Layman's view of Attorney General Case Against Insurance Mandates

Since the health care bill passed, there have been 14 states that have sued to prevent some of the provisions within the health care law from effecting them.

Mainly, the insurance mandates.

Their argument, as described in this Daily Cougar article over the lawsuits, goes like this:

Their main issue with the legislation is the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or face financial penalties.

For more than 230 years, the government has never forced its citizens to purchase anything, as there is no provision in the Constitution that grants the Congress this authority.

An interesting argument.

Too bad it's not true.

In 1792, Congress passed and George Washington signed the Militia Act of 1792 (stolen from a reference from a Salon.com article). Here's the important part:

e it enacted . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . . That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. . . .

So not only were they telling every "free able-bodied white male" that you're now in the militia, but you have to go out and buy yourself a gun.

"But that's not health care!" I'm sure those attorney generals would say. Sure - so how about John Adams - truly a rampant socialist signed into law an insurance mandate on all sailors making them pay 1% of their income to an insurance program.

So that shuts down the concept that the US government never made people buy things.

Let's go to the usual argument from there. Usually it goes like this:

1. States have mandates for auto insurance, so why can't the federal government make the same kind of insurance mandate?

2. But people *choose* to drive or not to drive. (A point I'd quibble with in a society that puts such low value on public transportation.) They don't choose to live, so it's not right to make them buy insurance.

Let me lay out a few arguments regarding this.

First, is in how the insurance mandate works. If you don't have insurance, then the IRS can lay a 2.5% tax on you. Contrary to hysterical belief, IRS commandos with guns aren't going to kick in your door and make you pay at gunpoint. In fact, Politifact found that you'd have to build up a lot of fines before the IRS would even care about going after you.

The mandate won't kick in until 2014, and typically the way it will come to people's attention unless they file for a tax refund and the IRS spots they don't have insurance (in which case the tax will be applied), or if they show up to the emergency room and found not to have insurance, the IRS could find out.

This is the most important piece, and ties into the basic argument regarding why the insurance mandate is justified.

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. In it, it mandated that hospitals must provide emergency care and assistance to people, regardless of their citizenship, or their ability to pay.

Hence, the entire purpose of the insurance mandates. When people go to the emergency room and either don't have insurance or the ability to pay for themselves, everyone else that pays into the system is paying their costs.

"But John - the hospital can bill them!" you say.

Yes. But the hospital can't make them pay.

The idea was mentioned that people choose to drive so it's fair to make them get auto insurance. Everyone is also able to go to the emergency ward. If you're going to take advantage of the fact that hospitals must pay for your care, then it's only fair that you are a part of that system.

It should be mentioned that the insurance mandates also include subsidies for the poor, expanded Medicaid so that those without aren't forced to purchase insurance when they clearly can't pay for it. However, for everyone else, it's not only Constitutional based on precedent, but warranted that everyone who can take advantage of that system should pay into the system.

The choice was either a direct tax on the population, or allow people to use the market. If anything, a Republican idea for mandates (as Mitt Romney would remind people during the 2008 elections, or Chuck Grassley who pushed for mandates for ages before he decided to oppose them the second the Democrats put them in to get Republican support.

And, just for added benefits, there's one more ace in the whole that gets this *whole case* thrown out:

The mandates are optional.

That's right, kids. Don't like the mandate? Well, then your state can opt out of them - all it needs is to come up with their own plan:

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

That's right-if you have a state plan, then there's no mandate needed. Single payer, Belgian system, some co-op thing - whatever. Just have a plan that might work, and the mandate goes away.

Either way, I'd say the 14 state attorney generals have a hard time ahead of them. But, I'm sure spending tax payer dollars to make themselves look good will be well worth it.

For them.

Coming out of vacation

OK, so I haven't taken an actual vacation.

But, since my purposeful exile from doing much of anything since finishing my 52 Weeks, 52 Religions project (and I still intend to start writing the book in about a week), I haven't done much of anything.

