Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Healthcare Bill Passed

This post has 246 Replies | 17 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 204
Points 4,515
viresh amin Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010 10:12 PM

: (

 

  • | Post Points: 185
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 100
Points 2,000
Cabal replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 10:15 PM

219-212

In the words of the beautiful Natalie Portman...

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause"

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Nullification?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 204
Points 4,515

Cabal:

219-212

In the words of the beautiful Natalie Portman...

"So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause"

 

 "House votes 219-210 to pass ObamaCare. Will the passage launch the Era of Nullification?" - Robert Wenzel

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 518
Points 9,355

Not over just yet, it still has to go through the Senate - maybe some of it can be scuttled.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Does this mean that some Dems actually voted against it?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 204
Points 4,515

I wonder what Obama really said to Dennis Kucinich on Air Force One.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 100
Points 2,000
Cabal replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 10:36 PM

sicsempertyrannis:

Not over just yet, it still has to go through the Senate - maybe some of it can be scuttled.

No. The senate bill goes to Obama's desk where he eagerly awaits to sign it into law.

The reconciliation bill which also just passed has to go back to the senate, but it will also get passed to, short of a miracle.

 

Face it, liberty was dealt a significant blow tonight.

 

Caley McKibbin:

Does this mean that some Dems actually voted against it?

34 dems voted against the senate health care bill. Apparently so few because of Obama's hail marry last-minute executive order promising no abortion funding.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 10:38 PM

Did you hear the democrats cheering "yes we can" once they got the 216th vote? The level of stupidity is really shocking. I sat through about 3 hours of sob stories about how "Bill from Kansas" died because he had cancer, and "Margret from Idaho" died because of a car accident. I guess socialized health care will end cancer and car accidents. Appeals to emotion are very powerful I guess.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 166
Points 2,875
Beefheart replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 10:43 PM

Esuric:

Did you hear the democrats cheering "yes we can" once they got the 216th vote? The level of stupidity is really shocking. I sat through about 3 hours of sob stories about how "Bill from Kansas" died because he had cancer, and "Margret from Idaho" died because of a car accident. I guess socialized health care will end cancer and car accidents. Appeals to emotion are very powerful I guess.

Well, yeah, Michael Moore's new propaganda film was built as SOLELY on that for a reason. If anyone can do it, Obama can.

My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 349
Points 5,915
Mtn Dew replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 10:47 PM

Let me get this straight:

So we have supply and demand in our world. Supply goes up, demand stays the same and prices drop. Supply remains the same, demand goes up, prices rise.

The federal government has restricted the supply in the medical field through the FDA, AMA, etc. It has now increased demand by the following: not allowing pre-existing conditions to be used to deny coverage, lifting caps off lifetime medical expenses, allowing adults up to the age of 27 to be counted as dependents, free preventative care, etc.

Yet this won't bankrupt us? Have I missed something here?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 10:54 PM

Mtn Dew:

Let me get this straight:

So we have supply and demand in our world. Supply goes up, demand stays the same and prices drop. Supply remains the same, demand goes up, prices rise.

The federal government has restricted the supply in the medical field through the FDA, AMA, etc. It has now increased demand by the following: not allowing pre-existing conditions to be used to deny coverage, lifting caps off lifetime medical expenses, allowing adults up to the age of 27 to be counted as dependents, free preventative care, etc.

Yet this won't bankrupt us? Have I missed something here?

Typical bourgeois logic.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 204
Points 4,515

Esuric:

Did you hear the democrats cheering "yes we can" once they got the 216th vote? The level of stupidity is really shocking. I sat through about 3 hours of sob stories about how "Bill from Kansas" died because he had cancer, and "Margret from Idaho" died because of a car accident. I guess socialized health care will end cancer and car accidents. Appeals to emotion are very powerful I guess.

 

Well put

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 694
Points 11,400
Joe replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 11:01 PM

I don't get all the hubbub. SOMETHING was going to get passed eventually, and it was going to go in the wrong direction. We were already going in the wrong direction, and almost nobody even mentioned the way things should be moving.

Its not like this bill is taking us from a pure free market to a  gov't run system with strong partnerships with 'private' companies, its going from screwed over by gov't to even more screwed over, with an aim to totally screw it over later.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 418
Points 7,525
Mtn Dew:

Have I missed something here?

Ignorance.

It is truly terrifying how many perceive the answer to state-caused problems to be an increase in the power of government.

Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 11:02 PM

I am disgusted quiet frankly, but I get that way every time I watch the news.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 358
Points 8,245

Joe:

I don't get all the hubbub. SOMETHING was going to get passed eventually, and it was going to go in the wrong direction. We were already going in the wrong direction, and almost nobody even mentioned the way things should be moving.

