on stuff that doesn't affect the poor, like income taxes on those earning more than $200,000, tanning salons and/or plastic surgery, and extremely high-cost health plans.

[QUOTE=Nyaos;20816866]There isnt going to be a public option so why bother arguing about it anyways.[/QUOTE] Do you want a public option?

[QUOTE=Lankist;20816908]Do you want a public option?[/QUOTE] Better than nothing.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20816889]I know what premiums are and how they work. It's going to be cheaper than anything else on the market:[/QUOTE] Find that shit in the bill. You are mistaking rhetoric for legislation. This bill is perfectly capable of surviving outside of its intended purpose. There is nothing within it that would cause its imminent failure if premium rates were high. [editline]02:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Nyaos;20816916]Better than nothing.[/QUOTE] No, do you want a real public option. As in free health care.

Free healthcare does not exist, it will cost money somewhere. What I want is universal single payer healthcare, where the only option is to get healthcare through a national program, like the UK, Canada, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, and every other modern country. Cut out businesses that care about profits more than healthcare.

Then why are you settling on bullshit if you want a single-payer option? Have you not considered how counterproductive the current system will be? Do you just not realize that rolling over is going to get you nowhere?

Go Idaho! I'll stop with the udaho jokes now.

Oh boo hoo Idaho, what are you going to do, throw potatoes at it?