Read some, played some games, but generally let my brain just sit. Let things simmer while I took care of my personal life.

I'm about to come back out again. It's an election year, and I've all but decided what I'm going to start doing, where my interests lie. So expect to see a lot more of me writing here.

And, I'll be honest - I'm getting pissed. Pissed off at ignorance, at hate, at fear. Pissed off that there is an orchestrated paid chorus of negative voices that are opposing any good progress in the name of their profits and self interests.

I'm nobody. But if I can spend a year going out and talking to tons of religious people, then I can spend a fraction of that time going out and working to make things better in my community.

Stay tuned, Tampa. Shit's about to get real.

Getting tired of the death threat language

My dad had a saying. Once is a mistake. Twice is stupid.

Three times is a spanking.

I want to take a look at the various death threats that have been issued since the health care reform bill passed, and perhaps some of the origins of the, well, insanity.

Before the bill passed, you had Michael Steel stating that the world would end and Armageddon would come if health care passed.

Chuch Grassley making the claim that health care reform would pull the plug on grandma. Why would he say that? Well, because Betsy McCaughey, lobbyist for health care industries, said that the Medicare "End of Life" counseling that would provide payments to doctors to discuss options for terminally ill patients amounted to a panel that would decide who lived and died.

Not, that is, helping people make decisions when someone is already dying or on the edge of death about what they're options are. No, according to such luminaries as Sarah Palin, this would be a system that would have decided to kill her mentally challenged baby.

Even though this is nothing at all what the bill intended. Certainly not helped along when the same Betsy McCaughey came out and said that IMAC (Independent Medicare Advisory Council) was going to force doctors to only do what the IMAC wanted in treating patients. Completely ignoring that IMAC is a recommendations only body that has no power, and its recommendations can only be accepted by the President and if Congress accepts.

In other words - IMAC just looks at current health care research, makes a recommendation on what actually works and what doesn't, what works the best at the lowest price, and the Executive Branch can either go "Ok, sounds good" or "Nope" in regards to how Medicare is paid out. Doesn't mean any doctor is forced to do anything, that anybody's grandma is killed - just recommendations on what best practices are.

But, of course, no, these are Death Panels in the eyes of people like Palin and Grassley and the others.

And, of course, if a health care bill is voted into by the duly elected representatives of the people of their districts, clearly that is totalitarianism and the end of America. Which, of course, is silly, since Republicans are calling for the way to end totalitarianism is by the voters getting rid of the Democrats.

Um - it can't can totalitarianism *if you have free elections where the opposition can run*.

Of course, that's not all.

Once again, you've got Palin leading the charge. With a map showing crosshairs of where Democrats are at they want to defeat, and a message to "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!.

Helped along by Daily Caller showing people how IRS agents in full military gear and guns will be coming to your house to force you to buy insurance.

So, where has all of this talk lead us?

It lead to Mike Vanderboegh, former head of the Alabama Constitutional Militia calling on his followers to break the windows of the Democratic congressperson's offices. Something out of, say, Kristallnacht.

His listeners followed with the breaking of windows of Democratic congresspeople across the country.

People being told that health care is a plot to kill them leads Tea Party terrorist leaders to give out Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother's address, leading to a disconnected propane line that could have killed the family.

It's lead to protestors showing up to shout nigger and faggot at congresspeople. To civil rights leaders being spit upon as he walked into the House of Representatives. And along with that, there's the other racist nooses being with racist language and Jewish congresspeople getting swastika's in their hate mail.

It's lead to people showing up with coffins on congresspeople's doorsteps, cause nothing says "rational discourse" like "This is what you deserve to be in."

How about death threats to people's children? That's always a great way to express your anger, right?

It's lead to pro-life groups issuing death threats even to other pro-life congresspeople because they voted for health care. Even though the health care bill *still* holds that you can't use federal dollars for abortion - but that's not good enough, evidently.