Its not like this bill is taking us from a pure free market to a  gov't run system with strong partnerships with 'private' companies, its going from screwed over by gov't to even more screwed over, with an aim to totally screw it over later.

I agree that it isn't really that big of a deal. It just sucks that you must purchase insurance or face a fine.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 871
Points 15,025
chloe732 replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 11:13 PM

From MSNBC: "For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums." 

So, they force us to buy insurance (I bet the insurance companies love that!), and, the taxpayer will subsidize those who make up to $88K a year who can't afford it.  They did nothing to increase competition (by getting out of the way), they did nothing to step out of the way of innovation.  Sure, instead of paying $1.00 we will pay $0.75, but we will get $0.25 worth of service, and be forced to accept it.  Does anyone here think this is the end of the intervention?  Of course it will not be.  It is only the beginning.   Because, since government programs always fail (ie, social security is bankrupt, medicare is bankrupt) this "plan" will fail too. 

This is the first day of the New Empire.  W. Bush got 150,000 troops sitting on top of 2 - 4 million barrels a day of oil, Obama is implementing socialism.  See how it works?  See how the "R's" and "D"s just take turns?

Nationalized healthcare is just the start.  Next, Card Check (easy unionization of all businesses), Cap and Trade (tax us to subsidize wasteful industries).  

They will eventually have to hire a "strong man" to enforce implementation of the rest of what they have in mind because the economy is going to fall apart: Watch this: The Road to Serfdom. 

"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner.   "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 349
Points 5,915
Mtn Dew replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 11:16 PM

Well, this is the first step towards complete socialization of healthcare. We're not 100% there yet, we went  from 80% there to maybe 90% there.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 418
Points 7,525
Cal:

I agree that it isn't really that big of a deal. It just sucks that you must purchase insurance or face a fine.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

It reminds me of Atlas Shrugged wherein the honest individuals are forced to deal in secret just to get things done.

Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 871
Points 15,025
chloe732 replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 11:40 PM

Cal:
Joe:
I don't get all the hubbub. SOMETHING was going to get passed eventually, and it was going to go in the wrong direction. We were already going in the wrong direction, and almost nobody even mentioned the way things should be moving.

Its not like this bill is taking us from a pure free market to a  gov't run system with strong partnerships with 'private' companies, its going from screwed over by gov't to even more screwed over, with an aim to totally screw it over later.

I agree that it isn't really that big of a deal. It just sucks that you must purchase insurance or face a fine. 

This is a big deal because it finally happened.  Government takes "care" of our retirement (social security), healthcare in old age (medicare), and now healthcare from cradle to to grave.  In two years they took over the banks, the auto industry and now healthcare.  The Fed inflated to the sky (no "exit strategy").    In nine years they started two wars (ongoing) and implemented homeland security.  In the next 12 months they will implement the rest of the plan.  They are aided by the media.  It is exactly like the Road to Serfdom video. 

I'm glad I found sound economics and liberty when I did because opportunities to study such things may be deemed, how shall they say, "not in the public interest" in the future.   The pretense of any sort of limit on goverment has been blown away.  Why does anyone believe the 1st amendment will be upheld after looking at what they've accomplished since 2001?  This is a big deal, folks.

"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner.   "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 418
Points 7,525
chloe732:

This is a big deal because it finally happened.  Government takes "care" of our retirement (social security), healthcare in old age (medicare), and now healthcare from cradle to to grave.  In two years they took over the banks, the auto industry and now healthcare.  The Fed inflated to the sky (no "exit strategy").    In nine years they started two wars (ongoing) and implemented homeland security.  In the next 12 months they will implement the rest of the plan.  They are aided by the media.  It is exactly like the Road to Serfdom video. 

I'm glad I found sound economics and liberty when I did because opportunities to study such things may be deemed, how shall they say, "not in the public interest" in the future.   The pretense of any sort of limit on goverment has been blown away.  Why does anyone believe the 1st amendment will be upheld after looking at what they've accomplished since 2001?  This is a big deal, folks.

Quoted for undeniable truth. Best of luck to all of us going forward.

Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 11:59 PM

The only bright spot in all this is that they didn't get the public option.  But yeah, this is a sad day.  Hopefully the Senate can place procedural hurdles in the way of their bill and if not, maybe the states can nullify.  But it seems unlikely, this is probably going to pass both houses and then we'll get the usual "state's rights is all about racism" nonsense.  A sad day.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:02 AM

bloomj31:
The only bright spot in all this is that they didn't get the public option.  But yeah, this is a sad day.  Hopefully the Senate can place procedural hurdles in the way of their bill and if not, maybe the states can nullify.  But it seems unlikely, this is probably going to pass both houses and then we'll get the usual "state's rights is all about racism" nonsense.  A sad day.