It's lead to people shooting pellet guns at politicians offices. Probably after hearing Michael Steele say that Speaker Pelosi should be on a firing line.

Perhaps tied to Tea Party protesters letting people know that if elected representatives can't change something, then perhaps shooting them with a gun can.

And the Republican response to the violence, to the racism, to the threats? Congressperson Nunes from California seems to feel that hey, when you have a democratic vote by elected representatives (or as he calls it, "totalitarianism") people are going to get upset.

Sure. Whenever I get upset, I reach for racist language.

Republican Leader of the House Boehner was kind enough to put out a statement that threatening people wasn't cool. Gee, thanks for telling people to channel their anger into voting, instead of telling people knock the shit off with threatening the lives of children.

I really don't know what else to say about this. What did they expect? When you tell people that Obamacare is going to kill people, that this bill will be the "end of America", that they should "reload" and "put people on a firing line" - *just what in the flying fuck did they expect their followers to do*?

And these milktoast "Well, you know, we don't *mean* for people to start shooting at Democrats really" isn't cutting it. Sooner or later, somebody is going to be shot, and killed. And when the Republican leadership starts the waterworks of "Oh, we didn't *mean* for this to happen!", we'll have the whole sordid trail I've laid out showing how they incited every possible emotion to get people to the point of murder.

What is reconciliation, and the Public Option might not be dead yet

I know there's been a lot of confusion about reconciliation, what it is, what it does, and all the rest. So let's take a look at what's been going on.

Usually, when a bill becomes law, the House passes a version - call it A. The Senate passes a version - call it B. If there are any differences between the two bills, they go into a committee made of up members from the two groups that smooths out any differences - call that one AB. Then, the House and the Senate vote on the two.

Here's the problem right now. Republicans aren't letting *any* bill pass in the Senate unless it has 60 votes, and there are 41 Republicans and 59 Democrats. So the Senate passed Health Care Version A when they had 60 Democratic votes, the House passed Health Care version B.

Problem is - when Scott Brown (R-MA) got into the Senate, that killed any chance of the Senate voting on the AB version.

This is where reconciliation comes up. Turns out there's a way to get things passed in the Senate via simple majority. First, the House has to pass the Senate version of the bill. Remember how the Senate passed Health Care Version B? Well, the House of Representatives just has to say "OK, we get rid of *our* version, and we pass the Senate version."

Done.

Now, you still have all of those fixes. So the House can say "We propose these changes to the Senate Bill B, called B1." If that passes, then the Senate can say "We accept the House version - and that doesn't take 60 votes, it only takes 51."

That's where we are right now. The House passed Health Care B1 (the fixes to the Health Care Bill). The Senate is debating it right now. Republicans are trying everything to stop the process - mainly, by proposing changes to the changes. If there's so much as 1 change, then it has to go back to the House for another vote, and if they make so much as 1 change, it has to go back to the Senate, and it could ping-pong forever.

Right now, Democrats are standing firm, even though Republicans are bringing up tons of changes like "Vote to deny erection medications for pedophiles." Something Democrats know will look bad in commercials when they see "This Democrat wants criminals to get boners!"

Now things have gotten really interesting. Turns out the Senate must make 2 changes to the bill because there were mistakes after all. (It deals with something called a Parliamentarian deciding things.) So the Senate *will* have to make these two small changes, then send it back to the House.

Here's where it becomes awesome: there was a lot of talk of a Public Option. A government run alternative people could choose to use instead of insurance companies. Because the Republicans have forced a vote on all of these amendments instead of just approving all of the fixes, this now gives a chance to the Democrats to bring up a new amendment (since they have to make these two fixes anyway).

And then, someone could submit for an amendment the Public Option. The House had the votes for it when they passed their bill, the Senate didn't since they needed 60 votes. Now, the Senate only needs 51.

We might have the Republicans to thank if this happens. But you know I'm going to be on the phone with my Senator telling them they should propose it.

I want to explain the health care bill

Now that the debate is over, now that the bill has passed, there's still some confusion about just what the health care law does, what it does not do, and whether it's going to kill grandma or Sarah Palin's baby.

(Clue: it does not kill grandma or Palin's baby.)

First, if you want to know how it will effect *you*, there's a great tool over at the Washington Post that can help. You enter your status (employed, retired, etc), your family size, income bracket - and it'll show what's going to happen.

For everything else, here's a little breakdown.

As of today:

* Small Businesses get a tax cut, and can get reimbursed for up to 35% of the cost of health care premiums. This goes up to 50% in a few years.

* $11 billion over 5 years will be spent to build community health centers - this will provide access to health care resources for the most poor in the country. By spending this money now, this also helps make this a jobs bill.

* Seniors with gaps in their Medicare prescription plans now get a $250 check, and the gaps are going to be closed.

By July 2010:

* Have a pre-existing condition and can't afford to get on insurance? There's additional money to help you meet your premiums.

* Retiree health plans get new funding to lower premiums for those about to enter Medicare.

By September 2010:

* No health care plan may deny coverage to children for preexisting conditions. Have a child born with diabetes or some genetic disease? Insurance companies can no longer say "no" to accepting your child. Yeah, they can still charge more - but there's more.

* All insurance plans must pay for free preventative care. That bi-yearly trip to the doctor must now be paid for by your insurance companies. That will help people find problems before they become expensive emergencies.

* Have a kid in college? They can stay on your health care plan until they're 26. Now they can focus on getting an education instead of working for health care coverage.

* New appeals process for denied claims by an independent panel - no more "insurance company arbitration" panels that decide in favor of the insurance companies 99% of the time since they're paid by the insurance companies

* All new health care plans let you choose your primary care doctor.

* Women won't need to go to a general doctor before going to their OGB-YN - they can just go.

By January 1st, 2011:

* All insurance plans must pay 80-85 of their revenue on health care, not on stock payments, not on CEO payments - but on health care. If they spend more than that, then their customers get rebate checks. That's right - if the insurance CEO makes a big ass bonus, so do you.


This is without the exchanges, the subsidies that will go to poorer people. This is what happens *this year alone*.

And it's what the Republicans want to repeal. They want to say "Yeah, your kid should be denied coverage for a preexisting condition."

That whole bit about "government is going to get between you and your doctor"? This plan lays right out *you can pick whatever doctor you want, and the insurance company must pay them*.

If your insurance company decides to give a big stock benefit to the shareholders instead of paying for people's treatments, the Republicans want to say "Sure - go ahead and do that."

This is what the Republicans want to repeal. Now that you've seen what this bill provides - which parts do *you* want to repeal from this list?

Health Care Socialism: Bad! Buying Drugs Cheapened by Socialism: Good!

Please. Someone explain this to me. Evidently, it's a bad thing to put in the price controls on drugs that other countries like Britian and Canada have - a combination of government negotiation (which was actually not allowed during the Bush Medicare drug plan - that's right, the government can't negotiate for cheaper drugs in the United States. Hooray for "free market" forces!)

However, people want to import the drugs from Canada - after that country has used their "OMG SOCIALISM" government to make the drugs cheaper.

So remember - putting in price controls and regulations to control runaway costs? Bad.

Buying from other countries who put in the price controls and regulations to get around the fact that your government is too scared of the pharmaceuticals to, you know, negotiate for cheaper prices for its citizens - good!

It's not honesty to confess after you've been caught

All hail Republican House Majority Leader Kevin Garn, who confessed he paid $150,000 to silence a woman he had been with. In a hot tub. Naked.

When she was a minor and he was 28.

What strength of character to confess his sins on the House floor, and how his fellow politicians applauded his honesty!

Only one problem:

It's not brave to confess after you've been caught.

It would have been brave if he had left it out there and said "You know what, 20 years ago, I was a jackass and did something stupid-judge me by my actions since them" before the incident came out.

Or maybe if he had told the woman "You know - I was stupid, but I'm not paying you hush money."