I wish they did pass the public option. The sooner this whole shit collapses, the better.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 43
Points 1,025

I think both sides of the ideological spectrum are opposed to the main thrust of this legislation.  Socialists oppose it because of the lack of a public option, and the frankly unsustainable spending needed to fund the program.  But I think we can both agree that the concentration of power represented by this bill is a direct repudiation of local and state sovereignty guaranteed by the Tenth amendment - if a successful challenge to this legislation is going to be made, it will proceed from state lawsuits against the constitutionality of various provisions within the bill.

Left or right, our loyalty should be first and foremost to the principles of democracy - not the interests that govern our state.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:07 AM

Esuric:

I wish they did pass the public option. The sooner this whole shit collapses, the better.

Point taken.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 694
Points 11,400
Joe replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:08 AM

chloe732:

Cal:
Joe:
I don't get all the hubbub. SOMETHING was going to get passed eventually, and it was going to go in the wrong direction. We were already going in the wrong direction, and almost nobody even mentioned the way things should be moving.

Its not like this bill is taking us from a pure free market to a  gov't run system with strong partnerships with 'private' companies, its going from screwed over by gov't to even more screwed over, with an aim to totally screw it over later.

I agree that it isn't really that big of a deal. It just sucks that you must purchase insurance or face a fine. 

 

This is a big deal because it finally happened.  Government takes "care" of our retirement (social security), healthcare in old age (medicare), and now healthcare from cradle to to grave.  In two years they took over the banks, the auto industry and now healthcare.  The Fed inflated to the sky (no "exit strategy").    In nine years they started two wars (ongoing) and implemented homeland security.  In the next 12 months they will implement the rest of the plan.  They are aided by the media.  It is exactly like the Road to Serfdom video. 

I'm glad I found sound economics and liberty when I did because opportunities to study such things may be deemed, how shall they say, "not in the public interest" in the future.   The pretense of any sort of limit on goverment has been blown away.  Why does anyone believe the 1st amendment will be upheld after looking at what they've accomplished since 2001?  This is a big deal, folks.

Like you said the gov't was ALREADY involved in providing health care for the old, and for the poor.  This is just an extension, one that had been on the cards for a while, and one that was going to happen, it was just a matter of by how much, and in the end who really cares about the smallest details that switched the key votes in the end. So in that sense, to me, its not much of a watershed moment, it just might feel that way because its 'official' now.

 

The one thing that I wonder about is that it seems like it has taken a while for the European countries to start really feeling some strong pressure from their mounting mess of their socialized medical systems, I wonder if our plight will be faster because of all the other spending we are doing and that we are starting from a position of great debt.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:08 AM

Esuric:
I wish they did pass the public option. The sooner this whole shit collapses, the better.

If there is one thing the government is good at, it's smearing shit for long as it possibly can, even beyond when it becomes unnatural. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 358
Points 8,245

What do you make of this argument for this bill lowering insurance premiums:

"the more people that are insured, the more premium the insurance company collects, which spreads the risk out over a larger group, which lowers the risk to the insurance company, which in turn can decrease premiums."

?

  • | Post Points: 95
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 212
Points 3,790
Chris replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:10 AM

This is another nail in the coffin of the United States.  The largest debtor nation in the history of the planet keeps on spending.  If all unfunded liabilities are taken into account, it all totals $107+ trillion.  The US is broke, and there will be either an honest default or hyperinflation sometime in the next decade.  Just wait until interest rates go through the roof and the dollar loses its reserve status. 

All this bill has done is assist in speeding up the realization of the US government's insolvency.  I felt sick tonight watching CSPAN and seeing the vote get to 216, and seeing these idiots all standing up and applauding.  They're clapping at destroying our lives, our kids' lives, and maybe our grandchildrens' lives.  We all know that the day of reckoning will come, and when it does, they will blame it on...free markets gone wild. 

I hate to sound like I'm taking this all too far, but I honestly believe that US society as we know it will cease to exist sometime in the foreseeable future.  I can truly envision a scenario of marshall law, work and reeducation camps, and a total breakdown of the division of labor.  When the debts come due and the government hyperinflates or defaults I think Americans are going to witness just how fragile the entire social construct is.  Just my two cents.

- Chris

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:12 AM

Cal:

What do you make of this argument for this bill lowering insurance premiums:

"the more people that are insured, the more premium the insurance company collects, which spreads the risk out over a larger group, which lowers the risk to the insurance company, which in turn can decrease premiums."

?

Depends on who the risk is spread out over.  In other words, it still matters who they're covering.  And now, insurance companies basically have to insure anyone who applies.  

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 212
Points 3,790
Chris replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:13 AM

iskrabronstein:

 

Left or right, our loyalty should be first and foremost to the principles of democracy - not the interests that govern our state.