But to do the stupid thing of being almost 30 and hanging out with a 15 year old girl naked in a hot tub, then pay her money to keep quiet, then confess only *after* the newspapers started picking up the story - that's not bravery.

That's damage control.

So bravo, Mr. Garn. Bravo. Truly, the heart of a lion. Well, after the lion has run away, hid in the bushes, waited until everybody went away.

More Fiscal Responsibility: Tax cuts for the rich, tax increases for the middle class

Republicans: party of fiscal responsibility! Just ignore all of that massive deficit spending during the Reagan and Bush years.

Republicans: Party of cutting your taxes! Well, at least rich people anyway.

And Republicans, who evidently think people have really short memories when they come out with a tax and budget plan that cuts taxes for the rich, gives little to the poor/middle class, and introduces even bigger deficits.

It's like a broken record. Republicans get out of office. And as soon as the Democrats are in power, Republicans start going on about the "tax and spend" Democrats. How the Democrats are the ones "breaking the budget." How the Democrats have these crazy schemes.

And, in the meantime, the Democrats pass Pay-Go legislation that calls for any new spending to be matched with either tax increases or budget cuts elsewhere to pay for the new spending - and do so over every Republican who voted against it.

Democrats propose a health care bill that includes measure to have it be paid for, as opposed to Republican tax cuts and Medicare drug expansions that didn't.

And then, along comes Congressman Ryan who says "You know what would be awesome? Get rid of Medicare, cut taxes to the rich, and magical fiscal fairies will make up the difference! Yes, I know, we tried it under the Reagen years, under the Bush years, but it'll *really really really* work this time!"

And the worst part is - people with political memories of a goldfish are lining up to go "Yeah, great idea!"

Tom Delay Fails Basic Math

Tom Delay: ...there's some studies that have been done that shows that people stay on unemployment compensation and they don't look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out

1. Average income in Florida (which I'm focusing on because I live here): $41,436 per year

2. Maximum unemployment benefits in Florida for one year: $14,300 (Max unemployment payout is $275 with no dependents)

3. Reason for people to stay on unemployment making an average of $-27000 less a year (unless maybe they were waiting one more week for a better job): 0

Are there people who will game the system? Sure. But cutting unemployment benefits for the majority of people just because *some* will benefit more than they should shows Delay has no clue about reality, about finances, about people - or about basic economics.

Glenn Beck: Leave churches that teach social justice

I want to congratulate Mr. Beck, who produced information that demonstrates that any church that preaches the concept of "social justice" is really preaching both communism and naziism.

Granted, this would mean that people would have to leave the Catholic church and others. It would mean that the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, of Ghandi should be rejected.

But most importantly of all, I believe that Mr. Beck's comments highlight something important:

They reveal that, according to Mr. Beck, the Latter Day Saint (aka LDS aka Mormon) church has nothing to do with social justice.

It has to do with money.

The LDS church recently announced the City Creek project, which would be a combination mall and apartment complex that will be built in Salt Lake City. It will costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and, according to church leaders, will not be exclusively for Mormon use.

So why do this? According to H. David Burton, Presiding Bishop for the church:

Church leaders said the desire to head off economic decline in downtown was their prime directive at City Creek.

“Along with economic malaise comes an element that we were concerned about in proximity to the temple,” said Mr. Burton, the presiding bishop. That the temple area might one day start to feel dangerous was simply intolerable, he said. “With decay, sometimes comes crime,” he said. Source: New York Times

It's not about the "threefold mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which is "Proclaim the Gospel, Perfect the Saints, Redeem the Dead."

It's about all those poor people who might be hanging around downtown, and we can't have that. So instead, we'll build up a private business that we own, and then we can kick the ruffians out.

It's not about feeding the hungry, or tending to the sick, or clothing the naked. You know - the things Jesus said to do to get into Heaven when he said:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

So, thank you, Mr. Beck, for at least being honest with us in this issue. That your faith - the Mormon church - doesn't care about "social justice". About doing what Jesus actually preached to do. No, thanks to you, we can all see now that it's about money.

Sure, the LDS church could have built a giant hospital downtown, and used the tithing of their members to create a center for healing that would the admiration of the world and demonstrate Christian values. How I long for such a thing - that instead of giant megachurches and buildings, that Christians would actually tend to the sick the way their God calls them to.

Or maybe the LDS church could have created a shelter for homeless women and children, with full jobs programs and schools, so not a single child in the country would go without food and an education. What a testament to their faith that would be.

But, no. Thank you, Mr. Beck, for exposing what you believe religion, Christianity, and the Mormon church are all about. Not about doing the things that Jesus actually said to do to enter heaven.

Instead, Mr. Beck tells us what he believes Mormonism and Christianity stands for: greed, and money, and power. I'm sure Jesus himself who hung about with the prostitutes, the leapers, the destitute would so agree.

Minimum Standards and States Rights

Last Wednesday, there was a vote in the House to establish that schools across American could not tie down, use solitary confinement, and other medieval techniques of discipline that should never be applied to children.

Nearly every single Republican voted against it, on the idea of "states rights."

I have to say - what exactly is wrong with a minimum set of standards? We set up minimum standards for air quality on the federal level, for automobiles, even federal standards for what should be taught in classes.

There are some 22 states without provisions against treating children as if they were criminals, which this law seeks to address by establishing minimum standards to let all teachers know "No, you may not tie down Jimmy when he's bad. No, you can't put Susie in solitary confinement - you run a school, not a prison."

Evidently, the vast majority of Republicans thought that setting up these standards and spending $22 million a year to enforce them is too much. So remember, trillions for war, billions for tax cuts - but torturing kids? Well, they, we can't go spending money on that.

Lectured on Fiscal Prudence By Those Who Spent It All

Spending is an important issue. It's a serious issue, and one that needs addressing.

Government spending, and overspending, is an important issue as well.

Which is why it's not funny, more sad and infuriating when you read about people like Gretchen Hamel, a former Bush admiinstration official, are the ones doing the lecturing.

Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Let's pretend we have a business - call it Big Bubba's Shipping. Larry gets appointed to the head of the company, and he proceeds to spend every penny in the savings accounts on the greatest security system ever, on hiring a whole new group of employees, and then racks up tons of debt for the company in the process. He cuts prices on shipping charges with the theory of "it'll bring in a ton of new customers" - which reduces revenue just as the company should be paying the bills.

In the meantime, he ignores that the shipping trucks are breaking down to pieces and the accounting department is racked with fraud.

So when the new head the company comes into office, they say "Look, we need to buy some new trucks and fix up what we've got, or else we won't have any business. So we need to extend our line of credit, fix up the fleet, get back in business, and then we'll be able to repay our bills."

At which point Larry starts to complain "We can't do that - we'll go further into debt! Debt is bad!" All the while ignoring the fact that it's Larry's fault *we're in so much debt right now*.

So let's review the Bush administration, who:

• Started out with a surplus in the yearly budget.
  
• Expanded government to create a whole new department called Homeland Security - without cutting expenses to pay for it or raising taxes.
  
• Offered a huge tax cut without cutting any spending to pay for it.
  
• Expanded Medicare without any tax increases to pay for it.
  
• Started two wars without cutting spending or increasing taxes to pay for it.
  
• Let the Pay-Go rules lapse (these were the rules in place during the Clinton administration, that said that any new spending by the government had to be paid for either by a tax increase or a budget cut elsewhere)
  

And then - these are the people who want to come out and start lecturing about "fiscal responsibility." When we're trying to bring down costs in health care (which has the potential to bankrupt the government), or when we pass Pay-Go under the Obama administration over *every Republican in the Senate who voted against it*.

It's like being lectured on diet and exercise by the obese guy stuffing Twinkies into his mouth. It's like being told to be morally chaste by a pimp.