So the principles of the majority of the people agreeing to point guns at the minority to steal from them?  Great place for loyalty to be placed.  You just witnessed democracy in action tonight.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 43
Points 1,025

Cal:

What do you make of this argument for this bill lowering insurance premiums:

"the more people that are insured, the more premium the insurance company collects, which spreads the risk out over a larger group, which lowers the risk to the insurance company, which in turn can decrease premiums."

?

It fails to take into account the influence that the abolition of payment caps will have - even if the risk is spread out among a larger group of consumers, I suspect that the net average payout will still be higher.  More coverage necessitates more cost - this is a simple fact.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:13 AM

Chris:

This is another nail in the coffin of the United States.  The largest debtor nation in the history of the planet keeps on spending.  If all unfunded liabilities are taken into account, it all totals $107+ trillion.  The US is broke, and there will be either an honest default or hyperinflation sometime in the next decade.  Just wait until interest rates go through the roof and the dollar loses its reserve status. 

All this bill has done is assist in speeding up the realization of the US government's insolvency.  I felt sick tonight watching CSPAN and seeing the vote get to 216, and seeing these idiots all standing up and applauding.  They're clapping at destroying our lives, our kids' lives, and maybe our grandchildrens' lives.  We all know that the day of reckoning will come, and when it does, they will blame it on...free markets gone wild. 

I hate to sound like I'm taking this all too far, but I honestly believe that US society as we know it will cease to exist sometime in the foreseeable future.  I can truly envision a scenario of marshall law, work and reeducation camps, and a total breakdown of the division of labor.  When the debts come due and the government hyperinflates or defaults I think Americans are going to witness just how fragile the entire social construct is.  Just my two cents.

- Chris

I think we might see a repeat of Germany.  The "strong man" comes to the fore and promises to fix everything in return for absolute power.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:14 AM

Cal:

What do you make of this argument for this bill lowering insurance premiums:

"the more people that are insured, the more premium the insurance company collects, which spreads the risk out over a larger group, which lowers the risk to the insurance company, which in turn can decrease premiums."

?

It assumes that demand will remain constant, which is a fallacy. Demand will be raised, not remain constant. When something becomes cheaper, or is subsidized, it gets used more.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:16 AM

What they're doing is promising to cover the most expensive people to insure without question.  Costs will have to go up.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:16 AM

iskrabronstein:
It fails to take into account the influence that the abolition of payment caps will have - even if the risk is spread out among a larger group of consumers, I suspect that the net average payout will still be higher.  More coverage necessitates more cost - this is a simple fact.

Costs will rise because demand is raised while supply will be further stifled. That creates scarcity which will necessarily cause rationing. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:16 AM

bloomj31:
The only bright spot in all this is that they didn't get the public option.  But yeah, this is a sad day.  Hopefully the Senate can place procedural hurdles in the way of their bill and if not, maybe the states can nullify.  But it seems unlikely, this is probably going to pass both houses and then we'll get the usual "state's rights is all about racism" nonsense.  A sad day.

Well, they can say it was a republic in action and not an actual democracy.  They follow what the nature of a republic is supposed to do which is not do what the public at large might want.  Cause a republic is founded upon the idea that the public is a mob and so the politicians are supposed to be the special people of the society that know what's best for everybody.  In a republic, if it goes the way it's supposed to in concept, isn't supposed to listen to the public.  The republic is supposed to find the statist elites who are the self-prescribed cream of the crop and can do what's best for the society even if at the time the society doesn't think it is best.  They are supposed to rise above the mob.  That's why the U.S. was formed into a republic and even has an electoral process that includes an electoral college, just in case the mob gets out of hand, the republic elites put in safeguards to fend off the mob.  This is simply a republic in action.  It's what it does and is supposed to do.  It's not a surprise. 

It's sad to a degree that people have to actually endure this crap the gov't does, but I would like to see is the locals not become state apologists through all this.  I want to see more, to put it brutishly, I want to see more 'up-your's' with a middle finger pointed at the gov't.  I would love to see that mentality grow through all this.  I want to see people get disgusted by all this.  I want to see people just start to ignore the gov't, like they did at times during the Great Depression, etc....  That pioneer spirit take over and get so disgusted by all this that people don't rat each other out but actually find it good to ignore the gov't.  That would be all very healthy in my opinion.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:17 AM

iskrabronstein:
Left or right, our loyalty should be first and foremost to the principles of democracy - not the interests that govern our state.

The principles of democracy are theft, murder, and violence. I can't think of a more evil thing to peg my loyalty to then that of theft and murder.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Mon, Mar 22 2010 12:18 AM

I have to admit, this whole thing makes me rethink my stance on anarchism, that's for sure.

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 7 (247 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS